Is Pathfinder Worth it? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Is Pathfinder Worth it?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
boraxe
Dec 29, 2009 11:25:14 The group I'm in is sticking with 3.5. I've no problem with that per se, I like 3.5, but at the same time I've also heard many good things about Pathfinder. If it is indeed the "bugfixed" version of 3.5, and if it has an open-source option for the couple fo broke-ass players in the group, it may be a viable upgrade option for us.

What I'd like is to hear is the straight dope, a nuts-and-bolts discussion of the pros and cons bereft of hyperbole about how "awesome" or "fail" it is. Is it worth me laying down my cash for the book, is it worth the upgrade, how different is it really from 3.5, is there an open-source option, etc.

Cheers.
#2
oxybe
Dec 29, 2009 13:15:26
The group I'm in is sticking with 3.5. I've no problem with that per se, I like 3.5, but at the same time I've also heard many good things about Pathfinder. If it is indeed the "bugfixed" version of 3.5, and if it has an open-source option for the couple fo broke-ass players in the group, it may be a viable upgrade option for us.

What I'd like is to hear is the straight dope, a nuts-and-bolts discussion of the pros and cons bereft of hyperbole about how "awesome" or "fail" it is. Is it worth me laying down my cash for the book, is it worth the upgrade, how different is it really from 3.5, is there an open-source option, etc.

Cheers.

honestly?

at a first glance it's Paizo's houserules in a hardcover book.

it does have a SRD @ www.d20pfsrd.com/ so for you cheapskates it's still virtually playable without a book.

the main problem i have with pathfinder is that it's 3.5 v.2.0 it's kept the gist/core rules of the 3.5 engine so there will be lots of familarity but also a lot of it's core problems.

it generally brought up all the classes power-wise and gave them all new tricks, reworked the skill mechanics a bit, tweaked and added feats, ect... a lot of stuff works just differently enough that you will probably need to put away the 3.5 PHB if you're planning on going pure pathfinder.

my main gripe though? they didn't change what was really needed: the spellcasters. specifically the spell lists.

casters have been toned down a bit with a few spell nerfs, but they can still open doors, be invisible, fly and alter reality within the span of 6 seconds with little chance of failure, while the fighter gets a few extra sword/axe/dire-double-guisarme-voulge-bec-de-corbin tricks.

the skills though... nice work. some, but not enough IMO, consolidation but it's a start. no more cross-class skills! you also don't get 4x at first level so a wizard only gets a 2+int skill points at first level, can put points in stealth (hide+move silently) without any problem. if he puts it in his knowledges, spellcraft, ect... he gets a +3 bonus as they are "class skills" . multiclassed characters just have a really big "class skill list"

it has interesting ideas, but it's still another 3.5, warts and all.
#3
mbelcher
Dec 29, 2009 14:19:35 My group is playing our first Pathfinder campaign. We're three sessions in now and I LOVE it!! I prefer 3.5 over 4th, and for me Pathfinder is even better than 3.5.

Of course, everyone's opinion will be different. We're all looking for something slightly different from our games. Give it a shot and see how it works for you!
#4
mbelcher
Dec 29, 2009 14:26:21 I just realized you're looking for more than "I love/hate it".

I like the skills as they are. I think 4e consolidated way too much. Pathfinder found a happy medium.
And instead of penalties for cross-class skills, you get bonuses to trained class skills.

Grapple and trip checks are a lot more straightforward in Pathfinder too. You get your bonus to all trip/grapple/etc checks and your DC for being tripped/etc. It's easily laid out like AC.

I'm playing a spell caster and I'm happy with the spells. 1st levels are mainly fluff with only a few really useful ones Each consecutive level has a higher percentage of useful spells. That seems realistic to me.

All the complaints I personally had about 3.5 were fixed for Pathfinder. So I'm satisfied.

Also, it's nice that everything you need is contained in one single book. Great for those of us who can't afford to buy 5 books to run a basic adventure.
#5
oxybe
Dec 29, 2009 15:46:09

Also, it's nice that everything you need is contained in one single book. Great for those of us who can't afford to buy 5 books to run a basic adventure.

one nitpick: 2 books. the MM with the updated monsters and other player races is seperate from the big red
#6
exile1337
Dec 29, 2009 16:12:08 Personally I would take melee class fixes, and skill changes (but add concentration back). Then I would drop the whole spell fixes (hey I hate nerfs), and the CMD/CMB. The reason for dropping CMD/CMB is because they nerf melee classes as a fighter of equal level can't trip each other, resulting in once again melee doesn't get anything nice.
#7
modern_iconoclast
Dec 29, 2009 16:36:01
If it is indeed the "bugfixed" version of 3.5, -snip- how different is it really from 3.5, -snip-

Cheers.

I currently play in both a 4th and a pathfinder campaign (that campaign used to be 3.5 we rebooted it with the pathfinder rules).

Did it fix any bugs? Well, our group played with only a few books from 3.5 so we did not have problems before really that needed be fixed and I agree we tweaked a few thing with houserules but we mostly kept them in pathfinder.

How different? Well, again our group only found different options, a few tweaks on classes some we liked some not, but overall it is very similar.

We're having a good time with the different options Pathfinder brings but it's not that different IMO, merely another option.

-MawOfAcamar
#8
cherubaddon
Dec 29, 2009 16:51:54
I'll agree with Hater here: if you like d20, it's probably the thing for you. The major fixes to 3.5 it made are to the things I felt most needed fixing, races and the skill system. The fact that my current character is a half-elf ranger testifies to that ;). Also, the main problems of some deficient classes, namely, no interesting abilities, has been remediated, so fighters, rangers, monks and sorcerers are a lot more fun to play now. Not necessarily more powerful, but more interesting. Oh, and one of my favourite PrCs (Dragon Disciple) got a makeover and now kicks ass.

And yes, there is an SRD, and if you make an account at Paizo and check regularly, you can get your hands on all the beta-testing stuff for free.
#9
moonglum
Dec 29, 2009 17:34:46

What I'd like is to hear is the straight dope, a nuts-and-bolts discussion of the pros and cons bereft of hyperbole about how "awesome" or "fail" it is. Is it worth me laying down my cash for the book, is it worth the upgrade, how different is it really from 3.5, is there an open-source option, etc.

Cheers.

The group that I play with wanted to stick to 3.5, and I had a lot of home brew 3.5 material for my campaign (custom religions, races, etc.) that I didn't really want to convert in a hurry, so I decided to try pathfinder.

Also, I have played and DM'ed quite a bit of 4th edition Living Forgetten Realms organized play, and I have played 8 years of 3rd edition/3.5 edition. I think I even wrote a bit of Scarred Lands stuff that you also wrote on (your icon seems familiar).

Anyway, if you are choosing between pathfinder and 3.5, I would go with pathfinder. You can use all your 3.5 stuff with it, fighters and rogues are cooler, and many of the somewhat broken spells are fixed (glitterdust lets you save at the end of each turn you are blinded, for example). They change the special maneuver rules a little, so that grappling, etc. is a little more straight forward, although I have to say that I really never had a trouble with the 3rd edition grapple rules myself. The core rules and monsters are all open source, and you don't actually need to buy the books. For myself, I like having the core rule book to look at when I have other info up on my laptop. I don't actually use the physical pathfinder monster manual much, though it has beautiful illustrations, because I like to copy and paste that stuff from the web page into my adventure texts.

On the minus side, the rules are different enough that you will have to re-learn stuff (how spells work, how combat maneuvers work, the exact definitions of some conditions that you had hitherto memorized, how certain magic items work, how poison and disease work, etc.), and it may be more trouble than you think it will be (it has been for me). There are still some issues that 4th edition addressed well (needing magical healing all the time, complex battles that require you to be on neural enhancing combat drugs to effectively DM, etc.).

One change in pathfinder that I am still evaluating (it might be good or bad, I haven't decided): spell casters are a little weaker in that they can more easily have their spells disrupted. You have to beat a monsters CMB to cast a spell while grappled, and there is no longer a concentration skill. Instead of concentration, a spell caster uses level + spell casting skill mod. Casting defensively is also fairly hard (DC 15 + 2x spell level). Since I play 2 wizards in 2 different 3.5 games whose DMs are thinking of switching to pathfinder, this worries me.

#10
mynameisjake
Dec 29, 2009 19:38:48
The group I'm in is sticking with 3.5. I've no problem with that per se, I like 3.5, but at the same time I've also heard many good things about Pathfinder. If it is indeed the "bugfixed" version of 3.5, and if it has an open-source option for the couple fo broke-ass players in the group, it may be a viable upgrade option for us.

What I'd like is to hear is the straight dope, a nuts-and-bolts discussion of the pros and cons bereft of hyperbole about how "awesome" or "fail" it is. Is it worth me laying down my cash for the book, is it worth the upgrade, how different is it really from 3.5, is there an open-source option, etc.

Cheers.

Pros:

Skill system is much better. Dropping the whole Cross Class skill system allows for much greater flexibility in character design.

Races are tweaked, for the better IMHO

Classes are much more interesting. Fighters get a big boost, rogues get more flexibility, Clerics are more interesting, Sorcerors are far more interesting, Wizards (esp. Diviners) get some interesting abilities, altho casting in combat is significantly more difficult. Sorcerors and Wizards also get some very nice 'at will' abilities, so they never, ever, run completely out of magic. What is really nice about all the characters, tho, is that they been redesigned so that you actually want to stay in one class for the entire 20. PrC's aren't nerfed or anything, but the core classes are simply more interesting than they used to be.

Feats have been rebalanced. Do not assume you know how a feat works. LOOK IT UP!

Spells have been rebalanced. Read them carefully. Some of the changes are subtle, but important.

Combat is essentially the same, altho special maneuvers work differently. Again, read them closely. they are, however, an improvement. Much quicker to use, since only one roll is needed.

Cost: PF PDFs are cheap, and the rules are online as well.

Cons: Very few. Backward compatibility can be an issue. PF is very well balanced as it is. I recommend playing with the PF rules only, and using WotC splatbooks with great caution. In fact, why risk messing it up. Just start over.

In general, PF is a great improvement over 3.5, but the similarity between the games can be confusing. How Power Attack works, for example, is very different. Problems can arise when the same terms can mean two entirely different things. If you stick to the core rules, then building uber-characters is very difficult. If you start tossing in the same stuff that was broken in 3.5, then you're going to get a broken game of Pathfinder. Power gamers will absolutely hate PF because of the rebalance. Everyone else will probably love it, once the initial ajdustment period is over.

One thing that I cannot stress enough is to read everything. Don't assume you know how any aspect of the game works.

#11
mynameisjake
Dec 29, 2009 19:51:09
Personally I would take melee class fixes, and skill changes (but add concentration back). Then I would drop the whole spell fixes (hey I hate nerfs), and the CMD/CMB. The reason for dropping CMD/CMB is because they nerf melee classes as a fighter of equal level can't trip each other, resulting in once again melee doesn't get anything nice.

This just isn't true. Assuming two fighters of equal level and stats, the attacking fighter would need to roll an 11 on a d20 to trip the defending one. If he rolled a 1, the attacker would be knocked prone instead. For every point of dex. stat bonus the defender has, the target number goes up by one, so if the defending fighter had a dex of 18, the attacking fighter would need to roll a 14. If he rolled a 4 or less, the attacking fighter would be tripped instead.

As for not getting anything nice, fighters get a feat at every single level, plus special armor and weapon abilities. They get plenty of nice things.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 boraxe Dec 29, 2009 11:25:14	The group I'm in is sticking with 3.5. I've no problem with that per se, I like 3.5, but at the same time I've also heard many good things about Pathfinder. If it is indeed the "bugfixed" version of 3.5, and if it has an open-source option for the couple fo broke-ass players in the group, it may be a viable upgrade option for us. What I'd like is to hear is the straight dope, a nuts-and-bolts discussion of the pros and cons bereft of hyperbole about how "awesome" or "fail" it is. Is it worth me laying down my cash for the book, is it worth the upgrade, how different is it really from 3.5, is there an open-source option, etc. Cheers.
#2 oxybe Dec 29, 2009 13:15:26	The group I'm in is sticking with 3.5. I've no problem with that per se, I like 3.5, but at the same time I've also heard many good things about Pathfinder. If it is indeed the "bugfixed" version of 3.5, and if it has an open-source option for the couple fo broke-ass players in the group, it may be a viable upgrade option for us. What I'd like is to hear is the straight dope, a nuts-and-bolts discussion of the pros and cons bereft of hyperbole about how "awesome" or "fail" it is. Is it worth me laying down my cash for the book, is it worth the upgrade, how different is it really from 3.5, is there an open-source option, etc. Cheers. honestly? at a first glance it's Paizo's houserules in a hardcover book. it does have a SRD @ www.d20pfsrd.com/ so for you cheapskates it's still virtually playable without a book. the main problem i have with pathfinder is that it's 3.5 v.2.0 it's kept the gist/core rules of the 3.5 engine so there will be lots of familarity but also a lot of it's core problems. it generally brought up all the classes power-wise and gave them all new tricks, reworked the skill mechanics a bit, tweaked and added feats, ect... a lot of stuff works just differently enough that you will probably need to put away the 3.5 PHB if you're planning on going pure pathfinder. my main gripe though? they didn't change what was really needed: the spellcasters. specifically the spell lists. casters have been toned down a bit with a few spell nerfs, but they can still open doors, be invisible, fly and alter reality within the span of 6 seconds with little chance of failure, while the fighter gets a few extra sword/axe/dire-double-guisarme-voulge-bec-de-corbin tricks. the skills though... nice work. some, but not enough IMO, consolidation but it's a start. no more cross-class skills! you also don't get 4x at first level so a wizard only gets a 2+int skill points at first level, can put points in stealth (hide+move silently) without any problem. if he puts it in his knowledges, spellcraft, ect... he gets a +3 bonus as they are "class skills" . multiclassed characters just have a really big "class skill list" it has interesting ideas, but it's still another 3.5, warts and all.
#3 mbelcher Dec 29, 2009 14:19:35	My group is playing our first Pathfinder campaign. We're three sessions in now and I LOVE it!! I prefer 3.5 over 4th, and for me Pathfinder is even better than 3.5. Of course, everyone's opinion will be different. We're all looking for something slightly different from our games. Give it a shot and see how it works for you!
#4 mbelcher Dec 29, 2009 14:26:21	I just realized you're looking for more than "I love/hate it". I like the skills as they are. I think 4e consolidated way too much. Pathfinder found a happy medium. And instead of penalties for cross-class skills, you get bonuses to trained class skills. Grapple and trip checks are a lot more straightforward in Pathfinder too. You get your bonus to all trip/grapple/etc checks and your DC for being tripped/etc. It's easily laid out like AC. I'm playing a spell caster and I'm happy with the spells. 1st levels are mainly fluff with only a few really useful ones Each consecutive level has a higher percentage of useful spells. That seems realistic to me. All the complaints I personally had about 3.5 were fixed for Pathfinder. So I'm satisfied. Also, it's nice that everything you need is contained in one single book. Great for those of us who can't afford to buy 5 books to run a basic adventure.
#5 oxybe Dec 29, 2009 15:46:09	Also, it's nice that everything you need is contained in one single book. Great for those of us who can't afford to buy 5 books to run a basic adventure. one nitpick: 2 books. the MM with the updated monsters and other player races is seperate from the big red
#6 exile1337 Dec 29, 2009 16:12:08	Personally I would take melee class fixes, and skill changes (but add concentration back). Then I would drop the whole spell fixes (hey I hate nerfs), and the CMD/CMB. The reason for dropping CMD/CMB is because they nerf melee classes as a fighter of equal level can't trip each other, resulting in once again melee doesn't get anything nice.
#7 modern_iconoclast Dec 29, 2009 16:36:01	If it is indeed the "bugfixed" version of 3.5, -snip- how different is it really from 3.5, -snip- Cheers. I currently play in both a 4th and a pathfinder campaign (that campaign used to be 3.5 we rebooted it with the pathfinder rules). Did it fix any bugs? Well, our group played with only a few books from 3.5 so we did not have problems before really that needed be fixed and I agree we tweaked a few thing with houserules but we mostly kept them in pathfinder. How different? Well, again our group only found different options, a few tweaks on classes some we liked some not, but overall it is very similar. We're having a good time with the different options Pathfinder brings but it's not that different IMO, merely another option. -MawOfAcamar
#8 cherubaddon Dec 29, 2009 16:51:54	I'll agree with Hater here: if you like d20, it's probably the thing for you. The major fixes to 3.5 it made are to the things I felt most needed fixing, races and the skill system. The fact that my current character is a half-elf ranger testifies to that ;). Also, the main problems of some deficient classes, namely, no interesting abilities, has been remediated, so fighters, rangers, monks and sorcerers are a lot more fun to play now. Not necessarily more powerful, but more interesting. Oh, and one of my favourite PrCs (Dragon Disciple) got a makeover and now kicks ass. And yes, there is an SRD, and if you make an account at Paizo and check regularly, you can get your hands on all the beta-testing stuff for free.
#9 moonglum Dec 29, 2009 17:34:46	What I'd like is to hear is the straight dope, a nuts-and-bolts discussion of the pros and cons bereft of hyperbole about how "awesome" or "fail" it is. Is it worth me laying down my cash for the book, is it worth the upgrade, how different is it really from 3.5, is there an open-source option, etc. Cheers. The group that I play with wanted to stick to 3.5, and I had a lot of home brew 3.5 material for my campaign (custom religions, races, etc.) that I didn't really want to convert in a hurry, so I decided to try pathfinder. Also, I have played and DM'ed quite a bit of 4th edition Living Forgetten Realms organized play, and I have played 8 years of 3rd edition/3.5 edition. I think I even wrote a bit of Scarred Lands stuff that you also wrote on (your icon seems familiar). Anyway, if you are choosing between pathfinder and 3.5, I would go with pathfinder. You can use all your 3.5 stuff with it, fighters and rogues are cooler, and many of the somewhat broken spells are fixed (glitterdust lets you save at the end of each turn you are blinded, for example). They change the special maneuver rules a little, so that grappling, etc. is a little more straight forward, although I have to say that I really never had a trouble with the 3rd edition grapple rules myself. The core rules and monsters are all open source, and you don't actually need to buy the books. For myself, I like having the core rule book to look at when I have other info up on my laptop. I don't actually use the physical pathfinder monster manual much, though it has beautiful illustrations, because I like to copy and paste that stuff from the web page into my adventure texts. On the minus side, the rules are different enough that you will have to re-learn stuff (how spells work, how combat maneuvers work, the exact definitions of some conditions that you had hitherto memorized, how certain magic items work, how poison and disease work, etc.), and it may be more trouble than you think it will be (it has been for me). There are still some issues that 4th edition addressed well (needing magical healing all the time, complex battles that require you to be on neural enhancing combat drugs to effectively DM, etc.). One change in pathfinder that I am still evaluating (it might be good or bad, I haven't decided): spell casters are a little weaker in that they can more easily have their spells disrupted. You have to beat a monsters CMB to cast a spell while grappled, and there is no longer a concentration skill. Instead of concentration, a spell caster uses level + spell casting skill mod. Casting defensively is also fairly hard (DC 15 + 2x spell level). Since I play 2 wizards in 2 different 3.5 games whose DMs are thinking of switching to pathfinder, this worries me.
#10 mynameisjake Dec 29, 2009 19:38:48	The group I'm in is sticking with 3.5. I've no problem with that per se, I like 3.5, but at the same time I've also heard many good things about Pathfinder. If it is indeed the "bugfixed" version of 3.5, and if it has an open-source option for the couple fo broke-ass players in the group, it may be a viable upgrade option for us. What I'd like is to hear is the straight dope, a nuts-and-bolts discussion of the pros and cons bereft of hyperbole about how "awesome" or "fail" it is. Is it worth me laying down my cash for the book, is it worth the upgrade, how different is it really from 3.5, is there an open-source option, etc. Cheers. Pros: Skill system is much better. Dropping the whole Cross Class skill system allows for much greater flexibility in character design. Races are tweaked, for the better IMHO Classes are much more interesting. Fighters get a big boost, rogues get more flexibility, Clerics are more interesting, Sorcerors are far more interesting, Wizards (esp. Diviners) get some interesting abilities, altho casting in combat is significantly more difficult. Sorcerors and Wizards also get some very nice 'at will' abilities, so they never, ever, run completely out of magic. What is really nice about all the characters, tho, is that they been redesigned so that you actually want to stay in one class for the entire 20. PrC's aren't nerfed or anything, but the core classes are simply more interesting than they used to be. Feats have been rebalanced. Do not assume you know how a feat works. LOOK IT UP! Spells have been rebalanced. Read them carefully. Some of the changes are subtle, but important. Combat is essentially the same, altho special maneuvers work differently. Again, read them closely. they are, however, an improvement. Much quicker to use, since only one roll is needed. Cost: PF PDFs are cheap, and the rules are online as well. Cons: Very few. Backward compatibility can be an issue. PF is very well balanced as it is. I recommend playing with the PF rules only, and using WotC splatbooks with great caution. In fact, why risk messing it up. Just start over. In general, PF is a great improvement over 3.5, but the similarity between the games can be confusing. How Power Attack works, for example, is very different. Problems can arise when the same terms can mean two entirely different things. If you stick to the core rules, then building uber-characters is very difficult. If you start tossing in the same stuff that was broken in 3.5, then you're going to get a broken game of Pathfinder. Power gamers will absolutely hate PF because of the rebalance. Everyone else will probably love it, once the initial ajdustment period is over. One thing that I cannot stress enough is to read everything. Don't assume you know how any aspect of the game works.
#11 mynameisjake Dec 29, 2009 19:51:09	Personally I would take melee class fixes, and skill changes (but add concentration back). Then I would drop the whole spell fixes (hey I hate nerfs), and the CMD/CMB. The reason for dropping CMD/CMB is because they nerf melee classes as a fighter of equal level can't trip each other, resulting in once again melee doesn't get anything nice. This just isn't true. Assuming two fighters of equal level and stats, the attacking fighter would need to roll an 11 on a d20 to trip the defending one. If he rolled a 1, the attacker would be knocked prone instead. For every point of dex. stat bonus the defender has, the target number goes up by one, so if the defending fighter had a dex of 18, the attacking fighter would need to roll a 14. If he rolled a 4 or less, the attacking fighter would be tripped instead. As for not getting anything nice, fighters get a feat at every single level, plus special armor and weapon abilities. They get plenty of nice things.