Pathfinder 1E Sell me on Pathfinder!

[Mercurius]

This post is two part:

1) The big question: Why Pathfinder? Why do you like playing it as opposed to 4E or 3.5E or another edition of D&D? Why might I like it to? What does it offer that other editions don't? (Besides beautiful books). What are its strengths and weaknesses?

2) How does Pathfinder differ from 3.5? Please, no long exegesis - just short and simple with key points.

A BIG FAT DISCLAIMER: Just so my cards are on the table, I play and enjoy 4E. I have problems with it although won't go into them, because this thread is not about that. Most importantly, this is not a thread to bash any edition of D&D, whether Pathfinder or 4E or what-have-you. I am honestly curious why Pathfinderers play the game, instead of 3.5E or 4E. If you find yourself feeling inclined to get negative, please take a hike. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[Ebony Dragon]

I enjoy 3.5 and Pathfinder is a tweaked (many would say improved) version of D&D 3.5

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't play Pathfinder or any of the other 3PP 3.5 variants...but I own and yoink from it and many others (AU/AE, Midnight 2Ed, FantasyCraft, True20, etc.). To me, it (and the others) contain certain changes that are very popular and common HRs of 3.5- some of which I like and some of which I don't- but also some nice innovations.

But none of that is enough to make it my primary version of 3.X as opposed to 3.5Ed.

 

[ruemere]

You're asking for quite a lot. I'm human (i.e. lazy and prone to error), so doing an unbiased comparatory analysis is beyond me at this moment.

How about this - check the links below and then ask specific questions:
Pathfinder OGL document.
Overview of the core manual.
Free products.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[IronWolf]

1) The big question: Why Pathfinder? Why do you like playing it as opposed to 4E or 3.5E or another edition of D&D? Why might I like it to? What does it offer that other editions don't? (Besides beautiful books). What are its strengths and weaknesses?

I play Pathfinder as I enjoyed the spot that 3.5 hit. I felt like characters could be tailored as one wanted for the most part and it felt like D&D with several options.

I did not go to 4e as it seemed to be that it drifted too far away from D&D's roots. Just my opinion of course, that isn't to say it is a bad game, it just didn't fit my idea of what D&D should be like.

Now for all the things I liked about 3.5 all the options and splat books did finally start to become unwieldy to me. So Pathfinder acted as sort of a clean slate and fresh beginning while maintaining the feel of D&D to me.

2) How does Pathfinder differ from 3.5? Please, no long exegesis - just short and simple with key points.

Think of it as D&D 3.75. A lot of subtle changes in feats, spells and such. They consolidated skills, made some tweaks to skill points and how they function when you take a class skill. Subtle changes, but changes.

They moved to a Combat Maneuver Bonus and Combat Maneuver Defense system for a large number of the special attacks to help lessen some of the confusion surrounding such special attacks.

Character class wise they boosted some classes and tweaked some others down just a bit. They worked to remove dead levels in character classes making going 20 levels in a class more attractive in some cases.

I am sure there are more that I am overlooking, but those are a few off the top of my head.

 

[DaveMage]

While tempted to simply "+1" on what ruemere wrote, I'll add the following:

I'm playing in a Pathfinder game at the moment. I have not played 4E. I have played 3.5 (and 3.0 and 2E and 1E and Basic).

What I like:
It's basically 3.5 with some improvements. The new way of doing skills is much simpler (and IMO better) than 3.5. No more cross-class skills. If it's a class skill, you add three. No more synergy bonuses you forget to add.

Most (if not all) of the classes all have new flavors to them, allowing for even greater variety and customization. The sorcerer, for example, is really several classes in one - and the play experience will depend on the bloodline chosen. The Advanced Player Guide allows for even more customization of the base classes. The nice thing about this is that with all of the variety, the need/excitement of prestige classes has been significantly reduced.

While some spells have been nerfed a bit (removing some save or die effects), the game itself isn't much easier (as my PCs going through Rise of the Runelords can attest to).

 

[Herremann the Wise]

1) The big question: Why Pathfinder?

I have always appreciated Paizo's efforts in the past in regards to Dragon And Dungeon (and their customer service is head and shoulders above anyone else in the RPG/gaming industry). They produce top quality stuff and so their "flagship" was an obvious thing to take a look at and try out.

Why do you like playing it as opposed to 4E or 3.5E or another edition of D&D?

I play 4e and have had a DDI subscription since the start, and DM a 3.5Ed campaign and a Pathfinder campaign. While 4e has some nice ideas, it also has a lot of things that I really don't like almost completely overfocusing on what characters can do in combat. It took D&D in a direction polar opposite to my gaming preferences which for me is a shame (although essentials seems to be a swinging back of the pendulum, even if only slightly). While I like 3.5, it does have it's issues at higher levels (15th plus) and combat taking too long. My 3.5 game has character's between 16th and 18th level at the moment and so this is sharply in focus. Pathfinder while still technically 3rd edition is in my opinion the best evolution of the ruleset. It cleans up most of the stuff it had to and has a lot of nice ideas that parallel my gaming interests. It still has too much magic for my liking but this can be stripped back.

Why might I like it to?

If you happily moved from 3.5 to 4e, then straight away I'm not sure whether Pathfinder will be for you. Perhaps if you could further explain your situation, I might be able to tell you more accurately why you may or may not like Pathfinder. In essence though, it is well supported, takes the 3.5 ruleset and gives them a good freshen up, and emphasizes the good aspects of the ruleset while attempting (and succeeding in the main) in cleaning up the bad.

What does it offer that other editions don't? (Besides beautiful books).

The most obvious thing is the Pathfinder adventure path modules. Paizo's adventure writing is top notch and full of stuff to steal and rebadge. Heaps of enthusiastic and good ideas. I think there is more room to tailor the gaming experience than in 4e. As for 3.5, with the APG released, I think the "core" is now big enough to provide suitable variety as agaisnt 3.5's massive catalogue. In fact, now that you can pretty much run "Pathfinder only", I think having it light on supplemental rules is a plus (where as when it was just the Core rules, you really were looking to supplement it with the complete series and others from 3.5). And yes the books are gorgeously produced. While the covers are not as "pretty" as 4e's, the inside of the product seems more professionally and aesthetically put together.

What are its strengths and weaknesses?

Hard to say as something that is a plus for me might be a minus for someone else. From my point of view though it's primary strength is a neat clearing up of the ruleset combined with the entire Pathfinder experience (adventure modules, core books and gaming supplements). As for it's weaknesses, I would say that wizards still rule after 15th level but up to this point, things are quite balanced and stable. I think there has been significant power creep which I findly mildly irksome. In addition, the core rules assume a level of magic item use that I find excessive (although this is easy enough to manage).

2) How does Pathfinder differ from 3.5? Please, no long exegesis - just short and simple with key points.

There are a few major changes and a lot of minor ones. Save or dies have been addressed (dealing hp damage rather than killing outright), Combat maneuvers have been all brought under a unified umbrella making for a significantly more fluid gaming experience. There is greater emphasis on base classes and less on prestige classes and strange optimised mixes of weirded out class combinations. They have focused on having no dead levels and so if levelling up is an enjoyable gaming experience for you, then Pathfinder succeeds at this more so than 3.5.

There are also numerous small changes that change and smooth the gaming experience: Spells fixed (casting requirements or compete clean ups such as with Polymorph), Channeling energy (taking over from turning undead), skills easier to predict (cross-class skills cost one for one but class skills receive a +3 bonus and so on. The little things make the experience better overall, although if you have played a lot of 3.5, it is these subtle changes that are so easy to miss and fuddle up. Going from 4e to pathfinder would reduce this issue I think.

Essentially, Pathfinder is my favourite version of D&D out there at the moment. Hope this helps and if you can provide more info in regard to your preferences, I'll add to the above.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[TheAuldGrump]

If you have a library of 3.X stuff, then conversion is easy.

Pathfinder continues support for the OGL. (My biggest gripe against 4e... other than the rules themselves.) Free online SRD for the rules.

Sorcerers rock! They have gone from my least favorite class to one of the top three. (Which position varies from day to day. )

Combat maneuvers have been simplified and their mechanics codified. The players in my game actually use them now.

Excellent support via the Adventure Paths and other Pathfinder products. (Kingmaker added a lot of new mechanics to the game - including rules for founding and maintaining kingdoms.)

Pretty pictures.

Game designers who post on E. N. World.

The Auld Grump

 

[Kaiyanwang]

- Inspiring, different classes with diverse mechanics (for any campaign need)

- Simplified Combat Maneuvers and new maneuvers in APG

- Core only game far more complete than in 3.5 (or, let me say, 4th edition). APG, indeed, equals to 4 completes and the A&EG.

- Magic quacks like magic and walks like magic

- Streamlined monsters powers and attacks, and a bestiary with a deep ecology.

- Beautiful art.

- Open Content. You can try it before buy it.

 

[bouncyhead]

1) The big question: Why Pathfinder? Why do you like playing it as opposed to 4E or 3.5E or another edition of D&D?

A mixture of factors: Mostly, we were driven to PF by 4E - not in a negative way: It was more a case of needing somewhere to place our pent-up new edition demand when we discovered that 4E was not our cup of tea.

Additionally, Paizo got it just right with the alpha and beta releases. I was running Rise of the Runelords under 3.5 (after our time with 4E). I checked out the beta pdf, liked the new additions and amendments (details in section 2) and found myself a print copy. I took that along to the next session and started using it as my 'core' ruleset, with a mix of rulebooks around the table.

We have tended to play 'core' only (in all editions) and thus have not experienced many of the 3.5 balance/bloat issues that others have mentioned on these boards - this meant that we were well primed for a refresh of the ruleset.

Pretty much all of the beta changes were hungrily adopted and players converted their 3.5 characters across with little hesitation. A couple more people found hard-copy betas and soon PF prevailed over 3.5.

Why might I like it to? What does it offer that other editions don't? (Besides beautiful books). What are its strengths and weaknesses?

You'll like it if you liked 3.5, basically. If 3.5 was driving you crazy, then the amends won't do it for you. If you just felt the ruleset could do with some fixes here and extra flavour/variety there than you should find something in it to enjoy. Enough to warrant a new set of books? Maybe not. But it was for us (as outlined above).

Additionally, as has been mentioned, it's an opportunity for a fresh start. So if bloat/balance issues and power-creep were problems for you, PF shakes the etch-a-sketch.

I don't think one can address the "what does it offer that other editions don't" question without straying into dangerous territory, as per Umbran's observation. Suffice it to say that it meets our expectations of 'D&D' better than the current edition (YMMV).

Strengths and Weaknesses - I'll leave that to question 2, with an aside that for 90% of the time, the strengths and weaknesses are those of 3.5 and very much in the eye of the eye tyrant.

2) How does Pathfinder differ from 3.5? Please, no long exegesis - just short and simple with key points.

More variety in classes - there is some power creep but there are some amends that, in my view, 'fix' certain classes. Specifically: Paladins are kick-ass champions of holiness once more, clerics (through channel energy) are freed from healbotness (and the extra healing - in my experience - has led to more dynamic, rolling battles that don't get abandoned though lack of cure spells, it also plays against the 15 min adventuring day), fighters are significantly bumped. Can't speak for the new barbarian/monk/bard as no experience. I don't think it would be exaggeration to say that Sorcerors are nothing short of transformed through the bloodline rules. Rogues are given a bump with level-based 'talents'.

Some streamlining of combat, tweaks to the action economy to support new class features, the CMB/CMD is nice and straightforward. Rationalization/consolidation of skills. Removal of concentration skill. SoD/SoS spell nerfage.

There is also an indefinable 'something' about Pathfinder. None of us can put our finger on it, but we are enjoying our D&D more than ever before. Could be just damned fine game design. Could be that the host of little changes synergize to create an experience that suits us better. Could be my medication. Whatever it is, it's working for us.

The maths is still wonky though (Trailblazer territory) & things still get complex at high levels, especially for the GM (playstyle territory). I should point out that the way we play doesn't mesh with much of what I see on these boards so that's a big caveat.

Oh and... the GameMastery Guide and Advanced Players Guides are slices of fried gold.

I think that's enough one-eyed fandom for one post.