Should I get Pathfinder?

[Ravens_cry]

With a Fighters feats and BAB, they can take a composite long bow and be descent enough to contribute even against most flying creatures.
Or they can configure for Archery more exclusively.

[Callos_DeTerran]

It's a real shame that the Pathfinder books seem to have taken the aesthetic philosophy of "exactly like 3.5". 4e has much nicer everything, from art to layout to branding. And the pretty pictures are the only reason to own dead tree material rather than just use the free version.

Not the only reason, I don't know about anyone else, but my brain just doesn't retain information that I read online. I have to keep going back and referencing it over and over again, but if I read something in book format then I rarely need to go back to look something up for anything beyond the specifics of a rule or ability.

Also, I like being able to hold what I use, especially since one of my IRL groups doesn't use laptops at the table (too many chances for distraction and not enough of the players HAVE a laptop), so I'd need the books anyway.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

my gaming group moved over to Pathfinder at my suggestion, and everyone has been quite happy since then. It definitely streamlined certain, small things. It also closed the gap of power between casters and all others in minor, but still appreciable respects.

So, according to my experience and opinion, sure.

[Gavinfoxx]

If 3.5 is 3.0 v 1.2, Pathfinder is 3.0 v 1.3, Trailblazer is 3.0 v1.4, and Legend is 3.0 v 1.95...

Legend > *

[Psyren]

If 3.5 is 3.0 v 1.2, Pathfinder is 3.0 v 1.3, Trailblazer is 3.0 v1.4, and Legend is 3.0 v 1.95...

Legend > *

Well, on the one hand they don't have wizards. On the other hand, they don't have wizards.

[Rankar]

Pathfinder is an enjoyable system. I wouldn't say its better or worse than 3.5. Its not a bad investment if you do get the books. Myself and 2 of my players have books. The other 2 players use PDF versions and browse online for their info.

If you already have 3.5 books and don't need to switch, stick with 3.5. I've got a handful of 3.5 but all my current players just started getting into RPGs and its just easier to get your hands on Pathfinder material.

[imneuromancer]

Pathfinder CORE cleans up a lot of worst abuses of 3.5 that are just annoying and stupid, as well as adding a lot of little abilities and options for character classes to make them balanced, playable and fun.

If nothing else, Pathfinder folds a lot of the GOOD ideas from the various 3.5 splatbooks into the CORE rules, allowing much of the flexibility of the splatbooks without the stupidity and abuses.

Then there are the obviously better parts of pathfinder, like the skill system and the Combat Defense (CMD) system, which is almost worth getting the books just so combats will run correctly.

The expanded Pathfinder material tends to start creeping toward splatbook creep, which IMHO was the downfall of 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5. It isn't BAD right now, but much more and there could be problems....

Generally, if you are using 3.5 and your group understands it and isn't abusing it, then don't change. If you find you are playing 3.5 with a lot of house rules so that things run well or aren't abused, then you should probably take a look at Pathfinder.

[Gavinfoxx]

options for character classes to make them balanced, playable and fun.

I'd agree with a lot of what you said -- pathfinder tries to make the classes playable and fun, but it most certainly does NOT improve balance. To do that, you need something other than normal 3.5e or Pathfinder entirely...

[molten_dragon]

I've played a little pathfinder, and it's a great game.

The thing is though, it's great for all the same reasons that 3.5 is great. My personal opinion is that pathfinder is not different enough from 3.5 to be worth owning both, and doesn't fix enough of the broken things about 3.5 to be worth buying as a fix. If I was just starting an RPG collection, I'd more than likely buy pathfinder, but since I've already got a bunch of 3.5 stuff, I'm going to stick with that.

[Dsurion]

If you'd like to know some of the things that are different (or the same), Saph wrote an excellent guide on the subject.

[Andreaz]

TL;DR: Class comparison is the same. All classes have more stuff in a manner that makes them more fun to play. All the rules are available for FREE. Conclusion: play it

[deuterio12]

Personally, I see Pathfinder as splatbooks for your 3.X game. Free splatbooks since, as already mentioned, all their crunch is freely and legally available on the net.

As other people mentioned, PF improved in some things and got worst in others, so just cherry-pick what you like and include it in your game!

[sonofzeal]

It's a purported "balance fix", but the designers have repeatedly demonstrated they didn't actually understand much of what was wrong with 3.5's balance. Note that this doesn't mean it's worse - it may indeed be ever so slightly better - but it still failed in its raison d'etre.

The other thing it does is generally buff every class slightly. This makes everyone converting from 3.5 to PF feel awesome and badass, because they gained extra hitpoints and doodads, but the fundamental dynamics are pretty much the same. Most classes function very much like they did before, power gaps are just about as wide, and the standard Tiering is pretty much the same.



In short... if my group is playing PF, I'll play PF with them, because it's not worse, whatever some people might say. But it's not particularly better either, and I see no reason to go teaching myself a new set of splatbooks to search through, and discard or be forced to heavily modify a lot of existing material I'm fluent with just to make it fit.

[Killer Angel]

I don't much care for pathfinder. I looked it over. Some things are "improved." Others aren't. Overall, it simply isn't worth learning the new system for some questionable improvements over 3.5, not when I already know 3.5 and enjoy it just fine as it is.

The passage from 3.5 to PF, is almost like the one from 3.0 to 3.5: they changed a lot of minor things, but the chassis is the same; this will often leave you with the unpleasant sensation of "surprising yourself mixing old and new rules in your mind" and with the need to check many things (spells description, and so on). And this is a big downside, to me.

But still, the changes are almost all good: PF doesn't fix the balance problem, but some classes were improved (even the sorcerer!) and the few "nerfed" (the druid) were so strong that don't suffer.
In the end, I find it more funny to play with (although we still play with 3.5 also).

Edit: we experimented 4.0, but the result was unpleasant. And that's another topic.

[Andreaz]

In the end it'll always boil down to your opinion on learning new things. People are generally reactive in a bad way to that, sadly.

Another big point for me is the fact there's new material coming regularly. the Magus, for example, does wonders that make duskblade/abjurant champions green with envy. And the Aegis lets you go all I AM IRON MAN on the world.

[LordBlades]

With a Fighters feats and BAB, they can take a composite long bow and be descent enough to contribute even against most flying creatures.
Or they can configure for Archery more exclusively.

I think you might be missing the core issue:

If you're a spellcaster, you're going to specialize in casting spells. No matter where your opponent is, near or far, or what kind of opponent it is you're most likely going to engage him with spells, the very thing you built your character to be good at.

If you build a fighter to be good at melee (which IMHO at least should be a valid way to build a fighter) sometimes the opponent will be out of reach and then you'll have to bring out your bow (which is not what you built your character to be good at).

The sheer difference of potential between a fighter and a caster aside, when one archetype can bring it's full strength to bear in almost every situation and another only in a subset and is forced to use inferior backup options in the rest, that is a balance problem.

[Ravens_cry]

Maybe, but the idea that a fighter can't help deal with flying creatures without magical support beyond magic weapons and armour is just wrong. With some fly, you can engage in a more personal way, but it ain't necessary.
Besides, a spell caster may sling spells near or far, but some spells are more suited than others.For example almost anything with a fortitude save is nix when fighting undead as are enchantments. Even if, like a wizard or cleric, you have other spells potentially available, they may simply not be available, right then. It doesn't matter too much if you have the perfect spell in your spell book or on your spell list if it isn't prepared. It's hardly your full strength if the creature is immune or resistant to your favourite effects.
Yes, a fighter is not going to have the potential versatility of a wizard or cleric. But the difference in actual play I have experienced isn't great enough in my opinion to make either class un-fun.

[Keneth]

I'd say that actually buying Pathfinder material isn't an amazing investment if you already own the 3.5 books (a lot of them, if only have the core books, then you might as well). Apart from the stunning art by Wayne Reynolds, you can find just about everything you need online as was already said.

As far as playing Pathfinder is concerned, the answer is a definite yes. It doesn't fix everything, the great divide between casters and lower-tier classes is still present and very much apparent at mid to high levels. That said, it does improve on the system quite a bit and it's not like you have to stop using 3.5 material just because you start playing PF, it might need a little adjusting but they're pretty much compatible.

Personally I see it as the logical next step from 3.5, although certainly not the final step, there's lots of room for improvement still.

[Real Sorceror]

I think you might be missing the core issue:

If you're a spellcaster, you're going to specialize in casting spells. No matter where your opponent is, near or far, or what kind of opponent it is you're most likely going to engage him with spells, the very thing you built your character to be good at.

If you build a fighter to be good at melee (which IMHO at least should be a valid way to build a fighter) sometimes the opponent will be out of reach and then you'll have to bring out your bow (which is not what you built your character to be good at).

The sheer difference of potential between a fighter and a caster aside, when one archetype can bring it's full strength to bear in almost every situation and another only in a subset and is forced to use inferior backup options in the rest, that is a balance problem.

Ok, now I've heard this like 3 times in the same thread. The entire point of the Fighter and similar classes like Cavalier is that they accomplish their shtick through entirely mundane means. So yes, that means they won't have lazer beams or wings or whatever built directly into their class features. If they did we'd be playing Exalted. And while playing godman can be fun sometimes, a real medieval fantasy game needs characters who don't have supernatural powers just as much as it needs magical characters.

And so I stress that having no way of dealing with flying/ranged combatants besides investing in a ranged weapon is not a "balance issue" or a "thing that Pathfinder didn't fix". It was never broken to begin with.

Besides, theres nothing saying a Fighter will ever be put in a situation where he can't do his thing. A responsible DM is supposed to tailor each encounter for his party. If they are meant to overcome the challenge, he will see to that victory is possible and that everyone can contribute in a meaningful way. Poor DMing can happen in any system.

[LordBlades]

And so I stress that having no way of dealing with flying/ranged combatants besides investing in a ranged weapon is not a "balance issue" or a "thing that Pathfinder didn't fix". It was never broken to begin with.

That particular thing is merely an example of the wider issue: some archetypes are way more viable than others. And that is a balance issue that needs fixing. I do agree that a fantasy game needs non-magical characters as much as it needs magical ones, but I don't think a wizard should completely rewrite the battlefield reality with the same amount of effort it takes the fighter to swing a sword and make a (small) dent into a single enemy's HP.

Besides, theres nothing saying a Fighter will ever be put in a situation where he can't do his thing. A responsible DM is supposed to tailor each encounter for his party. If they are meant to overcome the challenge, he will see to that victory is possible and that everyone can contribute in a meaningful way. Poor DMing can happen in any system.

The fact that some archetypes need tailored encounters so they can 'contribute in a meaningful way' while others can easily respond to whatever is thrown at them (hell, fighter types can't even flee effectively come to think about it) doesn't hint to any balance issues to you?

[Killer Angel]

The fact that some archetypes need tailored encounters so they can 'contribute in a meaningful way' while others can easily respond to whatever is thrown at them (hell, fighter types can't even flee effectively come to think about it) doesn't hint to any balance issues to you?

Also, the position "The DM can fix it, so it's not a balance problem" reminds me of a certain Fallacy...

[Real Sorceror]

That particular thing is merely an example of the wider issue: some archetypes are way more viable than others. And that is a balance issue that needs fixing. I do agree that a fantasy game needs non-magical characters as much as it needs magical ones, but I don't think a wizard should completely rewrite the battlefield reality with the same amount of effort it takes the fighter to swing a sword and make a (small) dent into a single enemy's HP.

How would you go about fixing it?

The quick n' easy way would be to take away the caster's options or give mundane characters magic, but neither of those is very satisfying, nor does it even make sense from a flavor perspective. One of the things I hated about 4e is that casters could no longer fly (along with most of their other utility spells) and that every other character gained blatant or psuedo magical abilities to make everyone the same. Variety is the spice of gaming.

The fact that some archetypes need tailored encounters so they can 'contribute in a meaningful way' while others can easily respond to whatever is thrown at them (hell, fighter types can't even flee effectively come to think about it) doesn't hint to any balance issues to you?

Maybe I just don't agree that a caster can 'easily respond to whatever is thrown at them'. In my eyes a Wizard is just as vulnerable as a Fighter, you just have to attack them from a different angle. Their CMD, Fort save, and hp, for example, will almost certainly be lower than a Fighter of the same level. If pressed in melee they will always have to cast defensively. If you want to be a real dink, attack the Wizard while hes preparing spells for the day, use lots of golems, or always choose creatures that are immune to whatever element the Sorcerer chose.

Are there inherent imbalances in the game? Sure. Are they so horrible that we should bring them up in every thread and discount a whole system because it didn't reinvent the wheel from the ground up? No.

PS. Am I a little biased because I think Paizo is the perfect model of a gaming company and James Jacobs is a gentleman and a scholar? Yes.

[LordBlades]

How would you go about fixing it?

The quick n' easy way would be to take away the caster's options or give mundane characters magic, but neither of those is very satisfying, nor does it even make sense from a flavor perspective. One of the things I hated about 4e is that casters could no longer fly (along with most of their other utility spells) and that every other character gained blatant or psuedo magical abilities to make everyone the same. Variety is the spice of gaming.

I hate 4e too just for the record (they balanced down instead of up or toward the middle).

What I'd do? Two things mainly, for start. First of all, remove 'no save just die' effects and pretty much every 'you're screwed no matter what you do' option. Secondly, drastically increase the cast time and/or the risk involved in using powerful spells. Whatever the wizard could do in the time it takes to swing a sword (standard action) should be around the same power level as a sword swing. If you want really powerful effects, stuff like imprisonment, maze and whatnot it should take several rounds (in which you are vulnerable) and/or carry a toll that would make you at least think if the reward is worth the risk.

Maybe I just don't agree that a caster can 'easily respond to whatever is thrown at them'. In my eyes a Wizard is just as vulnerable as a Fighter, you just have to attack them from a different angle. Their CMD, Fort save, and hp, for example, will almost certainly be lower than a Fighter of the same level. If pressed in melee they will always have to cast defensively. If you want to be a real dink, attack the Wizard while hes preparing spells for the day, use lots of golems, or always choose creatures that are immune to whatever element the Sorcerer chose.

Between defensive spells, contingencies and mobility spells, good luck getting near a well played caster in order to attack him where it hurts if you're not a caster yourself. And if you're using casters to attack casters, then it's just an arms race where the fighter just sits idly by and watches. Also, you'd be surprised how much better do a caster's defenses look compared to a fighter due to buffs.

Are there inherent imbalances in the game? Sure. Are they so horrible that we should bring them up in every thread and discount a whole system because it didn't reinvent the wheel from the ground up? No.

When that system's stated goal was to balance 3.5, failed to do deliver in that regard and then the company did it's best to silence all voices on their own boards saying otherwise yeah, I feel they should be brought up.

[DruchiiConversion]

I tend to think as a balance patch/improvement on 3.5, Pathfinder is a step backwards rather than forwards. Others disagree, and that's fine.

However, that's not the question here, as I understand it - the OP can certainly make up his or her mind about which ruleset is better by consulting online resources - one thing that I can definitely say about the Pathfinder books is that they're better than using online resources. The production values of the book are high, there's plenty of artwork - all the things that could be done to make an RPG book a nice collector's piece seem to be priorities. In that regards, yes - the Pathfinder books are worth your money. Even if you don't intend to play the system in preference to D&D 3.5 (the system I still run), I totally can't deny that the books look and feel good.

[Real Sorceror]

I hate 4e too just for the record (they balanced down instead of up or toward the middle).

What I'd do? Two things mainly, for start. First of all, remove 'no save just die' effects and pretty much every 'you're screwed no matter what you do' option. Secondly, drastically increase the cast time and/or the risk involved in using powerful spells. Whatever the wizard could do in the time it takes to swing a sword (standard action) should be around the same power level as a sword swing. If you want really powerful effects, stuff like imprisonment, maze and whatnot it should take several rounds (in which you are vulnerable) and/or carry a toll that would make you at least think if the reward is worth the risk.

Pathfinder already removes all of the save or dies (aside from Phantasmal Killer, but that still gives two saves and is ignored by a lot of foes anyway).
I don't necessarily have a problem with adding casting time to certain spells so long as the caster still has things he can do during combat. A spell with a casting time of even one minute will not realistically be cast in most encounters. Its also pretty unsatisfying to spend 10 minutes casting a spell just to have it negated by a good roll.

Between defensive spells, contingencies and mobility spells, good luck getting near a well played caster in order to attack him where it hurts if you're not a caster yourself. And if you're using casters to attack casters, then it's just an arms race where the fighter just sits idly by and watches. Also, you'd be surprised how much better do a caster's defenses look compared to a fighter due to buffs.

Thats assuming a mid to high level caster. And aside from a few minor buffs, most personal spells barely last an hour, even with Extend Spell.
And yes, there are always different levels to encounters that some people won't be able to participate in. The mage vs mage being one (considering most classes in the game have casting, this can still be very diverse). There are whole playing fields that used to be specific to just the Rogue or Bard, but thankfully they've alleviated that a little with their skill system.
And no, judging by my username, I wouldn't be that surprised by a caster's buffs. I know what casters can do and I'm still saying a Fighter can steal my thunder. Maybe not in every encounter, but enough to where nobody dismisses him or feels like hes dead weight. In 90% of our games the face character is usually a melee character.

When that system's stated goal was to balance 3.5, failed to do deliver in that regard and then the company did it's best to silence all voices on their own boards saying otherwise yeah, I feel they should be brought up.

I've never seen the devs be anything but friendly and generally awesome, so I'll have to take your word for it. The only devs I've seen that are more friendly are at Cryptic Studios, and then only by a little.

[LordBlades]

Pathfinder already removes all of the save or dies (aside from Phantasmal Killer, but that still gives two saves and is ignored by a lot of foes anyway).
I don't necessarily have a problem with adding casting time to certain spells so long as the caster still has things he can do during combat. A spell with a casting time of even one minute will not realistically be cast in most encounters. Its also pretty unsatisfying to spend 10 minutes casting a spell just to have it negated by a good roll.

It's not necessarily about save or die, but rather effects that screw with you without allowing the chance to do anything. Like Forcecage (which is practically 'you have teleportation or you're dead') or high CL Blasphemy(and similar). Save or die is a bit lame (roll well and somebody has wasted a round, roll bad and you died) but not the biggest problem. Pathfinder did a few steps in the right direction, but still left the main problem spells largely untouched.

I do agree that maybe longer casting time isn't the best solution. I'm not a game designer sadly. The goal should IMHO be to attach a high risk component to the high reward that is magic.

Thats assuming a mid to high level caster. And aside from a few minor buffs, most personal spells barely last an hour, even with Extend Spell.

It refers to mid level and above casters(let's say 6-7+). At very low levels everyone is equally squishy(usually one good crit away from death) so that leaves only 3-4 levels outside this range. (At that level both hour/level and extended 10 min/level spells (which last 2 hours per cast at level 6) are viable to keep up most adventuring day. Unless you bump into a lot of random encounters while traveling (which caster can mainly circumvent with the overwhelming amount of mobility/stealth/divination options they have at their disposal) 4 hours(covered by 2 casts of an extended 10 min/level buff) should usually be enough to get inside the dungeon, do whatever you need and get out.

And yes, there are always different levels to encounters that some people won't be able to participate in. The mage vs mage being one (considering most classes in the game have casting, this can still be very diverse). There are whole playing fields that used to be specific to just the Rogue or Bard, but thankfully they've alleviated that a little with their skill system.
And no, judging by my username, I wouldn't be that surprised by a caster's buffs. I know what casters can do and I'm still saying a Fighter can steal my thunder. Maybe not in every encounter, but enough to where nobody dismisses him or feels like hes dead weight. In 90% of our games the face character is usually a melee character.

It was about fighters(and non-magical, non-ToB fighter-ish characters), not melee in general. There are pretty decent melee options out there, stuff like
ToB, Totemists, DMM Clerics and Druids. I play Druids quite a lot and apart from optimized chargers, I have yet to see a fighter that's not a charger that wouldn't make me go 'whatever this guy can do I can do better, and still have plenty of spells to spare;.

[navar100]

That particular thing is merely an example of the wider issue: some archetypes are way more viable than others. And that is a balance issue that needs fixing. I do agree that a fantasy game needs non-magical characters as much as it needs magical ones, but I don't think a wizard should completely rewrite the battlefield reality with the same amount of effort it takes the fighter to swing a sword and make a (small) dent into a single enemy's HP.



The fact that some archetypes need tailored encounters so they can 'contribute in a meaningful way' while others can easily respond to whatever is thrown at them (hell, fighter types can't even flee effectively come to think about it) doesn't hint to any balance issues to you?

Nope. It hints as a DM who resents his job.

[Flickerdart]

Nope. It hints as a DM who resents his job.

Fixing the system should not be the DM's job. It should be the job of the people who designed it. The DM's job is to tell a story with the players, and when one player's class is demigodly in its power and the other is pitiful and weak, it limits the range of stories that can be told within that game.

[Tzevash]

Better skill management, class improvements, more customizing. I really don't catch what are the cons of "D&D 3.75" compared to previous editions.

Just play it!

[LordBlades]

Fixing the system should not be the DM's job. It should be the job of the people who designed it. The DM's job is to tell a story with the players, and when one player's class is demigodly in its power and the other is pitiful and weak, it limits the range of stories that can be told within that game.

It also doesn't help at all that it doesn't say on the tin 'class X is stronger than class Y' (some systems do). On the contrary, most of the PHB/DMG seems to imply that classes are equal, and that a player rolling a monk should contribute equally to the one rolling a druid.

Better skill management, class improvements, more customizing. I really don't catch what are the cons of "D&D 3.75" compared to previous editions.

Just play it!

For me personally? False promises aside (I actually had pretty high hopes for PF) I feel they haven't improved enough to be worth the hassle to learn all the little things they changed from 3.5