Hey guys,
I'm currently compiling a thread that breaks down the Pathfinder RPG, the promises, the facts, the opinions and the myths.
What I'm lacking is much discussion on these boards. What I would like to hear are your opinions on Pathfinder, based on what you've experienced, read or heard.
What did they get right? What did they get wrong? What didn't they fix? What did they fix? What you think the purpose of creating Pathfinder was and how close to the mark they hit.
I will be compiling quotes from this thread (among others) for breakdown in the topic.
If you don't want to be quoted, simply add that request and I'll respect your decision.
quoting someone else with a +1 doesn't really help - I'm not counting votes.
Thanks everyone!
Ah Pathfinder, I'm starting a campaign right now. I'm really trying to get my group hooked.
First thing's off, it isn't balanced. How could it be? It's backwards compatible with 3.5 for godssakes! I mean, if you're trying to play 3.5 balance isn't what you should look for. If you want to play a dnd-like rpg that is balanced, play 4th- love it or hate it 4th is the most balanced tabletop I've ever seen.
Second, it is more balanced than 3.5. They nerfed both druid and cleric (not enough to balance them with fighter, but what are you going to do?) The bonuses to wizards and sorcerers don't make them more broken than they already are, just give them a reason to not prestige out.
Now for the specifics.
In my new campaign, someone playing a half-orc. This is unprecedented! Human isn't the only option for race now!
The new favored class system, rather than forcing stereotypes, promotes simple builds!
They have an organized system for hp and bab is great! Our bards and rangers have never been healthier!
The new skill system is easy- I like it as a player and DM. The consolidated skills are iffy (perception and acrobatics are god skills) but it really benefits everyone. In 3.5 you either didn't have enough skillpoints at all and therefor skimmed them over, or if you were a skill-monkey you could never get enough. The consolidation had helped everyone, from fighters to rogues.
New class features that are interesting and exciting- particularly bloodlines. Also every "pet" class feature has a viable alternative. I may never see a paladin's mount again. Speaking of which the new animal companion class feature works so well. I like that there's no advantage to switching out to the new bear model every few levels. 3.5 penalized loyalty in druids.
The nerf bat to druids was brutal, but not unfair. i love druids, specifically wildshape ones, but the change isn't a bad one.
Polymorphing was severely weakened, but...it's still really useful and plenty powerful. Wotc tried so many times to fix polymorph that by the time 4e came out they junked it. Paizo did polymorphing rather well.
The summoning spells seem more balanced to each other- I can't be sure until the bestiary comes out.
The book itself is glorious, just for the size and production value. I love Wayne Reynolds' art even if there are odd things here and there (the iconic wizard has a gimp arm.) As an art school drop out I can tell he rushes his sketched a bit- so little mistakes aren't fixed in time and wind up as part of the pictures, but his art style is so evocative, so inspiring- I can see why his work is in such high demand.
Now, that's enough of me gushing, if I think of anything else I'll add it in later. Pathfinder isn't perfect, but other will come in droves to point that out. But I like it. It took my favorite game an skewed it to my tastes even more. To paraphrase their hilariously cheesey line-- 3.5 doesn't survive-it thrives!
god that's almost as cheesey as wildshaping into a shambling mound and casting call lightning on yourself. wait, you can't do that anymore...damn.
The new Concentration system, I love it, it give a needed nerf to casters while removing a skill tax from them, wich gives skills and costuzition power to sorcerers and clerics 
(enjoying the ironig of actually improving something through a nerf).
Repeating what I posted in a previous thread you can now play a barbarian 20 without suffering from Advanced Suckage Syndrome.
Most autowin spells are nerfed, also spells that make things useless were toned down, anuling the cliche that high level characters are inmune to everything that can be thrown at them. Now they are merely resistant.
The only thing that kills me is that now you jump with dex, its kind of a logicide. In my campaing I houseruled it into Acrobatics(tumble,balance) and athletics(jump,swim,climb) and so are doing a few freinds in their campaings.
Yawar
The new Concentration system, I love it, it give a needed nerf to casters while removing a skill tax from them, wich gives skills and costuzition power to sorcerers and clerics (enjoying the ironig of actually improving something through a nerf).
Question: How's giving all casters concentration for free and basing it off their primary stat a nerf? Not following.
Also - for everyone:
Clerics can actually cast their prepared spells instead of converting them into healing.
This is from the Paizo website in the FAQ for Pathfinder. Does this have something to do with the minor healing ability they get with chanelling energy? Does anyone know what they are claiming here? To my knowledge (and our experience), Clerics still need to cast lots of spontaneous heal spells.
Is there a summary somewhere of the differences btw pathfinder and 3.5? That would be useful, it would seem.
10d6 to all in 30 feet 7 times a day isn't minor, though it can't do all the healing that a party needs. Especially if your not using the vigor spells. that being said, the vigor spells rock the healing world leaving other similar spells in it's wake- especially when persisted.
Now, most clerics I've played never did waste all their spells on healing, because my group is a cohesive unit. But with newbie group the cleric's overpoweredness is lesson because they spend every round doling out the cure spells.
So, yeah, they're referring to the channel energy healing benefit-which isn't major, but it is helpful, believe me.
A list of differences would be difficult to compile, as difficult as 3e-3.5. Only more obvious and longer.
Short list- changed classes and races, new skills set up, some skills changed, several feat changes, some cool new feats, specific spell change polymorph overhaul, better xp system that works well with CR... several item tweaks. honestly the book is worth buying but if you don't have fifty dollars sitting around try here: paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ it's the pathfinder reference document which is more complete than the 3.5 one- paizo is actually giving the system away. I bought the book because I like paper, like having it on hand and the tome is glorious.
The new Concentration system, I love it, it give a needed nerf to casters while removing a skill tax from them, wich gives skills and costuzition power to sorcerers and clerics (enjoying the ironig of actually improving something through a nerf).Question: How's giving all casters concentration for free and basing it off their primary stat a nerf? Not following.
The DC for casting defensively is 15 + spell level*2, also since it is base on caster level (no +3 trained bonus) and your main stat its not as easy to boost as it was in 3.5.
Its harder to cast defenseively, wich is the main, if not the sole, reason people put ranks in concentration back in 3.5. Thats a nerf to me.
Yawar
Thanks Yawar - that makes sense.
MinstrelintheGallery, yeah, I suppose it's pretty good (though your example is a 20th level character). My experience so far is DM'ing a negative energy Cleric - so I'll be interesting in seeing how the positive energy Cleric plays out when I get a chance.
Ah Pathfinder, I'm starting a campaign right now. I'm really trying to get my group hooked.
First thing's off, it isn't balanced. How could it be? It's backwards compatible with 3.5 for godssakes! I mean, if you're trying to play 3.5 balance isn't what you should look for. If you want to play a dnd-like rpg that is balanced, play 4th- love it or hate it 4th is the most balanced tabletop I've ever seen.
Balance is the onus of the GM, not the manufacturer. A good GM plays up to all players strengths while occaisonally exposing their weaknesses.
4th isn't balanced, it's stupid. It's the most ridiculous system I've seen, if you want an MMORPG like experience without a computer, then play 4th. If you want an actual Table top roleplaying game, play 3.5
Now, what is pathfinder? I've never actually heard of it before.
Is there a summary somewhere of the differences btw pathfinder and 3.5? That would be useful, it would seem.
There is a free downloadable booklet called Pathfinder Conversion Guide or some such. If you have time, you can check their version of the SRD, available here.
Overall I like it and plan to run a campaign with it (I am doing one with the Beta rules). On first look it does look better than the 3.5, but it probably could use a few houserules here and there. BTW, I miss the Beta version half-orcs. +2 to strength and wisdom are imo much better than a simple +2 to anything.
Vistarius, Pathfinder is an alternative ruleset, designed by Paizo using the 3.5 as a base. It is supposed to update the system somewhat, yet still be close enough to be compatible with it. Think of it as DnD 3.75 and you might not be very far off.
Races: Ability score modifications at low levels is too much. I would have added three more ability increases across the levels for a total increase of +8. Half-Elf got a much needed improvement. In Pathfinder if I was going to multiclass, I would instantly think Half-Elf
Multiclassing: I like that a favored class is determined by the character not the game.
CLASSES:
Barbarian: Don't like the change to Rage where it is a certain number of rounds per day, a Barbarian shouldn't be able to turn it off at will. As far as the Rage Powers are concerned I like a lot of them, but some just don't make sense. Guarded Stance, low-light vision, darkvision, moment of clarity have no place in a rage. Also, see Bard to a much lesser extent.
Bard: I have always thought the Bard should be a Prestige Class only
Cleric: Interesting changes, glad they removed Heavy Armor prof.
Druid: Should not exist and never does in my campaigns. You want a druid in my campaign, make a Cleric and pick an elemental domain and animal or plant and call it a druid. End of story.
Fighter: Good stuff here. I would have changed the Armor training by adding an ability to convert Armor protection into DR #/-. Sometimes a fighter just knows they are going to get hit, this way they could use their armor to absorb some of the damage. Just giving them DR 5/- at 19th is kind of strange, and to have that on top of the Armor Protection all of a sudden in incongruent to me.
Monk: See bard. In a 4 person group I don't see where the Monk fits. He isn't a tank, and if there is a tank, then some other important role is going un-filled.
Paladin: Should be a Prestige class as well
I am going to stop there. IMO there should be 4 (maybe 5) core classes. Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard (maybe a Sorcerer/Warlock type). The other "core" classes should be Prestige.
When I saw what they did to the classes in 4e, I knew it wasn't for me. The same for Pathfinder but in a different way. The system isn't enough of a change from 3.5e to warrant me buying new books and teaching the players the nuances. It just feels like a collection of house rules, if I want that I will use my own, not someone elses.
Actually, I'm more or less ok with the barbarian's rage lasting so long as s/he wants it - it's no better nor worse than the previous mechanic, and I definitely imagine the barbarian straining to keep the pace just a little bit longer or winding down after a powerful enemy was defeated. It's the powers that I'm not really a fan of. Really, getting low-light vision in rage? WTH? Oh, and apparently Paizo also thinks DR 1/- is absolutely awesome.
As for the fighter, one of my few gripes post the beta is the Armor Training nerf. It used to give AC as well, and really set the fighter as the go-to guy when you want pure nonmagical badassness. Right now the feature shines if you have high enough dexterity score to make use of the extra dexterity bonus, but is not much use to a warrior with 10-14 dex.
The only thing that kills me is that now you jump with dex, its kind of a logicide. In my campaing I houseruled it into Acrobatics(tumble,balance) and athletics(jump,swim,climb) and so are doing a few freinds in their campaings.
Yawar
You could jump with dexterity in 3.5 if you took a feat. Agile Athlete from Races of Wild (sorry I had to point this out because I almost always take this feat).
I like pathfinder in general, I just hope people start getting the book so I can play/run a game with it.
4th isn't balanced, it's stupid. It's the most ridiculous system I've seen, if you want an MMORPG like experience without a computer, then play 4th. If you want an actual Table top roleplaying game, play 3.5
This is a forum about PF, not trolling. I happen to play 3rd and 4th and find they both have merits. Please keep the rude to a minimum.
Anyway, Pathfinder. Yeah, still not a 'balanced' game. But it is better. All classes get something new and cool, even if the nerf-bat comes out once in a while. The key is there are a lot more options for a single class, from the extremely simplistic (Paladin Mercies, Fighter Armor/Weapon training), to flavorful, fun, and complex (Rages, Rogue abilities, Wiz schools and Sorc lineages). But the classes are still extremely similar to their predecessors.
The biggest change is CMB/CMD, Combat maneurvers which consolidate Trip, Sunder, and such. Easier to use, harder to actually do something. A monster's defence is based on BAB, Dex, Str, and size. It gets really high really fast for upper-tier monsters.
Speaking of monsters, I believe they went to 4th ed.'s exp. amounts, not CR, for designing encounters. Which (as a DM) is one of my favorite things about 4th.
Heck, look closely enough and over half the changes are based upon 4th ed. or SWSE. Which is awesome for me, since I like those systems more than I ever did 3rd.
Classes and Races:
Races all got better. The 1/2 races are significiently better, with either a +2 of choice or +2 to 2 stats there is much less need for other races/ subraces. The teifling, aasimar, and other +1 races can now be treated as no CR adjustment since they are more of the bencemark for the rebalances.
Classes:
Barbarian - Rounds of rage instead of per-days means the barbarian can rage when needed more often and not get jipped in a boss fight. Reduces the 5-min work day. Rage enhancements are interesting, annd allow custimization.
Bard - All around good increase, fits its intended roll better. Bardic music got a needed boost, and condenced skill list means they can be a Jack-of-all-trades.
Cleric - Turning got it's much-needed revamp, and new feats can have it affect other things. Domain powers got better, otherwise a good class stayed the same.
Druid - Wildshape is weaker (no more 'I win because I choose X') but is much easier to use. And as said before, pets are better.
Fighter - Weapon/Armor training are cool, but not really anything new. Combat for a fighter stays 'I attack', but there are new WF tree feats that are good. The fighter seems to finally benefit from all the feats it gets.
Monk - Flurry got better, feat selection is better. Otherwise mostly the same.
Paladin - New options instead of mount. Lay-on-hands mercies means the paladin can take the weight of healing off the cleric.
Ranger - Feat selection for combat form, favored terrain while not affecting combat does add benefits.
Rogue - Tons of new options, basically taking the 11+ talents and scaling them down for low-level use. SA affects more enemies now too.
Sorcerer - Aside for lineages, which are pretty cool, no change. The heritage stuff just isn't that good.
Wizard - Still a powerful class. Schools are set up nicely, but act a lot like UA's alt rule. No reason to have a familiar anymore with focuses.
I really like alot of what pathfinder has done. It adds a bit of balance to the party, and overall does an excellent job.
I like what they have done with the skills mostly, I never saw why disable device and open lock where 2 seperate skills (a lock IMO is a device). Perception (spot+listen+search) makes spreading those skill points much easier.
The classes recevied alot of customization options, Sorcerous bloodlines in particular. It gives player the chance to make a charcter more their own. They even made a fighter playable, giving him specialties alongside his bonus feats, rather than forcing him to spend a feat for a +1 to attack.
The feat progession is one thing I absolutely love. Who doesn't want more feats?
Overall, I enjoy what they have done. And my group in transitioning over to Pathfinder now. Which (considering the rule tyrants I play with) is a big step in and of itself.
Having athletics and acrobatics as different skills, based off strength and dexterity respectively, is a very good idea. I think I will take it for my campaign.
Overall I like what they've done with the skills. I haven't looked at the rest yet.
As for the fighter, one of my few gripes post the beta is the Armor Training nerf. It used to give AC as well, and really set the fighter as the go-to guy when you want pure nonmagical badassness. Right now the feature shines if you have high enough dexterity score to make use of the extra dexterity bonus, but is not much use to a warrior with 10-14 dex.
I miss the fighter's armor training from the Beta, though - it also gave straight-up AC bonus when you were in armor. Right now the feature is worth very little if you don't have 16+ dexterity - whether a MW full plate has a max dex bonus of +2 or +5 means little when you have a dexterity of 10. I think slowing the progression and putting the AC bonus back in would be worthwhile, and establish fighters as the kings and queens of non-magical donkey-kicking.
I believe you failed your save against the Déjà Vu psionic power.
Oops, sorry. Corrected.