Hello there. I am only fluent in 3.5 as well as a few dabbling sessions in 2nd edition. I was wondering, from your perspective, how you would compare Pathfinder to 3.5 both in combat mechanics and Character options.
Thanks for the input in advance!
More options, many wonky things fixed. It's 3.6 or 3.75 compared to 3.5
It's a cleaned up version of 3.5. It cut a lot of the fat off (god bless CMD and CMB).
Jumping from 3.5 to Pathfinder is a very easy switch.
A cleaned up version, and alot better.
Love the Core Rulebook, and Bestiary. Would consider both Requirements to play.
The GM rulebook was good, but already had everything listed in older books, from 2nd,3rd,3.5th; so did not need it. Passed on it at book store.
The Advanced Players Guide. I own it, but true be told, will most likely never use it. Good read for ideas, but just not my cup of tea. Only thing i might use from it is spells.
Pathfinder is a better version of 3.5. If you like to play 3.5, you are likely to enjoy Pathfinder even better.
The game play very good with just Core Rulebook and Bestiary. Conversion is easy.
Once you are enough experienced, I STRONGLY suggest the Advanced Player's Guide because is full of useful things (new classes, new options for core races and classes, new equipment, spells, feats, maneuvers).
The quality of the books is quite high, expecially from the standpoint of amount of information per book. The APG, as an example, equals roughly to 4 3.5 completes and the arms and equipment guide for the amount of useful material inside.
Enjoy.
Hello there. I am only fluent in 3.5 as well as a few dabbling sessions in 2nd edition. I was wondering, from your perspective, how you would compare Pathfinder to 3.5 both in combat mechanics and Character options.
It's just 3.5 with a set of house rules, and as such has pretty much the same advantages and disadvantages as 3.5. The only thing which is slightly annoying if you know 3.5 well is that there are a myriad of small changes, so if you want to play close to the rules you will have to look up things all the time at first.
Yes, as a 3.5 fan you won't be disappointed. Pathfinder fixes a lot of the things that in 3.5 needed to be houseruled and introduced some very elegant new options.
However you have to read the players Guide from cover to cover because many many rules have small but mostly very important changes.
Also the chars are now stronger and more balanced.
The Bestiary is a blast and very useful - but you do not really need it, although it is very convenient. If you use the old MHBs then reduce the CR by one for each Monster and record CMB and CMD (which are "to hit" and "AC" of combat maneuvers).
I can only recommend the Advanced PG, even if you are new to Pathfinder. The classes in there are very very interesting and different, with Alchemist, Witch, Oracle and Inquisitor being very nice, Summoner being a bit cheesy and Cavalier being a bit the exception from the norm, i.e. boring (for me at least).
However the new talents, spells and especially the alternate options for the core classes are well worth the book alone.
But, just as the PG, you have to read this one cover to cover because to make the most out of it, because there is really no "fat" (as has been with many of the old 3.5 books by Wizards).
Cavalier being a bit the exception from the norm, i.e. boring (for me at least).
There are quite a few Cavalier order that are a blast to play (for my tastes, at least). High level Order of the Dragon is very interesting with other meleers in the party, both for RPG and mechanics.
Cavalier is indeed very difficult to play, because you could be in the situation of be a supporter like the bard, AND the melee hitter.
One should careful look at the feats in the APG. I'm quite sure there are few designed for the Cavalier, other than the teamwork ones of course :)
I can only recommend the Advanced PG, even if you are new to Pathfinder. The classes in there are very very interesting and different, with Alchemist, Witch, Oracle and Inquisitor being very nice, Summoner being a bit cheesy and Cavalier being a bit the exception from the norm, i.e. boring (for me at least).
However the new talents, spells and especially the alternate options for the core classes are well worth the book alone.
But, just as the PG, you have to read this one cover to cover because to make the most out of it, because there is really no "fat" (as has been with many of the old 3.5 books by Wizards).
I cannot second that advice. The APG is similar to the Complete series of books by WotC. Some really nice options, some crazy unbalanced stuff and lots of fillers.
|
I cannot second that advice. The APG is similar to the Complete series of books by WotC. Some really nice options, some crazy unbalanced stuff and lots of fillers.I can only recommend the Advanced PG, even if you are new to Pathfinder. The classes in there are very very interesting and different, with Alchemist, Witch, Oracle and Inquisitor being very nice, Summoner being a bit cheesy and Cavalier being a bit the exception from the norm, i.e. boring (for me at least).
However the new talents, spells and especially the alternate options for the core classes are well worth the book alone.
But, just as the PG, you have to read this one cover to cover because to make the most out of it, because there is really no "fat" (as has been with many of the old 3.5 books by Wizards).
You still consider Bouncing Spell and Persistent Spell to be "crazy unbalanced", or did you find something new ? ;)
Also, Completes were far more narrow in scope than APG is.
Can we avoid turning this thread into an APG argument? That is not the OPs question...so if you want to argue the merits of a particular book, please take it elsewhere.
To the OP: In my opinion, Pathfinder has taken a ruleset that I did love playing and running games with and streamlined a lot of the clunkier bits. Especially things like grapple or other combat maneuvers, the other more universal applications for CMB are fun as well. The way that all of the classes received an overhaul has made certain characters more viable, especially for higher level play.
Paizo has also made a strong commitment to avoiding the insane glut of prestige classes that made 3.5 so clunky towards the end. Sure, any GM could allow/disallow a particular class/book/combination/etc at their table or game...but that didn't change that the material was out there if your players were in a "3.5" game. There is a very clear line for what is Pathfinder and what isn't...its a simpler choice now to allow/disallow particular lines of book. Either way, this isn't a huge issue, just one that is made less of an issue with Pathfinder.
Paizo is also making a big push towards expanding options for the classes without requiring a lot of multiclassing or PrCs. The archetypes in the APG are a great example of this and are a concept I like a great deal. It makes it much easier to make a character fit a specific character concept without "requiring" heavy feat investment or customization/house ruling to make the concept work.
Just a few of my thoughts.
Nothing really strikes me as totally unbalanced, but, I guess we have to take our time and see what comes from it wwhen the first chars are hitting level 10+ from real play (theorycrafting can only tell you so much).
|
|
Hello there. I am only fluent in 3.5 as well as a few dabbling sessions in 2nd edition. I was wondering, from your perspective, how you would compare Pathfinder to 3.5 both in combat mechanics and Character options.
Thanks for the input in advance!
Literally, in the last two weeks my group has converted a campaign from 3.5 to Pathfinder. We are all delighted. It plays cleaner. It fixes a number of lingering oddities and adds some really subtle and inventive techniques. The character classes, to me, play better and allow for greater play at lower levels. Pick up the book and check it out. There is also a conversion guide PDF for free here. Grab it. It explains the most basic changes and conversion issues. But, having just done this myself (as did my 5 players), the conversion is a non-issue.
Enjoy and welcome!
|
Hello there. I am only fluent in 3.5 as well as a few dabbling sessions in 2nd edition. I was wondering, from your perspective, how you would compare Pathfinder to 3.5 both in combat mechanics and Character options.
A lot more options. That's the good side and bad side in one. If you're a 3.5 player, you're gonna love PF. New players tend to get scared when trying to play something simple like barbarian and then getting lost in a huge number of rage powers
As for APG, it's like any DnD splatbook - lovely, but use with caution :)
Upsides: Options options options options...did I say options? Reduced gooftardedness of a few key elements of 3.5 that always caused headaches. Additional subtle streamlining of the 3.5 rules (clarifying some loop holes in skills, spells, etc). The base setting is well done enough that we haven't pulled in any of our homebrew or previously visited campaign worlds. There are also some good takes on the class revisions that make them more robust and scale a little better with one another.
Downsides: Some significant nerfage of spells. With so many options it's easy to build two characters with the same base stats, race, class, etc and have them be miles apart from each other at mid to high level in terms of number-crunched output which slightly favors a min-maxed approach to character building (obviously each group will have different feelings about this depending on their play style). As has been mentioned above, you will find that some of the common rulings accepted and used in 3.5 for certain task resolutions have been dusted over slightly requiring a GM to re-read the rules.
With such a rules heavy system there is no way to fix some things without breaking others. How you feel about the broken vs the fixed is entirely personal opinion. I personally carry my pathfinder core rule book around with me like a freakin' teddy bear.