Gunslingers still lose to ragelancepounce and archers, as I recall, even with touch AC factored in. They don't win the DPR contest. Granted, I haven't done any testing myself and my memory is of a few threads months back, so I could very well be wrong.
I'm not keen on the numbers myself, I just compared two like things. Ranged touch attacker at 30 feet and someone with almost all day SU abilities.
Also did some mandatory rabbling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We did this about 2-3 years ago.
Since you couldn't get new 3.5 material and we had some new people in the group who didn't have any of the 3.5 books, we started allowing PF stuff.
We did a campaign where both 3.5 and PF were allowed. Throughout the course of that campaign we found that the PF stuff just ran a bit smoother (for example grab and/or grappling rules) and there didn't seem to be as many stupid rules abuse super god character builds.
Most of the classes got some additional stuff and became a bit more playable relative to each other.
Most of us like the archtypes better than 14 prestige / multiclass conglomerations to get your concept. We also liked how the spread out abilities give an actual reason to stick with a class rather than having almost all of it by level 2 so you might as well switch to something else.
So the next campaign was pretty much just a PF campaign where we allowed in some 3.5 stuff if you really wanted it. There were a few feats and spells that some guys liked.
The current campaign, no one even wanted any of the 3.5 stuff.
{{ However, we have one guy that still loves the Dragon Marked Houses from Ebberon. }}
To me, compared to 3.5 pathfinder has a more solid system in everything in general. However, like D&D, the class is still not balance. Fighter and rogue are weaker than other classes in their strength while far weaker in their weakness. No point playing pathfinder. I tried to convince people fighter and rogue are not bad, but they won. I gave up on pathfinder because it can never be as balance as thieve's world. Casters just cast too fast and too powerful while fighter is too weak at late levels because their equipment simply isn't strong enough, and spell resistance armor only gives you +19 when it should had been at least 25-30. Rogue can't stealth pass magic and disarm magic item unnoticed so they can't even use their sneak attack on casters. Caster can do anything as long as they have the right spells and right wonderous item. Very stupid. That's why I stopped playing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say that 3.5 is the king of dipping, though I consider that positive in a way. Lots of options that you can choose to build your character into precisely what you want if you know the rules well enough. I would actually prefer if there was more then a handful of meaningful PRCs in Pathfinder as most heavily penalize you for taking them. Pathfinder had some excellent ideas like Archetypes and filling in dead levels and their new classes have been generally excellent. Except for you Cavalier. The ACG classes look like a neat take on multiclassing, and unlike the "theurge" PRCs of 3.5, they look to let you blend classes starting at level 1 which is a good thing. Oh and Dreamscarred did a fantastic job on PF psionics. They made the Soulknife playable, which I'm pretty sure required a high Craft (RPG Mechanics) check.
|
I'm tooling up to start my next campaign soon, and debating switching over to PF from 3.5. I'm well versed in 3.5, and building up a decent knowledge of PF. This would be a home brew game with primarily core and a few house rules whichever way I go, players have a basic knowledge of both and will happily play either.
So, sell me on why putting in the work (enjoyable work) to do the conversion is worth it.
There are some awesome combo's using PF and 3.5 material. There should be no selling involved here! If you had it in your heart to do one final campaign/adventure path using both systems (3.5 and PF) before doing away with the 3.5, you would be doing an awesome service to your players. It would be a campaign for the ages and would be a prolonged 15-18 level farewell to the old system and a hearty 'good day' to the new. Your players would enjoy it (I feel that sincerely).
I also think it would fare much better than Star Trek Generations for sure!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth converting because Pathfinder is a living, supported system, whereas 3.5 is not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth converting because Pathfinder is a living, supported system, whereas 3.5 is not.
Sometimes I become concerned about its life choices, but this. :)
It's worth converting because Pathfinder is a living, supported system, whereas 3.5 is not.
And can you imagine any other product being handled like that?
Can you imagine a car company that when it's new model comes out stops repairing or selling parts for last years?
If the model is 12 years old?
Mind, considering how easy it is to port PF things back into 3.5, you may as well consider PF support 3.5 support.
Which makes sense, the entire PF thing coming about so paizo could continue publishing content and all.
It was only five years old, then.
Then again, there is enough support material (crunch and adventures) to keep 3.5 viable for many more sessions than most people will ever play.
Absolutely.
But it's also much easier to find people playing Pathfinder. Of course that hardly matters if you've got a stable group. Really depends on what one is after I suppose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes I become concerned about its life choices, but this. :)
You and me both, but I think we're firmly in the minority. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you'll find many defenders of Wizards' product support program in these parts.
To be fair, these parts is the paizo forums, that company that makes pathfinder and not DnD. I would think the bias is pro pathfinder.
If the model is 12 years old?
3.0 is 2000, 3.5 is 2003, 3.75 is 2008. According to Wikipedia anyway, your conversion time/beta may vary. The model is nearly 15 years old, and has evolved and branched and has a few variants. Lots of d20 fantasy variants.
Over all stronger system, but still has some of the problems of the d20 system, namely balance between classes and higher levels. Unlimited zero level spells. CMB and CMD mechanic are much better than old look up grapple, trip, whatever rule and try to figure out what was happening. Not required to level dip, but still can (with no Xp penalty too). Archetypes, feats that work, oh, and like stated above, Dreamscars fix on Psionics. They did an amazing job. Last, developers actually listen/answer/respond to questions, comments, and concerns.
3.0 is 2000, 3.5 is 2003, 3.75 is 2008. According to Wikipedia anyway, your conversion time/beta may vary. The model is nearly 15 years old, and has evolved and branched and has a few variants. Lots of d20 fantasy variants.
Pathfinder (what I assume you mean by "3.75") was released in 2009; 4th came out in 2008.
3.0 is 2000, 3.5 is 2003, 3.75 is 2008. According to Wikipedia anyway, your conversion time/beta may vary. The model is nearly 15 years old, and has evolved and branched and has a few variants. Lots of d20 fantasy variants.Pathfinder (what I assume you mean by "3.75") was released in 2009; 4th came out in 2008.
Yes, pathfinder was 3.75. I also stated your idea of its release my vary with conversion/playtest to give that buffer for 2007-2009. I still remember beta when I got a snake familiar to throw fireballs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth converting because Pathfinder is a living, supported system, whereas 3.5 is not.
3.5 is Undead!
Which is the great thing about 3.5, and eventually PF as well. They can never really die as long as people want to keep the rules around. Yeah OGL!
'That is not dead which can eternal lie, yet with stranger eons, even death may die.'
It's okay as a system. Has pretty much all the same issues 3.5 had but less total content to fix those problem.
The published adventures are good.
Golarion is a cool setting.
It's okay as a system. Has pretty much all the same issues 3.5 had but less total content to fix those problem.
The published adventures are good.
Golarion is a cool setting.
Pretty much spot on.
Since the OP is already running 3.5 -- and therefore already has to deal with the problems the systems share -- I can't really see the downside of switching. YMMV.
Yes, pathfinder was 3.75. I also stated your idea of its release my vary with conversion/playtest to give that buffer for 2007-2009. I still remember beta when I got a snake familiar to throw fireballs.
For the record, I wasn't actually trying to be pedantic by questioning what you meant by 3.75 -- I have actually had people get annoyed when I refer to Pathfinder that way (though I personally think it is a very apt description).
Yes, pathfinder was 3.75. I also stated your idea of its release my vary with conversion/playtest to give that buffer for 2007-2009. I still remember beta when I got a snake familiar to throw fireballs.For the record, I wasn't actually trying to be pedantic by questioning what you meant by 3.75 -- I have actually had people get annoyed when I refer to Pathfinder that way (though I personally think it is a very apt description).
Well... if I remember right it was advertised as DnD 3.75. I could swear there is a poster in one of the local stores with the CRB artwork with DnD 3.75, dungeons and dragons lives on! or something to that effect in there. I've always thought of it as 3.75, not sure who else would steal that title at the moment.
Since the OP is already running 3.5 -- and therefore already has to deal with the problems the systems share -- I can't really see the downside of switching. YMMV.
For what its worth, I think the loss of extra content from 3.5 can be a bit off-putting. Some of the extra content in 3.5 was pretty amazing, but pathfinder regurgitates a lot of the same or similar content from its core. Some of those things that made those problems pop up less or balanced alternative options in 3.5 were pretty good for the game I thought, and its probably good to have other options than vancian and full attacking if you just aren't that interested. Its been over a decade, I'm sure people have their opinion about both of those things.
Yes, pathfinder was 3.75. I also stated your idea of its release my vary with conversion/playtest to give that buffer for 2007-2009. I still remember beta when I got a snake familiar to throw fireballs.For the record, I wasn't actually trying to be pedantic by questioning what you meant by 3.75 -- I have actually had people get annoyed when I refer to Pathfinder that way (though I personally think it is a very apt description).
I think the earliest edition of PF could be called that fairly, but no longer.
For what its worth, I think the loss of extra content from 3.5 can be a bit off-putting. Some of the extra content in 3.5 was pretty amazing, but pathfinder regurgitates a lot of the same or similar content from its core. Some of those things that made those problems pop up less or balanced alternative options in 3.5 were pretty good for the game I thought, and its probably good to have other options than vancian and full attacking if you just aren't that interested. Its been over a decade, I'm sure people have their opinion about both of those things.
Agreed. I myself would use one as my base system -- probably PF -- and then port over the unique classes from the other one. But the OP mentioned that he'll be running core-only either way, so all those fun classes are a moot point anyway. :/
I think the earliest edition of PF could be called that fairly, but no longer.Yes, pathfinder was 3.75. I also stated your idea of its release my vary with conversion/playtest to give that buffer for 2007-2009. I still remember beta when I got a snake familiar to throw fireballs.For the record, I wasn't actually trying to be pedantic by questioning what you meant by 3.75 -- I have actually had people get annoyed when I refer to Pathfinder that way (though I personally think it is a very apt description).
...When did PF 2e arrive?
Well... if I remember right it was advertised as DnD 3.75. I could swear there is a poster in one of the local stores with the CRB artwork with DnD 3.75, dungeons and dragons lives on! or something to that effect in there...You're probably thinking of "3.5 Thrives!" which was the blurb on some of the early PF advertising materials.
Yeah, found it with that. 3.5 survives crossed out with big red lettering underneath saying it thrives.
When I transitioned my group from 3.5 to pathfinder, it was the familiarity to 3.5 and the ability to incrementally adjust to the changes. Later when archetypes came out it's the ability to flesh out an idea without having to multiclass to the hilt. Heck I even bought Santiago: A Myth of a Far Future and am running Pathfinder Sci Fi now.
That's actually the only thing that I do miss in Pathfinder.
The old AD&D rules about multiclassing, but apart from that I think PF is a worthy follow up of D&D 3.5.
Yes, the rogue is indeed underbalanced, but that's the only true flaw I noticed.
I personally think that the Ulimate Guides are unbalanced, save a few exceptions.
The Advanced Player Guide is a good source of extra material, although I personally disaprove of the gunslingers. I want to play non-gunpowder.
I especially love the new rules for magic item creation and think it provides players with good options, although a GM should make sure it doesn't get unbalanced.
I dislike the rules for mundane item creation as I do not think the normal times for creating items is reasonable.
I prefer to fix the problem by multiplying the value in gp by 2/2.5/3 in stead of 10 and think that generally fixes the problem (my opinion).
But the rules for combat are great in my opinion and provide the players with lots of options. Both experienced and inexperienced players can play the system as the GM can easily adjust his strategy to not completely wipe out newbe's and make a real challenge for experienced players.
The bulletin boards provide great explanations about certain rules and options. I learned some thing here, I did not realise reading the rules.
Certain issues remain, but nothing is perfect and I still have the feeling most issues are or will be adressed.
So I hope to welcome you in the Pathfinder Realms and do enjoy yourself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, traits, templates, non-3.5 classes, the Hero Point system, new combat maneuvers like Reposition and Dirty Trick... these were all systemic changes as opposed to the "more feats, spells, and prestige classes" which were also included (but were pretty standard fare for every 3.5 add-on.)
Traits existed in another form, pathfinder doesn't have a lot of 3.5 classes, and 3.5 did add classes in splat, combat maneuvers have a lot of flaws, archetypes are a lot like 3.5's variants. There's a lot of hit or miss there, and sometimes its just done in a different format.
Pathfider has actually stuck with using the same system a lot more than 3.5 in its splats, imo. 3.5 you could have psionics, incarnum, Invocation, and martal adepts and more for new classes and sub-systems, and a lot of the books did have new subsytems for gear like magic crystals or grafts(there were several kinds of graphs with several kinds of rules attached), or skill tricks. You also had feats that did new things in combat or added more options at once, like tactical feats. Each one of the enviroment books also had a lot of examples of different enviroments and effects for being in those enviroments for your own campain, including the taint system in vile darkness.
What were traits in 3.5?
What were traits in 3.5?
Yes though they functioned differently, and there were also racial variants and subtypes(remember how many kinds of dwarves and elves there were in 3.5?) that pathfinder did remove and made some races less flexible feeling because of it sometimes. There were also archetypes under another name. A lot of this stuff was under unearthed arcana and in the other books released in 3.5. There was quiet a bit in the sourcebooks that people might say is new in pathfinder because not all of it is OGL and certainly not in the PHB, but information on things in pathfinder is really easy to find.
I really do like the hexes that the witch has. Of course, the hexes are just a stripped-down version of the 3.5 warlock, and it would be really dishonest to say that it was somehow an original idea that someone at Paizo came up with. It would be perfectly reasonable to give them credit for editing and simplifying the system though. Then they gestalted the warlock-lite with yet another wizard-clone...
I actually like warlock much more than I like the witch because they have some differences. Warlock had a lot more combat functional abilities and really felt like a spellcaster without limits on spells. Witch pretends to be an all day caster in a lot of ways, once per day per person for a lot of debuffs and a lot of the witch's buffs have minutes per day attached, even the ability to make a weak claw attack. Coupled with the warlock having an offense ability made it much more awesome to me. Well... that and he didn't have child scent :p.
The big change from 3.5 was the APG. Its really what made pathfinder not just 3.5 with a few house rules but an actual revolution. It introduced archtypes with swap out and change base class abilities for more specilized thematic ones that are built around a theme.The other big change was that in general, core classes stopped being a thing to escape from by going into a PrC as soon as possible.
I totally agree with both these statements.
So if the OPer is going to stick with pretty much just Core, then I would say he has to ask himself, "Is 3.5 Core good enough, or do I want it basically on steroids, i.e. Pathfinder."
Well as a player I find the core classes in PF much more interesting particularly when combined with archetypes. A friend and I have a theory that the core classes in 3.5 were made as plain and boring as possible to drive players towards getting other books for the PrCs.
The description in class and level field on my character sheet is now shorter then your average novella since there's less pressure to combine numerous classes and PrCs. I like it that specialist Wizards are more distinct from one another from the get go with the addition the associated powers. It always irritated me in 3.5 how you could have two supposedly specialist Wizards of different schools be functionally identical. Also I'd actually consider playing a generalist Wizard in PF which I never would have done in 3.5.
Our party's warrior fell in love with PF when its combat manoeuvre system enabled him to very simply pick up a wolf and throw it of a ledge. Though he has now developed a minor obsession with grappling but is yet to take improved grapple.
Gunslingers still lose to ragelancepounce and archers, as I recall, even with touch AC factored in. They don't win the DPR contest. Granted, I haven't done any testing myself and my memory is of a few threads months back, so I could very well be wrong.
Well, the gunslingers are quite good against large foes, witch, unfortunately, late game has tons of, and early game doesn't have enough ac to deal with you anyway.
However that's not to say they don't have counters- agile builds that don't wear armor.
High dr foes that they can't bypass- even dr ten will knock a 30 dex gunslinger down to 1d6+5 (assuming +5 weapon) damage per hit, more with deadly aim, of course.
Or, have the opponent be smart and sunder the gun after getting shot a few times if they are really big.
Our party's warrior fell in love with PF when its combat manoeuvre system enabled him to very simply pick up a wolf and throw it of a ledge. Though he has now developed a minor obsession with grappling but is yet to take improved grapple.
He used the throw combat maneuver? Or you made it up like everyone else?
3.5 had a throw maneuver... Touch attack as a trip attempt and throw them so they land prone! Though again, it was hidden in the splats and done in a different way.(setting sun discipline, mighty throw line of maneuvers. It eventually turned into throwing a guy 60 line and doing 6D6 damage to everyone in the way and other goodies. Was pretty cool. in theory anyway.).