Why 3.5? Why Pathfinder? What ties you to the game system?

[Milo v3]

My main issue with fully switching over from 3.5 to PF is that you lose a huge amount of splatbook support. PF just seems a lot smaller than 3.5 when you take that into account.

But, 3.P is bigger than both of them. Though they 3.5e only & PF only classes would have less splatbook support than the classes that they both share.

[Vhaidara]

My main issue with fully switching over from 3.5 to PF is that you lose a huge amount of splatbook support. PF just seems a lot smaller than 3.5 when you take that into account.

Honestly, I don't even know if that's still true. Paizo has published quite a number of books, and even just including some third party, you get much stronger subsystems
3 psionic books
2 initiator books
2 (3rd in beta) pact magic books
Then you also have akashic and path of shadow, with pathol of iron coming from ascension games, and spheres of power from drop dead Studios..

I really do think PF is reaching the point of passing 3.5

[Morcleon]

Honestly, I don't even know if that's still true. Paizo has published quite a number of books, and even just including some third party, you get much stronger subsystems
3 psionic books
2 initiator books
2 (3rd in beta) pact magic books
Then you also have akashic and path of shadow, with pathol of iron coming from ascension games, and spheres of power from drop dead Studios..

I really do think PF is reaching the point of passing 3.5

You're losing MIC, SpC, and all of the Completes, as a start. There's also the general lack of extremely high power options that has been hardcoded into the system as a whole.

I mostly prefer running PF rules with 3.5 material and PF material as a splatbook though, so it's a moot point for me.

[Milo v3]

You're losing MIC, SpC, and all of the Completes, as a start. There's also the general lack of extremely high power options that has been hardcoded into the system as a whole.

How are you losing any of those? PF was intentially designed so you can basically just grab that stuff and drop it into your PF game. I mean, this is part of paizo's advertising:

Spoiler

Show

[Morcleon]

How are you losing any of those? PF was intentially designed so you can basically just grab that stuff and drop it into your PF game. I mean, this is part of paizo's advertising:

Spoiler

Show

You're losing them if you're switching over completely from 3.5 to PF without porting, which is what I've found is the standard for most PF groups I've seen and been in.

Also, PF has lowered the maximum power ceiling to a relatively reasonable level, which I feel shouldn't have been hardcoded in, since this change means that it no longer supports Tippyverse, near-Tippyverse, and similar levels of play, as well as various combos that are interesting but not particularly disruptive to games.

[Milo v3]

You're losing them if you're switching over completely from 3.5 to PF without porting, which is what I've found is the standard for most PF groups I've seen and been in.

Also, PF has lowered the maximum power ceiling to a relatively reasonable level, which I feel shouldn't have been hardcoded in, since this change means that it no longer supports Tippyverse, near-Tippyverse, and similar levels of play, as well as various combos that are interesting but not particularly disruptive to games.

If anything, the tippyverse may have been helped to a degree actually, since you no longer have to meet spell prerequisites when you make items, any wizard of decent can make a tippyverse without even having to scribe a single spell. And you can still make spell traps just as easily iirc.

Also... Mythic would raise the ceiling I'd imagine.

[Vhaidara]

I'd say the ultimate line matches the complete line. Spell compendium was a gathering point more than anything else (also, wish I could check how many spells/feats each system has).

And I would say ToB 2 and Psionics 3 (complete with actual editing) is worth MIC (which is the single easiest book to port)

[Jeran Korak]

Personally, I play Pathfinder over 3.5 because I found 3.5 had serious power creep after a while. I'm naturally competitive, and the imbalances the system had didn't really serve to keep things interesting at high levels. Pathfinder does still have that problem in some respects, but martial classes are a lot better. Brawlers in particular are death-machines if built right. I also like the expanded spell lists for the base game, and the fact literally the entire rule-set is available online.

If I were recommending Pathfinder to somebody who already liked D&D 3.5, I'd first ask them what they felt were flaws and issues in the structure of 3.5, then direct them to parts of the Pathfinder ruleset that addressed those issues. I'd also emphasize the ease of transition, and tailor my responses to how the person in question felt about the power-creep in 3.5. Some people absolutely adore 3.5's 'everything overpowered is balanced out by something else equally overpowered' system (I can't deny that at times I'm one of them, either), while others hate it deeply and homebrew just to get away from it.

But primarily I'd say that marketing PF to people who already love 3.5 is a bad way to spend your time. I'd aim it more towards tabletop newbies who haven't had the time to form an entrenched opinion about a system yet. It isn't precisely easy to convince somebody interested in a 10+ year-old system to try something so similar in some respects that it can be hard for them to see the point of trying.

[GreatDane]

Mostly, my friends all play 3.5. It's also the system I've DMed in for 2-3 years now, so I'm pretty familiar with it.

Ultimately, I play 3.5 because I encountered it first, and Pathfinder's never given me a compelling reason to switch.

[Almarck]

My main issue with fully switching over from 3.5 to PF is that you lose a huge amount of splatbook support. PF just seems a lot smaller than 3.5 when you take that into account.

Not including "alternate Classes", base pathfinder is something like... 29 classes all told. With about 6 more belonging to the "Psychic Magic" submagic system coming up. And each and everyone of those classes has at minumum 5 different archetypes which can be thought of bundles of ACF's with a theme. The older core classes have more, in particular rogues and fighters having over 20 each. You can't say they're lacking classes or class features, especially since there's archetypes and ACF's for animal companions and familiars.

Certainly, there's no Incarnium, Psionics, Initiators, and Binders in base PF, but for the most part that has to do with Paizo's near adamant refusal to leave Vancian casting. This however is easily made up for by the likes of Dreamscarred Press and Radiance House, 3rd party publishers who have made ports and improvements over the older 3.5 subsystems and the materials to play these are available for free as with everything. However, I guess not everyone is willing to play 3rd party, but if you notice the threads run by DSP, you'll find lots of PF players run with them.

Pathfinder does lack sheer quantity of Prestige Classes though. Probably as a result of having so many archetypes. I do think the point of PRC's is lost though I suppose in PF, I never really cared to think about getting PrCs.


Moving onto races, since that's also a big part of splat books: We're at about....50+ races all told, 30+ are assumed to be playable. And none of them are variants of an existing race in the same way Aquatic and Dester variations of Elves existed. Instead of variants of races being seperate races, races often come packed with alternate features that allow customization.

In all, I'd say that for the most part PF has 3.5 beat in class and race quantity. Feat and spell quantity? Probably. Although Pathfinder is still getting bigger whereas 3.5 is not. I do however agree that without 3rd party, PF does seem smaller in the sense that it lacks variety.

[Calemyr]

For my part, I favor Pathfinder as a rule. It didn't do much to alter the distribution of power, but it broadened most classes immensely, with many opportunities for customization. In 3.5, only casters and the fighter class had a lot of customization features. I mean, that's what a 3.5 fighter is: a skeleton to build your own custom fighter around.

Rogues used to be simply skill monkeys that could backstab. Now they've got a number of talents they can pick from as they level up. Want a couple spells? Check. Want to be a better fighter, or make better use of your sneak attacks? We've got talents for you. Want to be tougher or more agile? Again, we've got you covered. Simply want a bonus feat instead of something fancy? Yeah, we're good.

Fighters used to be thugs with no features but more feats than they could probably use. Now we've got Weapons Training, which gives them advantages with entire classes of weaponry on top of their fighter-only feats like specialization, and armor training, which makes heavier armor much more useful. A fighter is now a whole hell of a lot more than a simple thug with feats.

Barbarians and Paladins get to keep their abilities but gain customizations that improve them. Barbarians gain additional effects while raging, while a paladin's lay on hands can cure more than simple HP.

Casters now have specialization features that make them less useless at low levels and give them a stronger feeling of flavor. Granted, they are still stupidly overpowered in the endgame, but at least they're not such a burden to the party in low level play.

Then there's the base classes and the hybrid classes, which take core classes and modify them to new roles. Ninja is a rogue with the monk's Ki resource system worked in to give them supernatural abilities. The slayer hybrid class is a useful combination of ranger and rogue, trading a ranger's encyclopedic knowledge of a limited number of targets for the ability to gain a more immediate understanding of a nearby foe or two. My brother plays one as a sniper and he's quite scary. (Ultimate Equipment includes the Sniper Goggles, which removes the 30' range limit or sneak attacks but adds +2 damage per die to ranged sneak attacks made within 30'. At 20k, it's not a low level item, but it's really useful. Then there's the greater Sniper Goggles that remove the range limitation on the damage bonus.)

And now there's even the "unchained" varieties as well. Haven't looked into them closely (as my favored classes are not present: bard, magus, alchemist), but they seem to be trying to seriously ramp up the power of classes that didn't get buffed as much as they probably should have been: barbarian, monk, summoner, and (of course) rogue.

And that's all first official stuff. Add in a host of third party resources (I'm really coming to love Dreamscarred Press's Akashic Mysteries) and an open and accessible culture that doesn't punish customization, and it's just really cool.

3.5 was a vast improvement over 3, and I think Pathfinder is a vast improvement over 3.5, though 3.5 still has many tricks left to share with Pathfinder fans.

[SinsI]

Not really. The changes are pretty small. I mean, you could convert over all the base classes between the two, and the only one that wouldn't work in the other without something more overt than minor tweaks would be artificer. Even then it's just because it's key ability of being able to craft without needing spell prerequisites is given to all magic item crafters in Pathfinder.

The changes are small - but they are everywhere. And it means that your familiarity with one system acts as a very serious and disruptive factor that prevents you from getting accustomed to the new rules.
I remember reading AD&D books back in the era of SSI CRPG games - and some elements from them are still plaguing my 3.5 games - 21 years later!

That's why 3.5 -> 4.0 switch is much easier than 3.5 -> Pathfinder.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I favor Pathfinder because it's easier to find people who are willing to play it than people who are willing to play 3.5, and it's easier to find the materials I would want to use in a game.

That's really all there is to it, at this point. Both systems are bloated and have really annoying fiddly bits (Skills/multiclassing in 3.5, feat chains, gun rules in Pathfinder), and both use the stupid d20. Pathfinder has better 3rd party support IMO, but in no small part (no offense DSP) Paizo couldn't't stop tenderly caressing vancian casting.

[Milo v3]

The changes are small - but they are everywhere. And it means that your familiarity with one system acts as a very serious and disruptive factor that prevents you from getting accustomed to the new rules.
I remember reading AD&D books back in the era of SSI CRPG games - and some elements from them are still plaguing my 3.5 games - 21 years later!

That's why 3.5 -> 4.0 switch is much easier than 3.5 -> Pathfinder.

Still disagree immensely, I mean, the Main things that have changed are: Races have been given more abilities, Classes have extra abilities to make up for their weaknesses, Favoured Class Rules have been modified to be useful rather than thrown out by everyone with a brain, Skills System is altered, some feats were enhanced or streamlined, and combat manoeuvres have been streamlined. Other than that, rule changes are rare.

To be honest, all you need to convert between 3.5e and PF in most situations is to just read the 3.5e to PF conversion guide.

[nyjastul69]

The changes are small - but they are everywhere. And it means that your familiarity with one system acts as a very serious and disruptive factor that prevents you from getting accustomed to the new rules.
I remember reading AD&D books back in the era of SSI CRPG games - and some elements from them are still plaguing my 3.5 games - 21 years later!

That's why 3.5 -> 4.0 switch is much easier than 3.5 -> Pathfinder.

I will immensely agree. What keeps me away from adopting PF is all the nibbly changes that don't directly affect the fundamental flaws in the system. Also, I don't want to have to read a rule book for the several dozen minor changes that it includes. I did it with the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion. I have no interest in doing that again.

Edit: I choose 3e because there is a comfort level our group has reached with it. We tried 4e, and the players didn't like it. No one wants to touch 5e outside of myself. Inside of myself it's too dark to read.

[The Viscount]

Still disagree immensely, I mean, the Main things that have changed are: Races have been given more abilities, Classes have extra abilities to make up for their weaknesses, Favoured Class Rules have been modified to be useful rather than thrown out by everyone with a brain, Skills System is altered, some feats were enhanced or streamlined, and combat manoeuvres have been streamlined. Other than that, rule changes are rare.

To be honest, all you need to convert between 3.5e and PF in most situations is to just read the 3.5e to PF conversion guide.

Changes to every basic aspect of a character (race, class, skills, feats, special actions in combat) seem like changes everywhere, no?

And that's not even touching on prestige classes, poison, and polymorph effects. There are a lot of changes.

[Morcleon]

Changes to every basic aspect of a character (race, class, skills, feats, special actions in combat) seem like changes everywhere, no?

And that's not even touching on prestige classes, poison, and polymorph effects. There are a lot of changes.

Spells have also been changed quite a bit (the only spell change I like is the removal of XP costs).

[BWR]

The changes are small - but they are everywhere. And it means that your familiarity with one system acts as a very serious and disruptive factor that prevents you from getting accustomed to the new rules.
r.

Except it isn't disruptive, ime. Throughout our PF period (for some 3.5 years now) there have been plenty of times we've run PF using 3.5 rules because that's what we were used to and forgot to double check. The game moved smoothly and without issue. When the change was made known, we changed and everything still ran smoothly.

[Psyren]

Changes to every basic aspect of a character (race, class, skills, feats, special actions in combat) seem like changes everywhere, no?

And that's not even touching on prestige classes, poison, and polymorph effects. There are a lot of changes.

There are, but in a given session you may come across many of those, a few, or none at all. I can see it being a barrier for some, but that doesn't seem to be a universal drawback by any means.

[Socksy]

I like 3.5 because it's so hilariously glitchy. You can play as RAW-stupid or as RAI-sensible as you'd like, and it's easy to have different levels of optimisation.

[Pluto!]

I've interchanged the two for years. I've played plenty of 3e games with PF base class features or the PF Polymorph fix, and I've played plenty of PF games with Psions (prior to update), Warblades or Chameleons.

There are differences, but usually the extent of those differences' disruption is "Wait. He made a save against Ray of Enfeeblement? Maybe I'll skip that spell tomorrow."

[nyjastul69]

I've interchanged the two for years. I've played plenty of 3e games with PF base class features or the PF Polymorph fix, and I've played plenty of PF games with Psions (prior to update), Warblades or Chameleons.

There are differences, but usually the extent of those differences' disruption is "Wait. He made a save against Ray of Enfeeblement? Maybe I'll skip that spell tomorrow."

This sort of change is a flaw, not a feature, IMO. Nibbly changes that change little overall. Meh... YMMV.

[SinsI]

Except it isn't disruptive, ime. Throughout our PF period (for some 3.5 years now) there have been plenty of times we've run PF using 3.5 rules because that's what we were used to and forgot to double check. The game moved smoothly and without issue. When the change was made known, we changed and everything still ran smoothly.

What if you have players with different levels of Pathfinder experience? One player is accustomed to the 3.5 version, another to the PF version - and they conflict?
Same question if the one (not)in the know is the DM.

[Taelas]

I play both, though I vastly prefer 3.5 (because that's the system I know inside and out). It's disconcerting to play PF and encounter a rule that is changed that you didn't know about, which happens a lot in my experience.

That said, I do like some of the things PF did.

[Psyren]

What if you have players with different levels of Pathfinder experience? One player is accustomed to the 3.5 version, another to the PF version - and they conflict?
Same question if the one (not)in the know is the DM.

Then you learn and move forward, together. For most of the changes, it's intuitively easy to see why they were made - like walls of iron being worthless, or glitterdust becoming Save Ends, or arcane lock no longer auto-defeating rogues.

[Morcleon]

Then you learn and move forward, together. For most of the changes, it's intuitively easy to see why they were made - like walls of iron being worthless, or glitterdust becoming Save Ends, or arcane lock no longer auto-defeating rogues.

I liked wall of iron being able to be used for construction though.

I think PF went too far in the "no permanent world changing" aspect.

[nonsi]

.
I go way back, from the time BACMI D&D ruled the scenery.
I played BACMI, 1e, 2e and 3e.
As with practically every group out there, we always had a small set of houserule tweaks.

I tried to get into 4e rules and the only sensation I got out of reading them was "Yuck"
I also tried to dive into 5e rules, but for me they took away too much.

Enough was already said about PF fixing the wrong things (for every improvement, they made several bad calls), so I won't add to that.
PF designers did figure out one thing strait – 3e & 3.5e classes have way too many levels where nothing of significance happens.

After all this time, I came to the conclusion that the game with the best skeleton and overall framework of mechanics is 3.5e.
The abilities, saves, combat options, conditions, skills and more function exactly as they should, with only minor corrections needed.
They made a real effort in bringing nonmagical abilities as close as possible to real life.
It's just a shame that they were late with swift & immediate actions and that spellcasters get to use them and enjoy superior action economy over noncasters where it should've been the other way around.


The thing with all D&D editions is that they always leave you with a sensation that the game is incomplete.
You always find scenarios that you have to handwave because the rules didn't cover them.
You also find that character concepts keep popping up which you cannot bring to life without them being inferior to existing classes, so you have to invent all the time.
That's basically the economic strength of WotC's approach: give them what they want, but always keep them on the edge begging for more.


In my overhaul codex, my aim was to create a game that's truly complete from the party' side.
You can play just about any character that your delirious mind could conjure, without (re)inventing anything, and there's a very good chance that without even trying, you'll end up with a balanced character. Also, I wanted to cover (on the mechanical angle) just about any game scenario that you could face in a more or less medieval-themed world (wanna climb the giant… pool punches… play dead… foil someone's effort to activate something nasty… block a dragon's breath or a spell's line of effect… no problem – it's already in the rules).

Other than for sporadic idea gathering, I personally don't have much use for a houserules codex as a complete package if the goals are not as stated above, because there's no point in replacing a game system abundant with official materials that cover a lot with a new game system that's in its early stages and requires a lot of play testing......... unless it's designed with the goals above, which will give a solid incentive to endure its early days labor stages.