|
It'll become as dense once they have as much material.
And it's a good thing so long as the material is all interesting and mechanically sound. While not universally true by any means, they've generally done a significantly better job than 3.5 did. (And please no one degenerate this thread into another martial/caster debate.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say Pathfinder is more dense than 3.5 is but in a substantially superior way. 3.5 is great and PF recognizes that but Wizards never took full advantage of it.
Paizo has created a campaign setting which they expand on constantly in a coherent fashion (unlike Greyhawk or Færûn) through novels, comics, short stories, one shot adventures, a videogame, and finally and most importantly:; Adventure Paths. Through it all they manage to include something for every player type (again, in a coherent fashion) which is far superior to what Wizards was ever willing to do with 3.5. or what they're willing to do with any edition of D&D.
I do worry about the "bloat" from time to time but I've decided all I really want is the A.P.'s, I can just use the S.R.D. to build any charactor I could want without having to pay for the "bloat".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feels to me like I'm able to do more with less in Pathfinder.
So now that Pathfinder has been around for several years, there's a bunch of splatbooks out. Lots of player companions, adventure paths, supplements, ultimate X, etc. And a bunch of 3rd party material, too. We've got several dozen classes and several times as many archetypes. At what point will Pathfinder become as material-dense as regular 3.5e? And is that a good thing?
I don't know when it will become as material dense as 3.5 - a long way off, I'd guess (given the rate of hardcovers/player companions vs the rate of 3.5 splatbooks in its heyday). However, I think it's a good thing, especially given wizards' approach to 5E (where the flow of splatbooks is very slow).
If you want a supported game with lots and lots of player options and the potential to get reward-for-effort in optimisation efforts, then Pathfinder is a great fit. If you want a supported game where you don't need lots of books (or lots of webpages) and where it's quite hard to build either an exceptional or a crap character then 5E is a good fit.
I think it will prove to be a real strength if the market manages to diversify a little to the point where it can support two large, supported games with significantly different fundamental approaches.
So now that Pathfinder has been around for several years, there's a bunch of splatbooks out. Lots of player companions, adventure paths, supplements, ultimate X, etc. And a bunch of 3rd party material, too. We've got several dozen classes and several times as many archetypes. At what point will Pathfinder become as material-dense as regular 3.5e? And is that a good thing?
There was another thread several months back where we figured out the values of 3.5 vs Pathfinder:
Pathfinder - 2009-2015 (7 years), taking Occult Adventures into account
Classes: 38
Prestige Classes: 86; only 16 in the PRD
Setting-Neutral Hardbound Rulebooks (PRD): 19
Other Hardbound Books (Golarion): 2-3
Total Pagecount (including softcover booklets): approx. 12,500
D&D 3.5 - 2004-2008 (5 years)
Classes: 47
Prestige Classes: 150+
Setting Neutral Rulebooks (5 Core plus "Greyhawk"): 47
Campaign-Setting-Specific Books: 22
Total Pagecount for 3.5: 14,359 (this may be higher, as this is all that could be remembered at the time)
----
At the rate of 256-320 pages per Hardcover, 3 Hardcovers per year, 32 pages per Player Companion, and 64 pages per Campaign Setting, Paizo will overcome 3.5's Pagecount by about this time next year (mostly from Player Companions and Campaign Setting sourcebooks).
That being said, that's approximately 15,000 pages in 8 years, with substantially fewer Classes, about half as many Prestige Classes, and with 1/3 the number of Hardcover books.
On top of this, the vast majority of the Pathfinder hardcover books' content are available for free online in the PRD.
I'd say Pathfinder is more dense than 3.5 is but in a substantially superior way.
Actually, as I just demonstrated, 3.5 was SUBSTANTIALLY more dense than Pathfinder, having put out more pages in 5 years than Pathfinder has in 7.
D&D 3.5 had an average of about 3000 pages per year for 5 years. Had it continued until 2012, Pathfinder wouldn't catch up to D&D 3.5 until halfway through 2023.
What Pathfinder IS more dense in, however, is content - a SUBSTANTIAL amount of 3.5 material was basically waxing-philosophical fluff; almost all of Pathfinder's material, especially the PRD, is game content, rather than fluff.
PF still HAS fluff, but it's far less prominent than 3.5; 3.5 padded their books heavily.
I wasn't too happy with 3.5 at the end, but mainly because they threw the sponge on trying to have any internal coherence to the system, as they were too busy preparing for the 4e transition.
Quantity is not a problem, as long as the quality follows. (And adventures)
Funny enough, there WAS a last-minute flair of absolute WIN at the end of 3.5:
The PHBII, Spell Compendium, and Magic Item Compendium were EASILY some of the best products ever printed by WOTC. It's just sad that a Feat Compendium never saw the light of day.
PHBII, yes. Spell/Magic Item Compendiums were so-so for me.
I loved Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, and the Book of Nine Swords, though, so my opinion is obviously invalid. ^_^
MIC was nice to have ALL those magic items in one place, plus a few new more, like grouped magic items, armor and weapon stones, etc.
The Random Treasure system, however... I still get chills from that glorious piece of design.
The Pathfinder random treasure rules are better than the Core 3.5 ones, but the rules presented in the MIC blows them BOTH out of the water. I'm still saddened that they can't be ported word-for-word over to Pathfinder because it wasn't Core...
Contributor
|
PHBII, yes. Spell/Magic Item Compendiums were so-so for me.
I loved Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, and the Book of Nine Swords, though, so my opinion is obviously invalid. ^_^
MIC was nice to have ALL those magic items in one place, plus a few new more, like grouped magic items, armor and weapon stones, etc.
The Random Treasure system, however... I still get chills from that glorious piece of design.
The Pathfinder random treasure rules are better than the Core 3.5 ones, but the rules presented in the MIC blows them BOTH out of the water. I'm still saddened that they can't be ported word-for-word over to Pathfinder because it wasn't Core...
I love me some random treasure, and the format was decent. (I always used the Hoard Generator from Draconomicon for non-magical wealth, though.)
I was just turned off by the more "game-y" items; a lot of weirdly constructed and (IMO) under-flavored items made from a mechanical starting point rather than a flavor one. Probably better game design; they just didn't feel as fantastical to me. Of course, I am at heart one of those "Magic items should feel special!" people, so no surprise. I liked cloaks of arachnida and belts of dwarvenkind and all sorts of fluff like that.