Pathfinder vs. 3.5E?

[thecasualoblivion]

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.

This

I actually care about balance, and I care about all the non-core things I liked in 3.5E D&D. If it is going to take time, effort, and work to mesh these things together, I'd rather just houserule 3rd Edition.

 

[xechnao]

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.

This

I actually care about balance, and I care about all the non-core things I liked in 3.5E D&D. If it is going to take time, effort, and work to mesh these things together, I'd rather just houserule 3rd Edition.

Eventually what's your opinion? I still do not get. Pathfinder is a new rpg in development. Do you want a new rpg or not? If you do not then you can't have an opinion. If you do want a new rpg then you have to state what new stuff this rpg should offer you. I still do not get what new things you want. Yet you criticize its options.

 

[drothgery]

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.

... and in both cases, they're only up there if you're exploiting rules corner cases. An archivist that only uses cleric, druid, ranger, and paladin spells (and not domain spells or prestige class spells, which the designer of the class said was never intended) is not uber. An artificer that's not a blastifacer is not uber.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Eventually what's your opinion? I still do not get. Pathfinder is a new rpg in development. Do you want a new rpg or not? If you do not then you can't have an opinion. If you do want a new rpg then you have to state what new stuff this rpg should offer you. I still do not get what new things you want. Yet you criticize its options.

I can't vouch for him, but I can give my own opinion on this:

I am a 4E convert. That being said, I love 2E AD&D and BEMCI, and will gladly run or play a game in either. I played 3.5E for years, but at this point I am frustrated with 3.5E D&D to the point where I'd rather not play it anymore, and will never DM it again unless forced at gunpoint. If Pathfinder was able to deliver on its promises of fixing the broken parts of 3.5E(eliminating my frustrations), while maintaining compatibility with things I did like about 3.5E(Warlock, Bo9S, Psionics, PHBII), I could see playing or running it from time to time. IMO Pathfinder is failing on both counts.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'm not terribly familiar with the Artificer or Archivist, or their corner cases, but I've always heard that the Psion is more or less on the level with CoDzilla and the Wizard.

 

[xechnao]

If Pathfinder was able to deliver on its promises of fixing the broken parts of 3.5E(eliminating my frustrations), while maintaining compatibility with things I did like about 3.5E(Warlock, Bo9S, Psionics, PHBII), I could see playing or running it from time to time. IMO Pathfinder is failing on both counts.

You are still not saying much to help one deliver what you want. What are your frustrations and parts perceived as parts that can be fixed if possible? What do you like that you want more of the same if possible? Also many times what we like and what we do not works only within a relation or composition that can't be changed without offering something new entirely. I doubt this is the case here but you still have to be more clear so people can fill in any space left for improvement.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I am happy with 3.5 and while I preordered the Pathfinder RPG book, I don't expect to use it anytime in the near future. So why did I preorder it/why do I feel it is good:

• Stealing stuff for house rules.
• 3rd party companies will be able to have a compatability logo on it since d20 is gone.
• The rules are inprint so if I ran a game, I could say to someone that didn't have the 3.5 PHB "We're using the Pathfinder rules but with these houserules."

 

[AllisterH]

I'm not terribly familiar with the Artificer or Archivist, or their corner cases, but I've always heard that the Psion is more or less on the level with CoDzilla and the Wizard.

The psion is right at the same place with the wizard as being right under the cleric and druid.

Basically it comes down to what you consider balanced. To me, only the fighter, monk and paladin, I would consider underpowered whereas the full spellcasters (and even the weaker sorceror) are pretty much at the top.

That's the funny thing about the PHB. Not only does it contain the weakest classes (monk) but also by far the strongest in 3.x (druid + natural spell). No splatbook has such a WIDE range between its options.

As for giving out comments to help, I actually did with regard to skillls back during the v1 release when everyone else was decrying it. It was too 4E said the masses and thus was changed back during v2.

That pretty much is a gamebreaker for me (you try using the skill system after level 6-7 for the entire group)

 

[xechnao]

That pretty much is a gamebreaker for me (you try using the skill system after level 6-7 for the entire group)

So for all Pathfinder may have to offer this will be the gamebreaker to you? Then I guess you did not want much first place so why did you consider Pathfinder at all?

 

[Spatula]

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)?

Corner cases? Every single core class was heavily modified in the alpha doc that I saw. Throw in changes to basic mechanics like how many HP you get and so on, and a PF character looks a lot different than a normal 3e character. Just by itself, all that power creep destroys the idea of backwards compatibility in adventures - you can't design balanced backwards-compatible encounters when you're using much stronger playtest PCs.

#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?

If the numbers work out to be close to the same, why would you bother changing anything in the first place?

Aside from the power creep concerns, the changes I saw in the alpha doc are not addressing 3e grognard issues. They're 4e issues. More survivability at 1st level? At-will spellcasting? The people that wanted that sort of thing are playing 4e. The 3e grognard market is going to be made up of people who, by and large, don't have major issues with how 3e is played (aside from this particular subsytem, i.e. grapple, sucks etc.). Because if they did, they wouldn't still be playing 3e.