Pathfinder vs. 3.5E?

[drothgery]

If I want to play a Book of Nine Swords class it might mesh up well given they have daily powers, but what if I wanted to play a Swashbuckler from Complete Adventurer? Would I be underpowered in relation to the rest of the group?

Except as a dip class, the Swashbuckler isn't really viable relative to the PHB classes, so even knowing nothing about Pathfinder's classes, I'd expect it'd be underpowered.

 

[xechnao]

I'm having a very hard time understanding what you wrote. I'm simply saying that Pathfinder needs to adopt a "less is more" approach to changing the 3.5 rules for it to be successful. Why you think that's unfairly negative of me is beyond my understanding.

Because criticizing its general approach at this point is unfair. It does not help it evolve. We all know what its general approach is. But the deal here lies on building and developing the specifics and details and in the process you can only fix them with other details. Otherwise you will never complete it. It is like an artist painting. We already know the generic design (a D20 fantasy game with classes that have 20 levels). Now we need to complete it with all the details necessary that give the design all the fun that needs. And these need work and adjustment. Losing focus at this point is unfair.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

How?

Well, my statement was a bit overly generalized. What I mean to say is that I personally don't have the time or inclination to 1) evaluate and compare the current power level of the Pathfinder classes' new abilities to non-SRD classes and 2) augment those non-SRD classes (i.e. - warlock, favored soul, spellthief, marshal, etc.) to keep them in line with the Pathfinder RPG classes. Additionally, there are a lot of PrCs and feats that function under certain assumed rules. Now those rules are changing.

Throw in NPC statblocks from adventures and sourcebooks that leverage those classes, feats and PrCs, and there's the need to adjust them to Pathfinder characters just to keep them in context of the revised mechanics. Now my extremely limited prep time for 3.5 has increased considerably.

I'm not sure I see them saying this anywhere?

I never said it was something they were saying, it just ends up being a result in some individuals' views, including mine, which is why I plan on sticking with 3.5 as is.

I'd love to hear examples of non-SRD classes that are now "difficult to use" because of the changes to the core classes in the Pathfinder rules. I do understand that rolling Concentration into Spellcraft creates some difficulty for established psionics rules and am encouraging Jason to take another look, but this is the first time I've heard the criticism about non-SRD classes in general.

The late-era WotC class material is WAY up-gunned from the core classes. You could argue effectively that the scout made the ranger "difficult to use" because it did the same schtick better than the rander. Ditto the warblade and the fighter.

My take on the "Complete" classes, in general, is that they invalidated and devalued the core classes. A slight across the board powerup of the core classes brings them back up to par with non-SRD classes from Wizards, and also serves the role of making the classes fun over a variety of levels.

As I mentioned above in this post, difficult to use isn't really what I mean. It's just that I have concerns about keeping power levels in line. For the record, I don't care for Bo9S. I also don't think the Complete series of books devalued or invalidated the core classes in any way. In fact, those books have actually boosted those classes in many ways. Reserve feats as wizard bonus feats, heritage feats, alternative class abilities, sudden spells, new fighter bonus feats, divine feats, etc. have all added value to those classes to keep them in line with the new ones. The new ones, while shiny and fun, also have their limitations. A scout doesn't render a ranger useless as it doesn't have the ability to make efficient use of many of the feats a ranger gets, nor does it have the ranger's high BAB.

In any case, what it all boils down to is that I can use my existing books as written without much issue, whereas if I used Pathfinder rules, I'd have to frequently stop and consider how to change my existing materials to accommodate the revised rules. Additionally, player assumptions about certain rules are confusing enough without having to worry about a new version to learn or a new book to purchase that pretty much covers the same rules already in place.

Now, having said all of this, if I had never purchased D&D books before, I would absolutely love Pathfinder as an RPG game of its own. I would by a copy, and introduce new players to it as the new D&D game. On the other hand, it might be difficult to convince me to do such since 4e is out. If I were to adopt a whole new game altogether, why wouldn't I choose 4e? The compelling thing about Pathfinder, though, is that it feels more like D&D to me than 4e does. Take that for whatever it's worth.

 

[xechnao]

Huh? The 'complete' classes, with very few exceptions, were substantially less powerful than the 3.5 PHB classes and often kind of dull to boot. Only the scout and warmage weren't strictly inferior in anything but flavor to their closest analog in core. And even they weren't exactly CoDzilla.

Now, the classes in PHB2, the XPH, and ToB (and a few others) are another story (though again, a core-only cleric or druid is quite competive with any of them). But the Complete series base classes were hardly bastions of powergaming.

Regarding CoDzilla I think they nerfed spells so they are not an issue anymore.

 

[Festivus]

Except as a dip class, the Swashbuckler isn't really viable relative to the PHB classes, so even knowing nothing about Pathfinder's classes, I'd expect it'd be underpowered.

My point is that it's even more exagerrated with PFRPG, to the point that the entire class is useless, even as a dip class. Not long before my library of books lose value if I chose that system versus staying with 3.5 and houseruling things that are the real problems.

I'd also like to note that I just thought of that class off the top of my head, if I had the time I would crunch it all together and have a far more solid argument for you... but I don't want/need to do that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What I mean to say is that I personally don't have the time or inclination to 1) evaluate and compare the current power level of the Pathfinder classes' new abilities to non-SRD classes and 2) augment those non-SRD classes (i.e. - warlock, favored soul, spellthief, marshal, etc.) to keep them in line with the Pathfinder RPG classes. Additionally, there are a lot of PrCs and feats that function under certain assumed rules. Now those rules are changing.

What makes you think that a simple "conversion document" couldn't cover these corner cases (the base classes that might need a boost and the PrC's that are a bit tweaked by PF's different abilities)?

Throw in NPC statblocks from adventures and sourcebooks that leverage those classes, feats and PrCs, and there's the need to adjust them to Pathfinder characters just to keep them in context of the revised mechanics. Now my extremely limited prep time for 3.5 has increased considerably.

There's two things at work here.

#1: The idea that you'll HAVE to convert them. If the numbers work out to be close to the same, why would you have to?

#2: The idea that a quick conversion guide won't cover these minor alterations. If there is anything like the "CR to XP" table for, say, the Complete base classes, doesn't that basically solve the problem right out of the gate?

I never said it was something they were saying

they are putting one more nail in the coffin by saying, "We don't care about all of your other 3.5 supplements. Our Pathfinder stuff is all you need."

In any case, what it all boils down to is that I can use my existing books as written without much issue, whereas if I used Pathfinder rules, I'd have to frequently stop and consider how to change my existing materials to accommodate the revised rules.

Did 3.5 invalidate the 3.0 books for you?

 

[AllisterH]

1. The belief by Jason et al that they have to "power-up the classes".

As a previous poster mentioned, quite frankly, the complete series off classes are underpowered in general compared to their closest PHB analogue.

Hell, over the entire history of 3.x, only the Archivist and the Artificer are considered the "EQUAL" of Codzilla with the wizard coming in RIGHT under those two above classes.

2. The stealth changes - Not referring to the actual skill but things like "No xp for magic items". Er, that's NOT a good thing as it basically has eliminated magic items as treasure

3. While I think it has increased the survivability of 1st level PCs (yet the interaction with kobolds and goblins gets weird), by increasing the number of feats and the magic item limitation lifted PAthfinder hasn't "increased" the sweet spot but simply shifted it. IT may not sound like much, but a couple more feats make a big difference for many, MANY things. A classic cascade effect

4. Player focus - almost everything has been directed more towards the player in effect, increasing their options but I think we poor DMs have been ignored. I wouldn't mind playing in pathfinder but DMing it?

Not a chance unfortunately.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

What makes you think that a simple "conversion document" couldn't cover these corner cases (the base classes that might need a boost and the PrC's that are a bit tweaked by PF's different abilities)?

What makes me think there will be such a thing whem those materials are not open content? Besides, why wouldn't Paizo just publish and sell it's own Pathfinder PrCs that have similar effects?

There's two things at work here.

#1: The idea that you'll HAVE to convert them. If the numbers work out to be close to the same, why would you have to?

#2: The idea that a quick conversion guide won't cover these minor alterations. If there is anything like the "CR to XP" table for, say, the Complete base classes, doesn't that basically solve the problem right out of the gate?

#1: I'm not worried about numbers as much as I am about effect.

#2: Read my answers regarding quick conversion guides and effects above.

Obviously, I didn't mean literally, just effectively from my own perspective.

Did 3.5 invalidate the 3.0 books for you?

Yes and no. The changes were minor enough that updating the 3.0 material was extremely easy. In some cases, the abilities granted by those 3.0 character options became obsolete under the assumptions of the revised 3.5 rules. The only aspect of 3.5 that made 3.0 material obsolete was when a 3.0 option was updated to 3.5. Well, that and the 3.0 psionics content in The Mind's Eye articles, but that was free to begin with so no complaints really.

Anyway, this is all just my personal opinion. I depend on things as is because of the limited time I have in my personal life. Conversions only add more time required while prepping as a DM. With that in mind, my perspective is that of a DM rather than that of a player. Players typically have a lot less to worry about as they just need to keep the spirit of their character in tact. DMs have the job of making sure everything works smoothly in a balanced and interesting way. They are also typically the ones to invest the most money in a game. With a kid on the way and a full-time job, time and money are two things I personally cannot afford to continue to expend beyond my current investment.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

I'd also like to note that I just thought of that class off the top of my head, if I had the time I would crunch it all together and have a far more solid argument for you... but I don't want/need to do that.

I'm starting to feel the same way. I feel like there's this demand from those defending Pathfinder to write a dissertation consisting of argumentative points when all we're trying to do is give a personal opinion rather than an expert analysis.

 

[Infernal Scribe]

i doubt there be a conversion manual on the secondary splat books unless done by the fans and only when the official pathfinder books comes out for people to compare rules and see what needs converting. For the technical/design junkies out there, i've imagine they're going to have fun comparing notes.

But when it comes down to it, the secondary splat books are optional in your campaign. For the people that already owns all the books, its great. But for those new customers who are just getting involved, it seems that wizards is going to no longer sell or support any of their 3.5 or previous edition books. So all you got coming out new for 3.5 is Pathfinder and the other gaming companies out there that supports the old edition.

There might be some gripes people have with the new rules they introduce in the Pathfinder book, but simple enough, ignore the rule and keep the old one. Just like a previous poster posted, let them focus on the core classes and then move on from there (probably inventing new splat books with new classes, for people that likes that sort of thing).

I personally dislike the rage points and giving fighter feats (i.e combat tricks) to the rogue, but im play testing it. And if i don't like how it plays out in the game (i.e how broken or underpowered it is), I've discard what i don't like and use the old ruleset. But i do love what they done with CMV.