|
I don't know. I have a hard time really looking at any of the particular negatives. I miss a couple of the things like spells from 3.5 while at the same time understanding why they were changed.
I think the potion rules could be a little clearer.
Errata is a bit small and out of date, though I know an FAQ is in the works which should help fix things.
Complaint wise honestly you could open an old issue of Dragon from after an edition change and read most of those complains and you'll end up hearing the same things.
Either someone's favorite spell/item/class/whatever was changed and they hate it, someone thinks something is over/underpowered and then people who were honestly playing a completely different game then 90% of the other people in the world are all pissed off that they weren't catered to exclusively.
That this is happening for Pathfinder is awesome, it helps legitimize it as the continuation of Dungeons and Dragons! :-D
|
Would you feel better if your Sorcerer (handwaved the fluff) and was more of a arcanist that studied a discipline and focused their innate(or psionic) magic through a sort of wild philosophy?Something else that irritates me - blood lines for Sorcerers.
It was originally a stupid rumor that -some- Sorcerers tried to spread, now it's part of the core rules. Your Sorcerer is an X-man or the child of a magical genetic experiment. It's retarded.No, that would make them Wizards.
I'd feel better if there were no core rules explanation for Sorcerers (just like there is no core rules explanation for them in core 3.0/3.5 - just an unsubstantiated rumor).
Sometimes magic happens "just because" and that's fine with me - it's magic.
To each his own. I think Bloodlines is a great addition to the sorcerer class. Also, the arcane bloodline, which is considered the default bloodline just says something like "magic runs in your family" or something to that effect doesn't it? That's kind of what you are looking for right?
To the OP: if you liked 3.5 dispite its' few flaws, I think you will like Pathfinder just as much and maybe (probably) even more!
You know what? I can see the lack of love on the cleric, too. I'm also not a fan of the way most domains fell out.
That said, I think that the clerics should have gotten a sorcerer-like treatment only instead of a 'bloodline' it would be a 'religious order' of some sort dedicated to God X.
It's a great idea, but there's a big problem with it, and that is that you end up having to be campaign specific about religions and deities. Hence, they didn't bother so Pathfinder would be setting-neutral, and I can't hold that against them myself.
On the subject of monster PCs, I did a lot of work on this solution to the problem, which some people like. Thing with monster classes is, a few players love them, but the rest can take or leave them.
|
|
What are the problems with Pathfinder? You could debate minor items based (class, spells, mechanics) on personal preference until D&D 6.0 is released, but I believe the game leaves you with enough flexibility to do just about anything you want or customize it to suit your group. Add in the extra stuff made by other companies and you have unlimited options.
I think the real problem is: Too much awesome material and not enough time to enjoy it all. I have all of the Adventure Paths, Modules, and PF Scenario's (over 100 adventures) and I doubt I will ever play half of them. Life is too short.
So I've been away from D&D for a long time, Loved 3.0/3.5, hate 4th edition with a passion. Anyway, I just found out that this Pathfinder game I've been seeing is an updated and improved 3.5. I've been doing research and finding lots of good stuff. Now is the time to ask the question I'm almost certain I'm going to regret asking, but need to ask to get a complete picture of what I'm considering getting into.
What are the problems with Pathfinder? What do its detractors say they don't like about it? What did it lose in its conversion from 3.5 that takes away from the game?
Please don't make this into a flame war.
My first thought was 'What didn't it lose?' It's still a gigantic rule set. Even with the combined PH and DMG, it's 600 pages of rules.
Personally, I dislike a great deal about the PF Cleric. In my opinion, it took a pretty great hit almost all around, while nearly every other class bothgot something new and cool and got stronger over all.
CoDzilla enough said.
You know what? I can see the lack of love on the cleric, too. I'm also not a fan of the way most domains fell out.
That said, I think that the clerics should have gotten a sorcerer-like treatment only instead of a 'bloodline' it would be a 'religious order' of some sort dedicated to God X.
It's a great idea, but there's a big problem with it, and that is that you end up having to be campaign specific about religions and deities. Hence, they didn't bother so Pathfinder would be setting-neutral, and I can't hold that against them myself.
On the subject of monster PCs, I did a lot of work on this solution to the problem, which some people like. Thing with monster classes is, a few players love them, but the rest can take or leave them.
Well sure - on the generalist/open thing, but then PF *does* have it's own setting world, and they don't seem to be in a hurry to do a crazy world-splat-blitz like WotC with all their different settings.
PF just has the one, so they totally could have done exactly that - craft the cleric and pantheon PRECISELY to their setting, and they could have added a few paragraphs about general design (you know - for those that want to customize their own settings). Given the massive re-work, and attempts to re-shape domains in a new way, it would have probably taken about as much effort and wound up, IMO, with a tighter class treatment.
CoDzilla, however, I've NO problems w/the nerf-beating it did take. I'd just like to see clerics given the more specific tailoring that sorcerer's did. Anything unplayable for the effort? Not at all. Can it be tightened up? Yes.
Just saying ...
Well, I haven't really been playing Pathfinder long enough to really tell you what doesn't work. I know what *I* like about the game, but that's not what you asked about. lol
Just let me echo these statements:
If you like 3.X, then you'll most likely like Pathfinder.
Beware of the *little* changes that were made. They'll trip you up at the table more than the big changes.
It's a great idea, but there's a big problem with it, and that is that you end up having to be campaign specific about religions and deities. Hence, they didn't bother so Pathfinder would be setting-neutral, and I can't hold that against them myself.You know what? I can see the lack of love on the cleric, too. I'm also not a fan of the way most domains fell out.
That said, I think that the clerics should have gotten a sorcerer-like treatment only instead of a 'bloodline' it would be a 'religious order' of some sort dedicated to God X.
They could have done the religious orders in a way as to leave it setting neutral, such as the Order of Valor (Iomedae, Torm, Heironeous), the Order of the Sun (Sarenrae, Lathander, Pelor), the Order of Magic (Nethys, Mystra, Boccob), the Order of War (Gorum, Tempus), the Order of Tyranny (Asmodeus, Bane, Hextor), and thats just to name a few. They could have released the major ones in the CRB and added new ones in further supplements. The orders could even span multiple faiths, like how the Oracle Mysteries are being handled.
They could have done the religious orders in a way as to leave it setting neutral, such as the Order of Valor (Iomedae, Torm, Heironeous), the Order of the Sun (Sarenrae, Lathander, Pelor), the Order of Magic (Nethys, Mystra, Boccob), the Order of War (Gorum, Tempus), the Order of Tyranny (Asmodeus, Bane, Hextor), and thats just to name a few. They could have released the major ones in the CRB and added new ones in further supplements. The orders could even span multiple faiths, like how the Oracle Mysteries are being handled.
I quite understand what you are saying, but that would take a lot of work and tie down a large flavour aspect of the class. Having general design hints for other games means a lot of DM work if your setting is not Golarian (for example, I use Pathfinder for Eberron).
I'm not saying it was impossible, but I do think that it would be very hard to do in a way that would please most people. Further, they didn't want to make the cleric more powerful than it already was. The sorcerer came out of the deal very nicely, but sorcerers were underpowered compared to wizards and clerics to begin with. The cleric needed to be toned down, no doubt about it to me.
|
CoDzilla enough said.
Enough said about what? Cleric was no easier to break than any other class. Druidzilla, Roguezila, Fighterzilla. Blah, blah, blah. That doesn't explain anything about what I said.
Besides, they included the PF deities with the Cleric. So is not like setting neutral was their full goal, especially in this regard.
They wouldn't have to be any more specific than Sorcerers are to Golarion.
The polymorph swim/breathe question is NOT a granted ability. The language specifically says 'retain the ability to breathe'. To retain that ability, you must have it in the first place. Not all creatures with a swim speed have the ability to breathe underwater, so, no, you don't retain that ability, because they never had it.
There IS no argument about Fighter - the Fighter is definitely improved, with class abilities added to its feats. Improved enough? It took the DPS away from the Barbarian, which is only proper...the Barb can do a lot more non-combat things then the Fighter. Rage was never supposed to be the equal of combat skill, it's a historical axiom. Civilized people invent the art of swordplay, Barbs just hack.
The ramping of of non-class #'s of feats is not a Fighter improvement, it's a generic character improvement, and has no basis in a discussion of the class.
Now the role of MELEE - well, that's only been improved marginally. Still can't full attack on a move or standard action, unlike spellcasters, and they've still got the easiest role to subsume by other classes, while largely unable to do the same.
Hmm. I guess you could say that the ranger could sub for the theif, the paladin for the healing cleric, and because of that, neither of them equal the fighter or barb in avg DPS. The barb is a more flexible and skilled subset of fighter, fighters should and do dominate their niche...inflicting melee dmg in combat.
Lots of problem spells and rules were modified.
Lots of feats were rebalanced.
PRoblem abilities were done away with.
Still work to do? Yes.
==Aelryinth
and btw, on clerical orders...orders are generally subsets of faith within a church, not of seperate churches. In the case of a large central faith, they are used to 'squeeze out' rival gods (the Imperial Faith in Warhammer FRPG does just that). Basically, if you have a god with three domains, and clerics can take two, then their should be three orders within the Church, following the aspects of their god. A powerful god with 4 Domains could have 6 different Orders to his church. A greater power with 5 domains could have 10 different orders of clerics, and be one politicking mess and jockeying for control of the direction of the faith!
==Aelryinth
I take umbrage on the argument that an improvement in feats is not an improvement in the Fighter because other classes can take feats as well. The fighter gets a LOT of feats. They define MUCH of what a build can do. The Fighter relies on feats for most of what he does. To say an improvement in feats isn't an improvement in the fighter is just sticking your head in the sand quid-pro-quo nonsense, IMO.
In the midst of everyone trying to be heard for their pet peeves (myself included btw.) let us not forget that everyone on this list is playing the game and cares enough to think 'their' problem is worth typing about.
Its easy to see a shopping list of gripes and think badly of the subject.
That's not my experience with it.
As a poster above said there are a lot of pages of Pathfinder, and even more 3.x\D20 before that.
.
.
.
Remember that this list of gripes isn't even as long as the combined index for the various books in question.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The conversation seems to have devolved into people arguing. The basic game is sound but complicated - a lot like 3.x. Most of us probably wouldn't be happy if it weren't.
Sigurd
I take umbrage on the argument that an improvement in feats is not an improvement in the Fighter because other classes can take feats as well. The fighter gets a LOT of feats. They define MUCH of what a build can do. The Fighter relies on feats for most of what he does. To say an improvement in feats isn't an improvement in the fighter is just sticking your head in the sand quid-pro-quo nonsense, IMO.
Get real. When you talk about the Fighter, you talk about the Fighter class, not benefits he gets outside it. ALL CLASSES are improved if you consider that everyone gets 3 more feats...in which case you've a moot argument. Everybody loves feats.
Either rephrase it to all characters are improved by feats, or strike it, because it has no bearing on the Fighter class and what abilities a Fighter gets. You're pulling in Fighter 'characters', which is a seperate focus from Fighter 'the class'.
As for Polymorph and Shapechange and Summoning beasties...yeah, those are always ripe for abuse. I really prefer the 1E rules where a Dispel Magic could actually take over a summoned beast and turn it against the caster...and Prot/Evil meant no summoned creature could touch you, period. Made playing a summoner pretty hazardous, and the power of creatures you could summon was no great shakes, and you could only command one at a time.
Summoning great and powerful beasts has always been a theme in stories, but there's always been downsides to such things, too.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I do kinda get confused by the new rules sometimes; the whole "fly spell vs. fly skill" thing just recently gave me some befuddlement...
when a levitating mindflayer mindblasts a flying attacker into a stunned condition, does the flyer bob around unconsciously like an untethered helium balloon, or does he plummet to the ground since he can't make a fly check to hover? Note that this was a combat 15 feet up in the air.....what a dreadful precedent to set for a sky combat out of doors 250 feet up in the sky: whatever you do, don't lose consciousness or you're totally hosed...
I'm hoping that the befuddlement will go away through experience....
I take umbrage on the argument that an improvement in feats is not an improvement in the Fighter because other classes can take feats as well. The fighter gets a LOT of feats. They define MUCH of what a build can do. The Fighter relies on feats for most of what he does. To say an improvement in feats isn't an improvement in the fighter is just sticking your head in the sand quid-pro-quo nonsense, IMO.Get real. When you talk about the Fighter, you talk about the Fighter class, not benefits he gets outside it. ALL CLASSES are improved if you consider that everyone gets 3 more feats...in which case you've a moot argument. Everybody loves feats.
Either rephrase it to all characters are improved by feats, or strike it, because it has no bearing on the Fighter class and what abilities a Fighter gets. You're pulling in Fighter 'characters', which is a seperate focus from Fighter 'the class'.
As for Polymorph and Shapechange and Summoning beasties...yeah, those are always ripe for abuse. I really prefer the 1E rules where a Dispel Magic could actually take over a summoned beast and turn it against the caster...and Prot/Evil meant no summoned creature could touch you, period. Made playing a summoner pretty hazardous, and the power of creatures you could summon was no great shakes, and you could only command one at a time.
Summoning great and powerful beasts has always been a theme in stories, but there's always been downsides to such things, too.
==Aelryinth
[threadjack]
1E FTW! :)
..and monsters were monsters, and PC's were PC's, and one was NEVER the other. They played by different rules entirely.
Then again.. maybe I'm thinkin 0E..
[/threadjack]
[threadjack]
1E FTW! :)
..and monsters were monsters, and PC's were PC's, and one was NEVER the other. They played by different rules entirely.
Then again.. maybe I'm thinkin 0E..
[/threadjack]
Nope, everything pre 3E was like that, although I think it was the 2E Complete Book of Humanoids that started us down this slippery path.
The starting question was what problems does Pathfinder have.
This is a legitimate question as identifying the problems and discussing them leads to getting them fixed.
There are countless other threads which indicate that there is quite a lot that people like about the game. Discussing the problems with the game isn't some sort of betrayal, it is, in fact, a testimony to the fact that people like the game - if they didn't like the game, they'd just leave rather than discuss how the game might be better.
And it just gives me some basis to deside if I really want to start throwning money into Pathfinder.
But I am impressed with this list, in that if I went anywhere and asked "What are the Problems with D&D 3.5" there would be 10 times as many posts by now and the first post would have been as long this entire thread. People probably would have also started hireing hitmen to kill off other posters too.
There's a warwoof on the wing of the threadplane!
|
|
The starting question was what problems does Pathfinder have.
This is a legitimate question as identifying the problems and discussing them leads to getting them fixed.
There are countless other threads which indicate that there is quite a lot that people like about the game. Discussing the problems with the game isn't some sort of betrayal, it is, in fact, a testimony to the fact that people like the game - if they didn't like the game, they'd just leave rather than discuss how the game might be better.And it just gives me some basis to deside if I really want to start throwning money into Pathfinder.
But I am impressed with this list, in that if I went anywhere and asked "What are the Problems with D&D 3.5" there would be 10 times as many posts by now and the first post would have been as long this entire thread. People probably would have also started hireing hitmen to kill off other posters too.
You mean we weren't supposed to this time? Does the Mafia give refunds, does anyone know?
I take umbrage on the argument that an improvement in feats is not an improvement in the Fighter because other classes can take feats as well. The fighter gets a LOT of feats. They define MUCH of what a build can do. The Fighter relies on feats for most of what he does. To say an improvement in feats isn't an improvement in the fighter is just sticking your head in the sand quid-pro-quo nonsense, IMO.Get real. When you talk about the Fighter, you talk about the Fighter class, not benefits he gets outside it. ALL CLASSES are improved if you consider that everyone gets 3 more feats...in which case you've a moot argument. Everybody loves feats.
Either rephrase it to all characters are improved by feats, or strike it, because it has no bearing on the Fighter class and what abilities a Fighter gets. You're pulling in Fighter 'characters', which is a seperate focus from Fighter 'the class'.
Fighters get more feats than anyone else and therefore benefit more from the improved combat feats than anyone else.
Yeah, they do. However, there's usually a ded fish involved.
You mean we weren't supposed to this time? Does the Mafia give refunds, does anyone know?
Can a sleep spell be made permanent?
|
|
Enough said about what? Cleric was no easier to break than any other class. Druidzilla, Roguezila, Fighterzilla. Blah, blah, blah. That doesn't explain anything about what I said.CODzilla is cleric-or-druid-zilla, for one. And it's not a matter of "breaking" the game by some oddball combination of abilities; you just took Power Attack/Natural Spell and Quicken Spell and just used wild shape and/or your spells, and suddenly you outfought the fighter and solved problems and won fights just as well as the wizard.
It's very hard to add abilities to an already-powerful base without ending up with something more powerful. Of course, it didn't stop Paizo from doing exactly that with the wizard, so I don't know what the plan was.
Oh, I understand what they are. But so what? Like I said, the same can be done with practically any other class. [ :) not yelling here]
I have infinitey more experience with the "Fighterzilla" and "Roguezilla" (because they are all stupid names) than with Cleric or Druid. That is like saying that a Fighter an potentual break Greater Weapon Specialization, so lets fix it by removing their BaB.
In my opinion, Clerics took a terrible backwards step that was not at all required, and are very bland and nearing undesirable for it. Double tha as everyone else took a leap forward, including the Druid who cannow take a Domain and have plenty of options without ven Wild Shaping.
1E FTW! :)..and monsters were monsters, and PC's were PC's, and one was NEVER the other. They played by different rules entirely.
Then again.. maybe I'm thinkin 0E..
[/threadjack]
Ah, don't get me started on 1E things they should bring back. All you have to do is look at Video Games, even today, and they still follow the same rules.
Melee fighters should have more hit points! 1E, non-melees had a max con to HP bonus of +2. I.e. Fighters always had more hit points.
Melee characters should be stronger! Non-melees never got 18/% Str, meaning max +1/+2, and the Girdles of Giant Str could only be used by fighter-types, restricting their melee dmg.
Melee characters should hit more! Yeah, BAB for clerics was 2/3, rogues 1/2,and mages 1/3!
Melee characters should attack more! Yep, you guessed it...number of attacks was based on CLASS LEVELS, not Bab. So, you wanted to do dmg in melee,you were a Fighter type. I would dearly love to bring this back. It would really keep people on the straight and true if they PrC'd and couldn't get that third or 4th iterative...
Melees should attack effectively. Yep, you guessed it...when they attacked, they attacked with everything, all the time. None of this 'full attack' stuff. No need for Pounce. They got to use their primary ability just as often as a spellcaster...every round.
Melees should be able to get to their foes. Yep, you could move your normal move and attack without a problem. Charging just let you move farther, if it was in a straight line.
Melees should have great defenses against everything. Yep, they had the best saving throw progression over time! The other classes started out better, but fighters became the best.
Melees shouldn't be penalized for armor. Yeah, armor in 1E had no max Dex, and magical armor never restricted your speed. This worked because you couldn't juice Dex like you can now, however. The current Fighter ability is a good approximation of this, but I feel it's actually something that should come with heavy armor proficiency. I nod to 4e...the combo of Armor + Dex should IMPROVE by proficiency (in 4e, it does by 1 pt per prof), and class ability should help it further.
For those who are wondering, the 1E at/round in damage was not very different over time then in 3.5 here. 2 At/round ends up as actually less then the potential damage of 4 at/round, actually, and 5/2 is almost equal. Of course, TWF for 1E was pretty broken, in comparison, but there you have it.
==Aelryinth
I do kinda get confused by the new rules sometimes; the whole "fly spell vs. fly skill" thing just recently gave me some befuddlement...
when a levitating mindflayer mindblasts a flying attacker into a stunned condition, does the flyer bob around unconsciously like an untethered helium balloon, or does he plummet to the ground since he can't make a fly check to hover?
This is a good question that could probably have some clarification added to the game rules, as /incapacitation/ in one way or the other is pretty common.
My take on it is the rules say this:
You generally need only make a Fly check when you are attempting a complex maneuver. Without making a check, a flying creature can remain flying at the end of its turn so long as it moves a distance greater than half its speed. It can also turn up to 45 degrees by sacrificing 5 feet of movement, can rise at half speed at an angle of 45 degrees, and can descend at any angle at normal speed.
So if you go unconscious, I would say you continue drifting at half-speed in the direction you were going previously... or possibly even circling in a 'holding pattern' (<45* = no check). That could obviously cause problems itself, but isn't insta-pancake if you are at high altitude. The main thing is dispelling fly still leaves floating down @60'/round, becoming unconscious should not be WORSE than that scenario.
I made a thread for this topic here, and hopefully it will be seen by the powers-that-be and taken into account to the current Errata/Update process.
|
|
The starting question was what problems does Pathfinder have.
This is a legitimate question as identifying the problems and discussing them leads to getting them fixed.
There are countless other threads which indicate that there is quite a lot that people like about the game. Discussing the problems with the game isn't some sort of betrayal, it is, in fact, a testimony to the fact that people like the game - if they didn't like the game, they'd just leave rather than discuss how the game might be better.And it just gives me some basis to deside if I really want to start throwning money into Pathfinder.
But I am impressed with this list, in that if I went anywhere and asked "What are the Problems with D&D 3.5" there would be 10 times as many posts by now and the first post would have been as long this entire thread. People probably would have also started hireing hitmen to kill off other posters too.
Well, I say get it......
nah, make up your own mind.One question I got for you, though, is this: out of all of your 3.5 stuff, how much of it do you want to use? Classes? Prestige Classes? Spell Compendium spells?
I mean, it is all convertible and what not, but whenever I'm dipping back into the old stuff, I feel uncomfortable like whatever I might be doing is kinda possibly broken, and it gives me a little bit of neurosis.
So, my feeling is like this:
a couple of mindflayers.....one encounter...snagged from 3.5e....not too much of a problem. Just did this, and the lack of a concentration skill for the mindflayers didn't seem to turn them into easy swordfodder; it was a gamey encounter that I felt the p.c.'s coulda lost but they played it out pretty good. The goofy grapple stuff didn't bother me much, because the mindflayer was fighting 6 p.c.'s and so his strategy wouldn't be to grapple anybody anyway.
If there is some sort of cohesion problem, it will be gone soon, as one encounter doesn't last that long.
However, some guy coming up saying "I wanna play a.....beguiler from the phb II....."
I think it's doable, but it makes me kinda neurotic. There's always a question hanging there; if I change stuff to amp up the beguiler, what will it break, since this beguiler is a constant in the game, unlike a one shot encounter with the mindflayer. A one shot encounter can't jack up the game too much; a constant bringover like a character class has the potential to be a butterfly farting in China making a typhoon in Clearwater, Florida or whatever.
If that stuff doesn't bother you, or everybody playing, then fine.
|
|
I do kinda get confused by the new rules sometimes; the whole "fly spell vs. fly skill" thing just recently gave me some befuddlement...
when a levitating mindflayer mindblasts a flying attacker into a stunned condition, does the flyer bob around unconsciously like an untethered helium balloon, or does he plummet to the ground since he can't make a fly check to hover?This is a good question that could probably have some clarification added to the game rules, as /incapacitation/ in one way or the other is pretty common.
My take on it is the rules say this:
You generally need only make a Fly check when you are attempting a complex maneuver. Without making a check, a flying creature can remain flying at the end of its turn so long as it moves a distance greater than half its speed. It can also turn up to 45 degrees by sacrificing 5 feet of movement, can rise at half speed at an angle of 45 degrees, and can descend at any angle at normal speed.So if you go unconscious, I would say you continue drifting at half-speed in the direction you were going previously... or possibly even circling in a 'holding pattern' (<45* = no check). That could obviously cause problems itself, but isn't insta-pancake if you are at high altitude. The main thing is dispelling fly still leaves you with featherfall, becoming unconscious should not be WORSE than that scenario.
I made a thread for this topic here, and hopefully it will be seen by the powers-that-be and taken into account to the current Errata/Update process.
Cool, because it was kinda a quandary.
Can a sleep spell be made permanent?
Yes, but the effect of permanent sleep is often referred to as 'death' instead ;)
I return to a smurfest. What a world. :P
Cool, because it was kinda a quandary.
:-)
Seriously, I only created this Avatar because I was confused on how to select an Icon for my original log in name based on my real name. It stuck. :-)
So I've been away from D&D for a long time, Loved 3.0/3.5, hate 4th edition with a passion. Anyway, I just found out that this Pathfinder game I've been seeing is an updated and improved 3.5. I've been doing research and finding lots of good stuff. Now is the time to ask the question I'm almost certain I'm going to regret asking, but need to ask to get a complete picture of what I'm considering getting into.
What are the problems with Pathfinder? What do its detractors say they don't like about it? What did it lose in its conversion from 3.5 that takes away from the game?
Please don't make this into a flame war.
There are some issues with pathfinder.
I think the fighter is better, in that he does his job better then he did before. But he still has a pretty finite use and that means an issue with 3.5 has carried over to PF. One reason is that the writers of PF refused to concider upping skill points per level for classes, it doesn't seem like much but if a fighter had 4 skill points/level he could while not being a skill monkey help in that aspect of the game more and thus be valuable out of combat in a clear cut way. Spells for a wizard help him do damage and yet also help him get involved when damage isn't the issue but gathering information or scouting is needed, a fighter with few skill points has little options.
I do feel the cleric is now not right, not like he was in 3.5 with CoDzilla (something PF fixes by not allowing the cleric spell buffs to stack very well) but in that he isn't a D&D cleric anymore. Not to me anyway. He's a healbot, with or without you trying to build him that way unless you want to for some reason do poor AoE damage. The cleric gets little to no benfit out of any armor heavier then light, and thus also loses his standing as a front liner, he doesn't turn undead unless he burns a feat (which most clerics are still starved for), and his stat needs are actually worse then they were in 3.5.
The cleric did not need more ways to heal, of all his issues in 3.5 more healing wasn't a need. But that is exactly what PF gives him. Throw in poorly built domains that are about as far from balanced against one another as to be silly and you don't have an improved class at all but one much worse then the 3.5 version.
I don't think the cleric is really less powerful then he was in 3.5, which to some means he's still broken. I think channel energy is very powerful (really too powerful for a class already seen as one of the most powerful ones in the game) but worse it forces the cleric into a roll he has been fighting against since 1e. There is no denying it now, a good cleric is a healer, even if he never memorizes one heal spell.
All that aside the biggest downer is I have not found it all that compatible with 3.5 without serious work. Things are too different to just cut and paste and there are many subtle changes that need to be adjusted for. Races are by and large more powerful while classes are a mix of being more powerful and less(though few are really any less powerful but a few like the Paladin are vastly more powerful). Also the skills change while in large part a good thing means you need to redo any stat blocks for pregen NPCs, the feat changes mean the same, and the hit die changes mean it also. Spells now do different things so it is a lot of well how does it work, that's not what I expected, ok lets change the NPCs spell list to make sure he can still do his part in advancing the plot.
It's not a bad game, but it to me diverges too much from D&D in some important ways. It has some great ideas that you can port into 3.5 to make your 3.5 game better, or you can house rule the snot out of PF. Either way you have a better game then either. If you have the time I would house rule 3.5 with some of the good things from PF. It to me would be less work then the other way around.
It's easy to get overly involved in things that really only matter to people who care way too much about D&D, like class balance. Those things don't really matter, in the long run.
SMALL imbalances don't matter, IMO.
But big ones?
Like I've said before, if you really believe that balance doesn't matter, try playing a 1st-level magic-user in Basic D&D. After casting your one spell, you'll spend the rest of the game day twiddling your thumbs and waiting for the rest of the party to finish the monsters, or else ducking in fear and hoping you don't get targetted. Sooner or later, you'll get tired of it, and say "Forget it! I'm going in and attacking!" Then you'll watch your get your character killed, and you'll say "Screw it! Next time I want a magic user, I'm going with an elf instead!"
I frequently complain about aspects of 3.X I don't like, but I nevertheless consider it to be THE D&D, because of balance.
Enough said about what? Cleric was no easier to break than any other class. Druidzilla, Roguezila, Fighterzilla. Blah, blah, blah. That doesn't explain anything about what I said.CODzilla is cleric-or-druid-zilla, for one. And it's not a matter of "breaking" the game by some oddball combination of abilities; you just took Power Attack/Natural Spell and Quicken Spell and just used wild shape and/or your spells, and suddenly you outfought the fighter and solved problems and won fights just as well as the wizard.
It's very hard to add abilities to an already-powerful base without ending up with something more powerful. Of course, it didn't stop Paizo from doing exactly that with the wizard, so I don't know what the plan was.
Oh, I understand what they are. But so what? Like I said, the same can be done with practically any other class. [ :) not yelling here]
I have infinitey more experience with the "Fighterzilla" and "Roguezilla" (because they are all stupid names) than with Cleric or Druid. That is like saying that a Fighter an potentual break Greater Weapon Specialization, so lets fix it by removing their BaB.
In my opinion, Clerics took a terrible backwards step that was not at all required, and are very bland and nearing undesirable for it. Double tha as everyone else took a leap forward, including the Druid who cannow take a Domain and have plenty of options without ven Wild Shaping.
I can honestly say that you are the first person I have ever heard of in my entire life who played 3e and had problems with fighters and rogues and not clerics.
Ever.
On one hand, congratulations on being unique! That's pretty cool! On the other hand, your experiences are so hilairously far from the norm that it's rediculous for you to assume that the rest of the game plays that way.
Clerics get domains, wizards get favored schools. They both give benefits and, what do you know, just about to the same levels. And they both get the most powerful class ability of all, full casting levels to level 9 spells.
As for Pathfinder, I'm not too keen on the per-rounds bit on bards, and I'm disappointed that monks are still overall not that hot. That's about it for my major issues though.
Oh, and as for increased feats, keep in mind that the incresed feats is a much bigger advantage for martial classes who can make better use of having more feats then it is for spellcasters, who are more restricted on what feats they cna take and how much they help