Pathfinder 1E Sell me on Pathfinder!

[Walking Dad]

Thanks for all the replies, folks. I don't really have an angle on this or a reason why I'm asking other than simple curiosity. It certainly seems like Pathfinder is a true 3.5 Revised or Improved edition, or just 3.75.

One quick question: One of the things I least liked about 3.5 was the fact that it rewarded system mastery to such a degree and almost encouraged min-maxing and, despite all the options, offered a few tried and true paths towards character maximization. Is Pathfinder similar in this regard?

It is 3.35. And I'm glad about it. It is easy to mesh the content with the 3.5 stuff, so it isn't really the question if you want one or the other. If you like 3.3 and would like to see professional new rules and adventures for it, Pathfinder is your best bed.
But... I soon realized I don't really miss the bloated 3.5 stuff (like divine metamagic) so I play pure Pathfinder and it still feels like old times

It is not perfect (I don't like the rounds system for rage and music, for example), but it does a better job than I first thought. The small changes really sum up in play.

For systemmastery and optimized builds, you have to nearly start at zero. Many real bad choices became really good (toughness, ...), so you don't need to optimize as much. But you should really have a high str for most fighters and such. Mostly logic thinks, no hidden traps.

Hope this helps.

 

[Kaisoku]

System Mastery has been really well addressed I feel.

A lot of the "poor choices" in 3e have been addressed quite nicely:

- Skills! Between the consolidation and removal of the "4x at 1st level" business.. even if you find that you need something levels-down-the-road, you can pick up a skill concept fairly easily.
There's some hidden stuff too... Skill Focus increases at 10th level/ranks (+6 instead of +3), and the +2/+2 feats have a boost also (to +4/+4). A low/normal Wisdom Fighter wanting to be good at Perception, and having feats to spare, can easily catch up to someone with a class skill and decent wisdom.

- Feats! You get more, and faster (one every two levels), which means if you find yourself needing a feat from gameplay experience, you'll see it sooner. Fighters having the ability to retrain built into the core rules is nice too.
But not just that, as noted with the Skill feats, a lot of choices have been "bumped up" in bang for the buck. Toughness defaulting to +1/level, and the APG gives extended feat trees for some old feats much more worthwhile (like blind-fighting).

- Classes! The design intent of making classes valuable at all levels, especially the high levels, makes needing to multiclass or prestige out no longer necessary.
In fact, the design intent behind "PrCs are different choices, not power choices" can be seen with the APG's archetypes. Want a weapon master? Pick a weapon master fighter. Want a sniper? You've got a number of options between rogue talents, archetypes, and ranger options.
If you know the type of character you want to play right from the start, you can pick it... without needing to wait until an arbitrary 7th level with specific choices you apparently had to know about ahead of time.

- Game Mechanics! The size bonuses being drastically reduced, and streamlining of the Combat Maneuvers, has really let people test the waters for alternative tactics without needing to specialize to get any benefit. Note, it'll still be hard to grapple that colossal creature, but if grappling the BBEG so he can't set off his death machine seems like a good idea, you've at least got a chance these days, even if you didn't focus on the feats or builds.

I've found Pathfinder to be far more forgiving, and have a hard time finding a character choice that will always result in "a bad idea". Short of weapon specialization (net), of course.

There's still ways to optimize to get really really good at a specific thing. But if you don't, it's more likely to mean that you are more versatile, than down right useless like it tended to be in 3e.

 

[Voadam]

Hey,
I played 3.5 and dropped it and RPG's altogether prob 5 years ago. But for the last week or so I've really been itching to play something again. My biggest frustration of 3.5 was the amount of time combat took as levels got higher. A buddy of mine told me he heard Pathfinder took 3.5 and Cleaned it up. I'm liking what i heard up above and was wondering if combat got streamlined any.
Deitus

A little. Dispel magic changed from knocking out a random few to knocking out one spell which makes mid combat recalculations much easier and quicker, particularly as the party gets higher level and uses more buffs.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

I've read Pathfinder SRD and I must say that I find it greatly improved 3.5, while still retaining the original feel and simplicity of D&D. Also the artwork is a real treat to my eyes and there are lot of good ideas, I didn't find anything bad about it.

That being said, I doubt I will ever DM it. Most likely I will not play it either. The thing is that I do love great campaign worlds, such as Greyhawk. Pathfinder Campaign World seems a bit "plastic" to me. I just don't feel it's my cup of tea at all.

This is why I will keep on DM'ing with 3.5 and Greyhawk, because they are my things. If there would be a full conversation of Pathfinder to Greyhawk, I'd grab it right away! Also Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape would be great, but now I'm getting carried away...

 

[Kaisoku]

It's funny to read your post right after checking for new posts in the Golarion = Greyhawk thread.

If anything, I would have thought a fan of Greyhawk would have appreciated the stuff they did in Golarion more than the average person...
Or is that what you are talking about? It's too much like it.. not unique enough?

 

[Jon_Dahl]

It's funny to read your post right after checking for new posts in the Golarion = Greyhawk thread.

If anything, I would have thought a fan of Greyhawk would have appreciated the stuff they did in Golarion more than the average person...
Or is that what you are talking about? It's too much like it.. not unique enough?

Yes I read that thread also. TBH copying something historical as Greyhawk simply doesn't work as a "renovation". It only enhances the plastic feeling to it. So yes, "not unique enough" for me.

I'm not putting down Golaron, simply stating that it doesn't inspire me - personally - at all. If someone made a campaign world and tried to sell it to me as "almost just like Greyhawk", I would thank him for the effort and go play Greyhawk.

And of course I'm open to new ideas. The thing is that I like really original ideas. Worlds like Dark Sun really inspired me too. However Eberron and all the Warforged stuff weren't for me. It's really hard to explain, but if you wish I can do it. But Golaron as a Greyhawk imitation simply doesn't do it for me, and it's not about logic, it's about emotion.

 

[Azgulor]

PF improvements over 3.5:

1. Reworked skill system allows for faster character generation yet let's skill points go farther (consolidated list, bonuses to class skills).

2. Reworked core classes entice players to remain single-classed yet nothing has been taken away from multi-classing. Both are very viable options now.

3. Archetypes more elegant method of customization than prestige classes. Prestige classes are now used as originally intended - for campaign specific elements (in most cases) or niche concepts.

4. Returned focus on core races.

5. Consolidated monster layouts for GM ease of use.

6. Favored class mechanics.

7. Extensive library of 3.x & d20/OGL material still viable. Some things require conversion, but the changes necessary are pretty easy to identify & update in line with the PFRPG design philosophies.

8. Use of the OGL. Some really superior 3PP products out there.

9. Active support by its publisher and the 3PP community.

 

[Cor_Malek]

For someone accustomed with 3rd and 3.5 editions, who has all the books - Pathfinder tweaks a lot, but some people find it not enough to justify transition. It boils down to having additional $ to be spared on gaming, as well as time if you want to incorporate 3.x materials you used.

For someone who wants to start/get back to playing 3e-flavoured DnD, Pathfinder is the way to go. Ongoing support, pdf-versions of all books, famously great independent adventures and adventure paths, and tweaked system - are among main reasons to do so. You're going to buy and read the book either way, might as well get the improved one.

 

[IronWolf]

This is why I will keep on DM'ing with 3.5 and Greyhawk, because they are my things. If there would be a full conversation of Pathfinder to Greyhawk, I'd grab it right away! Also Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape would be great, but now I'm getting carried away...

But Golaron as a Greyhawk imitation simply doesn't do it for me, and it's not about logic, it's about emotion.

I can certainly understand the emotion being the determiner when choosing a campaign setting. If you are inspired by your campaign setting I find it easier to keep the ideas rolling. No harm in that!

With that said, I would think one could run the Pathfinder ruleset in the Greyhawk campaign setting with very little issue. I at least feel like I could use the Pathfinder ruleset in any number of already released settings.

 

[Votan]

I can certainly understand the emotion being the determiner when choosing a campaign setting. If you are inspired by your campaign setting I find it easier to keep the ideas rolling. No harm in that!

With that said, I would think one could run the Pathfinder ruleset in the Greyhawk campaign setting with very little issue. I at least feel like I could use the Pathfinder ruleset in any number of already released settings.

I can attest to PF being friendly with 3.5E supplements. I am currently running a 3.5E module and the rough spots have been minimal.