New Oldtimer

[Blackpawn]

Hey folks -

My gaming group is made up of D&D oldtimers (1970's vintage) that played D&D from the Basic set in 1977 up through 4E. My group burned out on 4E quite some time ago, and we've been gaming in other systems. Recently on a whim we dug out an old unfinished 3.5 campaign and played a session or two with it and had a good time, but some of our 3.5 "bad memories" bagan to surface.
After hearing good things about Pathfinder, I decided to pick it up to see about converting things over and running Pathfinder instead of 3.5

My questions are sort of around the advice/suggestions for me and my group. I picked up the core book and the APG at my LGS, and have started stepping through the rules. I'm afraid of missing key rules points that may be skimmed over or missed because of my assumptions of the way 3.5 works. Are there common pitfalls that can be avoided by neophyte Pathfinder players and DMs?

Also, what other supplements do I need to have a fully rounded game? I noticed that the core rules and APG have mostly positive reviews, however there are somewhat mixed reviews of the "Ultimate" books for magic and combat.

Is there anything else I should know or be aware of?

Thanks for the help.

[Whiskey Jack]

Blackpawn wrote:

Recently on a whim we dug out an old unfinished 3.5 campaign and played a session or two with it and had a good time, but some of our 3.5 "bad memories" bagan to surface.

After hearing good things about Pathfinder, I decided to pick it up to see about converting things over and running Pathfinder instead of 3.5

I am very curious what the "bad memories" are that you associate with 3.5... mainly because I am wondering if switching to Pathfinder will fix those for you. To give advice of what supplemental material to use or any other advice about Pathfinder, I feel we need to delve into the dynamic of your group that is motivating you to seek Pathfinder as a new system... after all, Pathfinder is 3.5 at it's core, so if there was something about 3.5's mechanics that troubles your group, it may still impact you in Pathfinder.

Can you give more detail? Knowing what it is that your group is seeking could help with any advice you get. :-)

WJ

[Kolokotroni]

You definately need the Bestiary though you can get all the information in the bestiary 1 and 2 in the prd if you want it.

The ultimate books have mixed reviews because some of the material in them is questionable and thus some people didnt like them. But i'd say as long as you dont take the whole books and instead take them a piece at a time into your game there is lots in there to justify purchase. Just the magus and the ninja make them worthy purchases in my mind.

As for things you might want to avoid, there is this thread pathfinder rules you think people dont know that discusses many of the things people might miss switching over from 3.5

[Treppa]

Kolokotroni wrote:

As for things you might want to avoid, there is this thread pathfinder rules you think people dont know that discusses many of the things people might miss switching over from 3.5

I second this recommendation and thank Kolokotroni for finding it.

[Blackpawn]

Awesome, thanks for the quick feedback already! To answer Whiskey Jack, there's a few things that sort of tweak us the wrong way about 3.5

We're not entirely happy with the way skills are handled in 3.5, and we'd heard that Pathfinder improves on that system.

3.5 combat is somewhat boring. I hit you. You hit me. We never do anything interesting because the rules for trying to do interesting things are kind of 'meh' or too unwieldy. I'm very interested in PFRPG's implementation of combat maneuvers.

Also, 3.5 encourages a spicy melange of multiclassing options...there's no real reason to stick with a single base class for your whole run because the base classes are somewhat lacking in flavor and power compared to a character that is thickly multiclassed/prestiged. I'd heard that the classes in PF are much better designed and taking a single class to max level is a fully viable option in PF. I also understand that a number of the 3.5 classes that could have been great (but weren't) are fixed in Pathfinder.

Also (and importantly), Pathfinder consolidates rules. We've got every single 3.5 book out there, and sometimes finding rules in the right section of the right book/splat/whatever can take a huge chunk of time.

[leo1925]

Arg Kolokotroni beat me to finding the link.

[houstonderek]

You can have a very robust Pathfinder experience with just the APG, the Core book and the Bestiaries. There is some debate as to the value of the "Ultimate" books (I think Magic is ok, and Combat is a waste of time, personally).

Forget everything you know about grappling, bull rush, etc. The new CMB/CMD rules streamline everything pretty well and remove a lot of the confusion. Quite a few of the SoD and SoS spells have changed, as has Dispel Magic and a few others, so make sure you read the spell descriptions and whatnot.

Some of the issues with 3x still exist, but they've been blunted for the most part.

Oh, and I know you're old school and been doing this for a while, but there's some decent stuff in the Game Mastery Guide, even if you skip most of the "how to be a good GM" stuff (some new insights, but mostly a rehash of nearly 40 years of gaming advice). They have a bunch of cool tables and some new rules that work out pretty well.

Anyway, good luck with the new game and I hope you have a blast!

[Treppa]

Don't forget that the PRD is a great resource.

And if you're old timers, this spell might bring back memories.

Enjoy!

[Whiskey Jack]

Blackpawn wrote:

We're not entirely happy with the way skills are handled in 3.5, and we'd heard that Pathfinder improves on that system.

3.5 combat is somewhat boring. I hit you. You hit me. We never do anything interesting because the rules for trying to do interesting things are kind of 'meh' or too unwieldy. I'm very interested in PFRPG's implementation of combat maneuvers.

Hm... well, Pathfinder does (in my opinion) "clean up" skills a bit and hopefully that will help it fit better with your group. (Unless the problem is that your group doesn't like the mechanics of rolling against a DC, in which case its still the same.)

Getting players to learn how to do combat maneuvers, or exploit other combat options, could be hard... but should be worth it. You could try picking up the Critical or Fumble decks that Paizo makes to add some spice to your combats.

Having a PC or tablet handy with the PRD on it will help tons when it comes to finding something fast.

[Douglas Muir 406]

Blackpawn wrote:

We're not entirely happy with the way skills are handled in 3.5, and we'd heard that Pathfinder improves on that system.

It does. It's still the d20 system, and recognizable as 3.x. But it gets rid of various sillinesses and unnecessary complications -- like cross-skill synergies, or the "3x at first level" rule that was making people take their first level in rogue.

It's the same system, but cleaned up. Whether you will like it depends on whether you hated the bugs in the system, or the system itself.

Blackpawn wrote:

3.5 combat is somewhat boring. I hit you. You hit me. We never do anything interesting because the rules for trying to do interesting things are kind of 'meh' or too unwieldy. I'm very interested in PFRPG's implementation of combat maneuvers.

Don't get your hopes up. PFRPG combat makes a bit more sense and the maneuver system is MUCH better. That said, it's still recognizably 3.5, which means it's still "I hit you, you hit me". Full attacks dominate mid and high level combat. Feats and maneuvers help a little, but it's not all that different from 3.5. It's better,yes, but only incrementally.

Again: if you hated the bugs in the system (whack-ass 3.5 grappling rules), good news, they fixed those. But if you disliked the system itself, well, it's much the same.

Blackpawn wrote:

Also, 3.5 encourages a spicy melange of multiclassing options...there's no real reason to stick with a single base class for your whole run because the base classes are somewhat lacking in flavor and power compared to a character that is thickly multiclassed/prestiged. I'd heard that the classes in PF are much better designed and taking a single class to max level is a fully viable option in PF. I also understand that a number of the 3.5 classes that could have been great (but weren't) are fixed in Pathfinder.

All true. You can still multiclass and have fun, but the single classes are competitive. ALL the single classes are competitive. You can play a straight fighter, straight rogue, straight monk or whatever, and it's great. The design team clearly put a LOT of effort into this, and it paid off -- multiclassing is an option, but it is no longer de rigeur. Every core class can be played to 20th level.

Also, every core class is well balanced against every other core class. Druids are good but they do not run away with the game. Clerics are good but they don't dominate. Paladins no longer suck. Bards are no longer an afterthought. You can play any core class and be competitive, be successful, and have fun.

Also-also, Paizo has successfully resisted PrC bloat. There are relatively few PrCs and they are mostly pretty good -- flavorful and balanced. If I have a quibble here it's that the core classes are now so good that some PrCs are slightly nerfed by comparison.

Again, it boils down to whether you hated 3.5 (in which case you'll hate Pathfinder too) or whether you hated certain things about 3.5. If the latter, Pathfinder is likely to be a winner for you.

-- Oh, and somebody mentioned having a table with the PFSRD on it. Not necessary but definitely helpful.

cheers,

Doug M.

[Ravenbow]

Two quick things that can cause hickups for us old timers the first time

1. Detect Magic is a cantrip now.
2. Rogue Sneak Attacks affect undead.

There is a lot more in the thread linked earlier called "pathfinder rules you think people dont know"

It is an insightful read if new or if you are out of practice with 3.x+