D&D 3E/3.5 What are the main changes from 3.5 to Pathfinder?

[SlyDoubt]

Yes. The wizard argument.

Just because you elect to not play a wizard, does not mean that you should not have multiple choices of "Neat Things to Do" each and every round of combat.

The fact that your "Neat Things" will be fairly mundane in nature does not mean that you shouldn't have any to choose from, and is one of the weaknesses of D&D since, I dunno, Chainmail, that has persisted through 3.X and which Pathfinder inherited.

The unmodified (or, at best, slightly modified) normal attack against a single target is the bane of the warrior-types.

High-level archer-types should be acting like over-the-top Robin Hoods, making trick shots off of walls, splitting shields with a well-placed bolt, firing three arrows at once into three different targets, etc. Getting one additional attack when you score a critical hit is, at best, underwhelming. Even worse, it doesn't even provide an option to the crossbowman - it's just another modification to his standard, I've-been-doing-this-since-1st-level basic attack.

As it should be:

High-Level warrior combat action : low-level warrior combat action :: wish : magic missile

Hahahaahaa.

Sure. I mean I don't really know what to say. Some people have a problem with it some don't. I don't see the issue at all but I don't play with people I don't know or at events/conventions. So I don't know that end of things. I'm sure in that realm these things are important but they really aren't when you're sitting at a table surrounded by friends.

 

[billd91]

Hahahaahaa.

Sure. I mean I don't really know what to say. Some people have a problem with it some don't. I don't see the issue at all but I don't play with people I don't know or at events/conventions. So I don't know that end of things. I'm sure in that realm these things are important but they really aren't when you're sitting at a table surrounded by friends.

I've played at some conventions too and I still don't see much merit in the issue. I really don't think every character needs a similarly broad suite of options in every situation to be fun and fulfilling to play.

When I play fighters because the mechanics and modes of playing a fighter are what appeal to me. I want to be bashing my enemies, not looking at a swiss army knife of potential solutions to problems (assuming I manage to have prepared the relevant ones in the first place). And it has been my experience that, as they level, fighters do get to do more interested and varying things in the way they fight thanks to the feats they get. It may not be quite the same as comparing a wish with a magic missile, but I don't see that as a problem.

And when I am in the mood, for a campaign, to play the multi-tool, I'll play the multitool. It's a question of what I feel like doing. The different modes of play is one of the elements of D&D I'd hate to get rid of.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Hahahaahaa.

Sure. I mean I don't really know what to say. Some people have a problem with it some don't. I don't see the issue at all but I don't play with people I don't know or at events/conventions. So I don't know that end of things. I'm sure in that realm these things are important but they really aren't when you're sitting at a table surrounded by friends.

1. I don't play at convetions / events, either.

2. What in Hell does that have to do with the conversation, anyway?

3. How am I supposed to read, "Hahahaahaa" - are you just being an ass?

The thing is, a high-level wizard can fill his spell slots with nothing but magic missiles if he wants to - sure, some of them are maximized, intensified, stilled magic missiles (and some, to be fair, are fireballs), but that's an option he gets.

High-level fighters get to ... attack. Sometimes, they get to attack more than once. Sometimes, they can choose to attack slightly less accurately for more damage. Sometimes, their attack stuns an enemy. In all cases, though, the fighter's main interaction with the game world is the basic attack - the same one he's been doing since 1st-level.

PF, at least, made it easier to do things like disarm and bull rush and fight dirty, but at the end of the day, the number of round-to-round options a fighter has is dramatically less than that offered to even a rudimentary spellcaster several levels earlier - and the picture is even bleaker if you're talking about an archer or a crossbowman (who lacks most of the melee fighter's feat and combat option support).

This doesn't mean that every fighter will take advantage of all those options, but that rules support for them at least being there would be an improvement.

I dunno, maybe just charging up to an enemy and swinging your sword, again, for 20 levels is fun for some people? And all the decision-making they need is "Which guy am I gonna bash this round?"

It is entirely possible that I'm the only person in the entire world who thinks that fighters have largely-boring in-combat decion-making opportunities, and that they've suffered this way since forever. So be it. Whatever. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and apparently, you don't.

At any rate, we are getting rather far afield from the OP's question (because he wants to know the differences between 3.5 and PF, and this is a not a point of differentiation; it is a striking similarity). If y'all want to discuss it further, start a new thread. Regardless, I'm done responding to these points here and polluting up the OP's thread.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Looking at the Cleric, I noticed that it incorporates as a base operation something one of my 3.5Ed PCs does with a Feat, namely AoE healing via channeling divine energy. I also note there is an Extra Channeling feat...which also fits my PC.

Are there other options out ther for CE? Damaging/Healing creatures based on being Elementals, Plants or their alignment? Dispel/supress/enhance magic? Inspiring Rage? Anything?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

From the core rulebook, there's the feats Alignment Channel (affect Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic outsiders) Channel Smite (bonus damage against undead or living creatures), Command Undead, Elemental Channel (heal / harm elemental outsiders, rather than undead / living), Improved Channel (boost the save DC), Selective Channeling (pick who's affected), and Turn Undead.

The APG adds the Holy Vindicator PrC, who can channel energy into his shield for a Divine / Profane bonus to AC and can change his channel's shape into a cone or line, the Grayflame weapon property which lets you add damage with a channel usage, and a magic item that lets you heal constructs with your channel energy.

There aren't any of the channel-attempts-into-metamagic feats that 3.5E had, AFAIK.

 

[SlyDoubt]

The reason it was brought up is pathfinder (between 2 books) has a lot more than what you'll find in the player's handbook(3.5) for non-magical classes. Even with one book. The APG just adds a lot of other fun goodies and interesting modular stuff to consider using.

Pathfinder is entirely within the 3.5 mold but they certainly took steps to improve in some areas. I think it made non-magical classes more interesting without giving them magic-like abilities. To me it's notable, even if it isn't the kind of all encompassing change like what 4e did to making everything more or less equal.

Dannyalcatraz:
I think there is plenty you can snatch from 3.5 sources and put into a PF game. It may not convert so easily and there will be oddities but that's to be expected. I think PF as a base is not a bad idea at all. For 3.5 veterans it's fresh but still 95% familiar. My players so far have simply been excited seeing the changes in the classes/races they knew and love many of the basic but nice changes (cantrips/orisons being unlimited use/day).

So if your group likes 3.5 (which you said) but hasn't tried PF they might very well enjoy it. Most of the changes are player-centric and if they haven't had a chance to explore it yet I'm sure they'll really dig many of the changes. If you're used to running 3.5 with every feat/prc/class/race available it might not be that interesting though.

My group has always been mostly people who will play anytime they can and love to play but are usually busy with plenty else and are less inclined to read rules than simply get things going. For us, PF has been viewed as 3.5+.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not a big fan of the Divine Metamagic stuff, but Channelling to affect other targets is right along what I was looking for. Thanks!

As for the rest of the group, they're not exactly accustomed to running games with the entire universe of options- I'M the one looking to expand the game's boundaries all the time.

Still, I think the modifications I've seen thus far would be pretty palatable to most of the guys in the group.