Pathfinder 1E Sell me on Pathfinder!

[wayne62682]

So let me ask this as well: Did Pathfinder address the "system mastery" design flaw? In other words, are there still "newbie trap" choices in the game like Toughness was in 3.5? From the little I've seen with the rulebook at the local book store (no FLGS for me *sob*), all of the core classes are now viable choices to level to 20 without forcing a Prestige Class - in 3.5 this was one of the major issues people had with it (not me, as I loved the dozens of splatbooks) at higher levels; you really HAD to take a PrC if you wanted to get anything cool.

Basically, if I can convince my friend to play, only two players (not counting myself as I would be the GM) will have played 3.5. The other two are only familiar with 4E (and one of them with old AD&D). When I played 3.5 I was always a complete powergamer and typically frequented the WotC CO boards on a daily basis. I would create characters and pore over a dozen sourcebooks to make the best combination. I left my 3.5 gaming group and didn't play for nearly two years because nobody else did this, so I would have a character with optimal feats from a couple books, and someone else would have a standard PHB Fighter with only PHB feats, and I'd just overshadow him completely.

Does that still exist in Pathfinder? My worry is that the players will make poor optimization choices (because they don't know any better) and end up with unplayable characters at the higher levels. This is something I vividly remember from 3.5 - if you simply chose "flavor" feats and class combinations, towards the end of the game you were basically being carried by the rest of the group because you were unable to contribute anything to level-appropriate challenges.

 

[IronWolf]

Can't you replicate this with same-CR creatures (or maybe 1-2 CR's lower) with minimum hit points instead of average? and deals minimum damage on a hit? This is more or less the formula 4E uses.

If one likes the use of minions I think it is easy to create this feel in a 3.x/Pathfinder game. Reduce the hit points of something, use a lower CR creature with reduced hit points, etc. I think this can be accomplished within the 3.x/Pathfinder ruleset with no real issues to get that feel to your game if you want.

 

[D'karr]

From the little I've seen with the rulebook at the local book store (no FLGS for me *sob*), all of the core classes are now viable choices to level to 20 without forcing a Prestige Class - in 3.5 this was one of the major issues people had with it (not me, as I loved the dozens of splatbooks) at higher levels; you really HAD to take a PrC if you wanted to get anything cool.

If you loved the splatbooks, IMO, you'll find that you'll have to alter anything in a splatbook to be more in line with the power level of the core classes. This could be good or bad depending on perspective. I haven't found "gotchas" in the system yet. As a matter of fact even the dreaded feat "Toughness" now scales. So they might have reduced what you are calling "System Mastery" requirements, if you stick to the core classes. However, if you want to incorporate any classes from the 3.x splatbooks you will be disappointed. We were playing with an "Unfettered" from Arcana Unearthed, a "Scout" from Complete Warrior, I think, and another non-core class. Those 3 players were usually less effective than any of the core classes. One thing that they did not address is the disparity between casters and non-casters at higher levels.

I liked the system as a player, because I liked 3.x. I just didn't like that the problems that I had with 3.x were still present. I ran (DM) an 8+ year campaign using 3.x and we enjoyed it tremendously, though towards the end I just couldn't keep up with the power level of the characters. I did not see anything in Pathfinder that fixed this. YMMV of course.

 

[wayne62682]

I don't want to use the splatbooks, just I remember that you had to use them if you really wanted to have an interesting character. For PF I'm going to stick with just the Core book since nobody else will have really played 3.5, and the ones that have I'm fairly certain they only used the PHB.

 

[D'karr]

I don't want to use the splatbooks, just I remember that you had to use them if you really wanted to have an interesting character. For PF I'm going to stick with just the Core book since nobody else will have really played 3.5, and the ones that have I'm fairly certain they only used the PHB.

Then you should be okay.

 

[IronWolf]

So let me ask this as well: Did Pathfinder address the "system mastery" design flaw? In other words, are there still "newbie trap" choices in the game like Toughness was in 3.5? From the little I've seen with the rulebook at the local book store (no FLGS for me *sob*), all of the core classes are now viable choices to level to 20 without forcing a Prestige Class - in 3.5 this was one of the major issues people had with it (not me, as I loved the dozens of splatbooks) at higher levels; you really HAD to take a PrC if you wanted to get anything cool.

Does that still exist in Pathfinder? My worry is that the players will make poor optimization choices (because they don't know any better) and end up with unplayable characters at the higher levels. This is something I vividly remember from 3.5 - if you simply chose "flavor" feats and class combinations, towards the end of the game you were basically being carried by the rest of the group because you were unable to contribute anything to level-appropriate challenges.

I am sure that someone that knows the in and outs of the Pathfinder rule system will be able to build a character that is stronger than another player that does not know the system as well. Some will depend on the player's focus, if one player is very "power gamer" oriented they will likely overshadow mechanically someone that is more about flavor of the character and making character choices based on flavor as opposed to mechanics.

Since Pathfinder does not have the multitude of splat books that 3.5 did this problem is likely to be reduced just from that alone though. And from what I have seen I do think the core classes are more viable and allow some tweaking within the class to differentiate one fighter from another.

 

[Runestar]

Pathfinder breaks as many things as it manages (or attempts) to fix, IMO.

Fighters got nerfed hard, with PA being less effective and combat maneuvers (namely improved trip) no longer working as well (and that is saying something, considering you were already struggling to use them effectively in 3.5!). The designers got this funny idea that maneuvers ought to be harder to use successfully against tougher foes. This leads to the problematic scenario of players favouring the pure-attack route and eschewing combat maneuvers even more despite the new streamlined mechanic, because tripping is more risky than ever, and you don't need to trip weaker foes.

In a nutshell, the designers knew 3.5e was broken and tried to fix it, except that they didn't really know what made 3.5e broken in the first place! So my conclusion is that pathfinder is simply different, and not necessarily any better or worse off than 3.5e. The art is excellent though. Use with a grain of salt and an open mind.

 

[wayne62682]

Might be worth a try then. To be honest I'm 99% certain I'm the only powergamer in the group, and I would be the GM so it wouldn't matter. Everyone else are probably like the old "Fighters are fine; my fighter easily is on par with the party's wizard" people from 3.5. You know, the groups where the Wizard thought Fireball was an awesome spell and wouldn't even consider any crowd control spells.

Now I'm wondering if I should use one of the new pathfinder APs or convert one of the old 3.5 APs (I have the Shackled City book that I've never used, I have Age of Worms and Savage Tide, if I can find the Dungeon issues again) to use Pathfinder (should be easy, I'm sure) since I've read a bit about Kingmaker and while the idea seems interesting, it sounds like it'd be complicated to run (I'm no fan of open-ended sandbox games, I prefer having a tightly-woven storyline)

 

[IronWolf]

Everyone else are probably like the old "Fighters are fine; my fighter easily is on par with the party's wizard" people from 3.5. You know, the groups where the Wizard thought Fireball was an awesome spell and wouldn't even consider any crowd control spells.

Yeah, I think the power level differences were most apparent in gaming groups where a "power gamer" was thrown in with "flavor" gamers (or in our group's case, people that just aren't that good at "power gaming"). So I suspect some power level differences in Pathfinder could be obvious in some groups and not in others.

Now I'm wondering if I should use one of the new pathfinder APs or convert one of the old 3.5 APs (I have the Shackled City book that I've never used, I have Age of Worms and Savage Tide, if I can find the Dungeon issues again) to use Pathfinder (should be easy, I'm sure) since I've read a bit about Kingmaker and while the idea seems interesting, it sounds like it'd be complicated to run (I'm no fan of open-ended sandbox games, I prefer having a tightly-woven storyline)

Converting some of the 3.5 APs shouldn't be a problem if one of those attracts you more than the ones currently written for Pathfinder. I've been semi-prepping Kingmaker and it does seem like a quality AP, but needing a fair amount of DM work up front to really get the atmosphere right for it. If you prefer a more tightly-woven storyline you might be best to look at some of the other APs as you are already leaning.

 

[Runestar]

Might be worth a try then. To be honest I'm 99% certain I'm the only powergamer in the group, and I would be the GM so it wouldn't matter. Everyone else are probably like the old "Fighters are fine; my fighter easily is on par with the party's wizard" people from 3.5. You know, the groups where the Wizard thought Fireball was an awesome spell and wouldn't even consider any crowd control spells.

Then in this case, you may find that wizards are actually stronger than ever, since they actually get some very nifty class features (such as free metamagic), while the key spell nerfs shouldn't impact blasters all that much.