Pathfinder vs. 3.5E?

[thecasualoblivion]

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.

I'm a 4E player, I don't really have any need to help. I'm happy playing the game I am playing. I'm just saying that Pathfinder could appeal to me, but at this point in time it very much does not.

 

[DaveMage]

I'm not going to judge Pathfinder until the final version is released. To have made up one's mind now seems quite a bit premature.

The only things I really want to see is:

1) When Pathfinder is complete, a summary of the differences between it and 3.5.
2) The ability to use Pathfinder RPG adventures whether I play 3.5 or Pathfinder with on-the-fly conversion only.
3) The ability to use Pathfinder RPG PCs in 3.5 adventures with on-the-fly conversion only.

As long as these three criteria are met, I don't really care about anything else, and personally I'm absolutely LOVING the process Paizo is going through to bring this game to us.

So Kudos, Paizo - and THANK YOU for keeping OGL D&D gaming alive!

 

[AllisterH]

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?

I was actually slightly intrigued by the v1 but when Jason et al switched back, and WHY they switched back was a complete turn off.

The thing is, there are a lot of "subtle" changes in the document that I don't think have been properly factored like the lifting of the xp cost and the added number of feats.

Keep in mind that it is those subtle things that change the gameplay feel (for example, even though 3.x has the exact same problem spells as 1e/2e, many of the problems we see in 3.x don't occur BECAUSE not of the spell system but of the other aspects).

 

[billd91]

I agree with the OP.

I brought this up on the Pathfinder forums a while ago, but it seems to be changing more 3.5 rules than it really needs to.

One of Pathfinder's stated goals is that it wants to fix the biggest trouble spots with 3.5E. Okay, so grapple gets revised, and so do polymorphing spells - pretty much everyone agrees those need an overhaul. Maybe consolidating the Spot/Listen and Hide/Move Silently skills too.

Everything beyond that strikes me as going too far, though.

It's true that everyone has a different opinion on what should be changed. That's the nature of the art of RPGs (and why some people look at 4e as not being D&D... like me).

But I think you're missing one of the big trouble spots PF is trying to address: giving PCs a positive reason to remain in a base class rather than take a PrC. Hence the changes to domain spells, sorcerer blood lines, and school specialization. Still pretty easy to convert (since you barely have to do so for NPCs, really) and a better opportunity cost for taking a PrC.

 

[billd91]

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.

I think you're missing some of the point. 4e came out because a lot of people thought that these things were issues. By dealing with some of them, like reducing the few times/day rage in favor of the rage points, they're undercutting the perceived need for the change to 4e... which extends the life of OGL D&D. A good thing.

But, being a grognard who has played several editions of D&D and prefers 3.5 over 4e, I actually DO like a lot of the PF changes, including more at will abilities. Ultimately, my issues with how 3.5 plays are not as major as a shift to 4e would be, but that doesn't mean I don't think there are problems with 3.5 that can't be fixed.

 

[xechnao]

I'm just saying that Pathfinder could appeal to me

No really, no. Pathfinder is not complete -it is still in the makes so you are not really saying anything.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

No really, no. Pathfinder is not complete -it is still in the makes so you are not really saying anything.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[xechnao]

The thing is, there are a lot of "subtle" changes in the document that I don't think have been properly factored like the lifting of the xp cost and the added number of feats.

The documents have not been made yet. They are being made. You will want to participate in the development phase if you want improvements. If you do not have the time, you can still check it out during its development or when it's finally done. If you want and if you have the time.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The documents have not been made yet. They are being made. You will want to participate in the development phase if you want improvements. If you do not have the time, you can still check it out during its development or when it's finally done. If you want and if you have the time.

I don't really have anything invested in the process. I've moved on to 4E. I'm just saying that if the promises were delivered, I could see myself picking this up at some point.

 

[Gothmog]

I really hadn't seen much about Pathfinder up until now, but I noticed quite a few people talking about it on ENWorld and saying some positive things about it, and that it fixed a lot of the issues of 3.5, so I figured I'd take a look.....

I thought 3e was rough to DM- I can't imagine running Pathfinder. The existing problems in 3e seem to have been magnified in Pathfinder, and casters would dominate even moreso than they do now in 3e. There are some cool ideas- the barbarian's alternative rage powers and the new cleric domains are both nice, but they are handled inelegantly and require a LOT of bookkeeping on the part of the player or (god forbid) the DM if he makes an NPC classed with levels.

For the most part, it looks like Paizo took all the things my group and I disliked about 3e (implied magic levels, rules interconnectedness, feats out the wazoo, magic item reliance, overpowered PCs, character building trumping actually playing the game, etc), and dialed them up to 11 (X-TREME RULEZ D&D!!!). Pathfinder is definitely a system for people who love system mastery and optomizing characters for the most effectiveness. For folks who love 3e, I guess thats a strength, but for me its a huge turn-off. Again, I don't know how Pathfinder would play, and I'd be willing to play a few sessions to see if it plays like it reads, but if it does, Paizo has lost all interest from me- which is a shame, because for the most part, I've really enjoyed what Paizo has done with their setting, the adventure paths, and the Classic Monsters Revised book.

It looks like Pathfinder tried to take some of 4e's ideas and shove them into 3.x, but its poorly executed and requires even MORE paperwork and prep time than 3.x!!! I know this is the Alpha release, and things likely will get changed some, but as it stands right now, I'd not consider Pathfinder a game I'd ever choose to play, let alone try to teach a new player. And without new blood coming in and expanding Pathfinder's fanbase, I can't see Paizo making this work long term.