Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SlyDoubt" data-source="post: 5447977" data-attributes="member: 6667337">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+.</blockquote>

Verification