Pathfinder aka 3.75 what's your take?

[Aesop]

My gaming group is going tobe starting up a run with this new rules set shortly, but we've been discussing them before we start the party up (and playing a Rifts game while we discuss)


The major complaint thus far is Wizards. Our resident wizard lover is displeased with the way Wizards came out. Its not that they were gimped, just that they weren't buffed up as much as Sorcerors were.

What do all of you think? Are there any other issues that people see/have with the Pathfinder system? What do you think about the XP-less Crafting System?

I'll check back after work... for now I'm off like clothes in a shower (or orgy as the case may be)

Aesop

[timberhick]

Local guy let me read through his book. I had played with the beta stuff and wanted to see the final changes to the system.

IMO they did not change what was fundamentally wrong with 3.5. That being casters. In fact, to me, they made casters even better. Casters have even more options and goodies, so they tried to increase what the melee classes get to compensate for the gifts to casters. It doesn't work for my playstyle. Level 7+ is still all about the caster and the melee types are regulated to being henchmen

[Arkat]

I love it! They made the Monk MUCH better and I really like the flavor of the various Bloodlines that Sorcerers get. I also like what they did with some of the skills like combining Hide and Move Silently into one skill I believe is called "Stealth" and also combining Spot and Listen into one skill called Perception.

There are other things I like but those are what I could think of here at work.

[Aesop]

What do people think about the Caster comparison.

Sorcerors seem to be able to almost everything that Wizards can do only they can do more of it and better...

Does this jive with what others are experiencing... or is the balance better than that.

How about with the new Cleric Domains

It appears that Wizards get 3 powers per Specialization... and they are limited in their use and appliation while it appears that Sorcerors were given numerous benefits including bonus feat abilities spells and spell like abilities... on top of their increased Casting


Aesop

[Femanon]

more like D&D 3.55

[Aesop]

I'm kinda hoping for more "discussion" ... Bueller Bueller Bueller...

[timberhick]

What do people think about the Caster comparison.

Sorcerors seem to be able to almost everything that Wizards can do only they can do more of it and better...

Does this jive with what others are experiencing... or is the balance better than that.

How about with the new Cleric Domains

It appears that Wizards get 3 powers per Specialization... and they are limited in their use and application while it appears that Sorcerors were given numerous benefits including bonus feat abilities spells and spell like abilities... on top of their increased Casting


Aesop
The debate between sorcs and wiz has always been about versatility, which the sorc never has (unless he carries oodles of scrolls)

[timberhick]

more like D&D 3.55

Or 3.5.1 with huge influences from 4e

[AnderlornLOTR]

Except the world, Pathfinder rulez!

Everything is better in Pathfinder. I would still use or want to be in the Forgotten Realms in any Pathfinder campaign. The Pathfinder world does not sound like anything new, special, or what hasn't been written before.

[AnderlornLOTR]

Or 3.5.1 with huge influences from 4e

Actually most Pathfinder people refer to it as 3.75e with no 4e influences. 4e was designed for MMO players and people who complain too much about the rules.

[SableShadow]

I'm kinda hoping for more "discussion" ... Bueller Bueller Bueller...

Juicers rawk. :)

[AnderlornLOTR]

Juicers rawk. :)

LOL - here comes the derailers ... lol

No, not Rifts - Pathfinder.

Glitterboyz rawk!

Although, I liked the essence transferred robots better ... ;)

[AnderlornLOTR]

I like how humans and half-elves now have +2 points to place into any attribute. Also in Pathfinder, you can not keep changing your primary class as a human or half-elf. Unfortunately, I do not know how that will relate to prestige classes especially if they will or are over 10th level. For example, you choose wizard as your primary class - what would happen if you did the following instead since prestige classes are not chosen or can not be chosen at 1st level - Fighter -10, Wizard - 10, Spellsword - 20?

I guess you can always do this - Wizard 20, Spellsword 20 (1st level Spellsword at 13th level) since it states that you do not really have to be a fighter - you just need to cast 3rd level spells, have a to hit of +6, (I believe armor and martial weapons), and defeat an opponent with only a weapon alone. Although the weapon can be magical, you just can not cast any spells.

I only have the beta test rules. There has not been a reason for me to get the full rules - at least not yet :-)

[timberhick]

Actually most Pathfinder people refer to it as 3.75e with no 4e influences. 4e was designed for MMO players and people who complain too much about the rules.

Then you haven't looked at 4e in any depth then gone and looked at Pukefinder to see how much Erik stole from it.

[Aesop]

The debate between sorcs and wiz has always been about versatility, which the sorc never has (unless he carries oodles of scrolls)

Well that's just it. Sorcerors now have a lot of options open to them and the Wizards options really aren't that "comparatively" great.

Why would you go School Specialist Necromancy Wizard when you can take an Undead Bloodline Sorceror?

You get a limited amount of spells but the field is not so limited that you can't get the essentials and your Bloodline abilities are far and away better than the School Specialist abilities

Aesop

[timberhick]

Well that's just it. Sorcerors now have a lot of options open to them and the Wizards options really aren't that "comparatively" great.

Why would you go School Specialist Necromancy Wizard when you can take an Undead Bloodline Sorceror?

You get a limited amount of spells but the field is not so limited that you can't get the essentials and your Bloodline abilities are far and away better than the School Specialist abilities

Aesop

And they are still limited by the number of spells known compared to the wizards book he carries around. A wizard is able to memorize different spell combos every day and the sorc does...?

[Furluge]

I'm kinda hoping for more "discussion" ... Bueller Bueller Bueller...

I can't really take Pathfinder seriously right now. It might even be good, but our local grognard society who hate anything wizards now because they made 4e, just the fact that they made it and it exists, and would like Pathfinder even if it was utter **** because it was still 3.5, makes me not want to try the game, or spend time with the kind of rude community it's attracted, around here anyway.

[Vordax]

I can't really take Pathfinder seriously right now. It might even be good, but our local grognard society who hate anything wizards now because they made 4e, just the fact that they made it and it exists, and would like Pathfinder even if it was utter **** because it was still 3.5, makes me not want to try the game, or spend time with the kind of rude community it's attracted, around here anyway.

This post is quite rude, pot meet kettle?

Vordax

[timberhick]

This post is quite rude, pot meet kettle?

Vordax

I see nothing rude about it. He speaks from his perspective, which is nearly identical to my area as well.

[Vordax]

I see nothing rude about it. He speaks from his perspective, which is nearly identical to my area as well.

Apparently you failed your spot check (or int check).

Vordax

[Uska]

Its better then 4E I am going to be running the new version of hackmaster for my group and the other gm is going to be running the 4th editon of Runequest none of us will touch 4E again and I am the only one whoever ran 3.x and the group never really warmed to it so noone is said to move on from it.

[timberhick]

Apparently you failed your spot check (or int check).

Vordax

He was being blunt.

[enochiancub]

I Think that Wizards were not so much hit with the nerf stick as ignored in Pathfinder. Sorcs seemed to be handed a bag full of goodies and told "go nuts" Wizzies got handed a paper sack with a strange grease-esque stain on it and told "Here, we never really loved you, cause you were adopted".

I appreciate more than anything pathfinders focus on staying one class for 20 levels and not getting burnt out. However I think when it came to wizzies and monks they failed.

[Furluge]

Perhaps you'd like to specify exactly what in that post was rude so we can understand what offends you?

[Aesop]

And they are still limited by the number of spells known compared to the wizards book he carries around. A wizard is able to memorize different spell combos every day and the sorc does...?

But the question is... Does that diversity of selection actually balance out the larger casting pool and the Bloodline benefits which are better than the new School Powers that wizards can get. I mean really if the only real benefit is being able to change a spell around to something slightly more suited to a specific situation (which would require foreknowledge of the up coming events) then the benefit is very limited.

Aesop

[Aesop]

I Think that Wizards were not so much hit with the nerf stick as ignored in Pathfinder. Sorcs seemed to be handed a bag full of goodies and told "go nuts" Wizzies got handed a paper sack with a strange grease-esque stain on it and told "Here, we never really loved you, cause you were adopted".

I appreciate more than anything pathfinders focus on staying one class for 20 levels and not getting burnt out. However I think when it came to wizzies and monks they failed.

Monks I kinda like really Wizzies feel a little underwhelming to me... though not as bad as the person who plays casters almost as a religion


Aesop

[timberhick]

But the question is... Does that diversity of selection actually balance out the larger casting pool and the Bloodline benefits which are better than the new School Powers that wizards can get. I mean really if the only real benefit is being able to change a spell around to something slightly more suited to a specific situation (which would require foreknowledge of the up coming events) then the benefit is very limited.

Aesop

Yes the diversity of selection > the ability to cast more.

[Aesop]

Yes the diversity of selection > the ability to cast more.

See I've heard mostly the opposite on this one... the arguement is that Sorcerors have "enough" spells to get a broad enough variety to actually render the Wizards Diversity rather moot

I myself like wizards better... the flavor of them anyway... yes they taste good with ketchup

Aesop

[timberhick]

See I've heard mostly the opposite on this one... the arguement is that Sorcerors have "enough" spells to get a broad enough variety to actually render the Wizards Diversity rather moot

I myself like wizards better... the flavor of them anyway... yes they taste good with ketchup

Aesop

They don't.

A properly played wizard will have no less than 5 distinct spell lists tailored to the situation at hand. Be it city, social, travel, combat, exploration, etc. The Sorc can not come close to that, never will.

[Aesop]

ok... does anyone else have a take on this?

I'd like to hear more opinions

Aesop

[timberhick]

Guess you don't understand the value of distinct spell lists.

[Aesop]

Guess you don't understand the value of distinct spell lists.

Its not that. Its that I want a different view point.

I've already said similar many times in the past, but honestly you are so set in this view that it feels like you haven't considered any other view as legitimate. I would like to hear differing views so that I can better understand. I like looking at things from differing perspectives whenever possible. It helps with total understanding of a situation. Starring at a person from one side may hide the knife he's holding in his hand on the other side... if that makes any sense to you

Aesop

[kamimitsu]

But the question is... Does that diversity of selection actually balance out the larger casting pool and the Bloodline benefits which are better than the new School Powers that wizards can get. I mean really if the only real benefit is being able to change a spell around to something slightly more suited to a specific situation (which would require foreknowledge of the up coming events) then the benefit is very limited.

Aesop

Our group just started playing Pathfinder. So far, I like it a lot.

I, too, was concerned about Wiz vs. Sorc. issues. Especially since one of my players wanted to make a WuJen in 3.75. It wasn't overly hard to convert, though I have house-ruled a few things.

As best as I can tell, it really is up to the DM (in this case, me) to make the importance of spell selection, or lack thereof, an important issue. If your DM is of the 'hack and slash, loot and plunder' type, then the Sorc will rule. I am attempting to make our campaign far more about negotiating, politics, information gathering, and subterfuge (followed by hack and slash carnage, to be sure). In that application and with a little ingenuity on the side of the Wizard, that spell selection options are a huge boon.

One of the things I was sure to house rule was making scrolls somewhat easier and less time consuming to create (and giving the player adequate 'down time', to stock up). In some ways, this lessens the impact of less spells per day and raises the options for an even wide arsenal at the wizard"s disposal. I wouldn't house rule the same for the Sorc, however, unless there were serious extenuating circumstances and/or storyline reasons.

With the abundance of extra feats in Pathfinder, Wizards also have more opportunity to become 'crafters' of magical items. I suspect most Sorcs will invest heavily in Combat Casting-type and MetaMagic feats, leaving little room for the crafting feats. With that in mind, a DM who allows for enough time in-between questing for crafting will allow the Wizard to shine considerably more than otherwise. What I did in the above regard, is make magic items somewhat rare (well, not really rare, just unlikely for a party to keep... it's a long explanation that I'll go into further via PM if you wish), which in turn makes the Wizard that much more valuable as the only person in the party who can get them +X weapons, Rings of Y, or Cloaks of Z. Oddly enough, another member decided to go Artificer, so there will be some synergy and collaboration there, which I'll working on figuring out over the next week or so.

My thoughts, for what it's worth.

[timberhick]

Its not that. Its that I want a different view point.

I've already said similar many times in the past, but honestly you are so set in this view that it feels like you haven't considered any other view as legitimate. I would like to hear differing views so that I can better understand. I like looking at things from differing perspectives whenever possible. It helps with total understanding of a situation. Starring at a person from one side may hide the knife he's holding in his hand on the other side... if that makes any sense to you

Aesop

I find that odd with your vocal disparagement of 4e.

It's simple mathematics
A Wizard has 150 people tailored to do specific jobs but can only work 4 hours a day.
A Sorc has 30 people tailored to do specific jobs but can work 8 hours a day.
The wizard comes out ahead in production because he has more people to pull from to garner the best economy of time.

Personally I like the sorc more, but that has more to do with not having to carry around spellbooks.

[Aesop]

Our group just started playing Pathfinder. So far, I like it a lot.

I, too, was concerned about Wiz vs. Sorc. issues. Especially since one of my players wanted to make a WuJen in 3.75. It wasn't overly hard to convert, though I have house-ruled a few things.

As best as I can tell, it really is up to the DM (in this case, me) to make the importance of spell selection, or lack thereof, an important issue. If your DM is of the 'hack and slash, loot and plunder' type, then the Sorc will rule. I am attempting to make our campaign far more about negotiating, politics, information gathering, and subterfuge (followed by hack and slash carnage, to be sure). In that application and with a little ingenuity on the side of the Wizard, that spell selection options are a huge boon.

One of the things I was sure to house rule was making scrolls somewhat easier and less time consuming to create (and giving the player adequate 'down time', to stock up). In some ways, this lessens the impact of less spells per day and raises the options for an even wide arsenal at the wizard"s disposal. I wouldn't house rule the same for the Sorc, however, unless there were serious extenuating circumstances and/or storyline reasons.

With the abundance of extra feats in Pathfinder, Wizards also have more opportunity to become 'crafters' of magical items. I suspect most Sorcs will invest heavily in Combat Casting-type and MetaMagic feats, leaving little room for the crafting feats. With that in mind, a DM who allows for enough time in-between questing for crafting will allow the Wizard to shine considerably more than otherwise. What I did in the above regard, is make magic items somewhat rare (well, not really rare, just unlikely for a party to keep... it's a long explanation that I'll go into further via PM if you wish), which in turn makes the Wizard that much more valuable as the only person in the party who can get them +X weapons, Rings of Y, or Cloaks of Z. Oddly enough, another member decided to go Artificer, so there will be some synergy and collaboration there, which I'll working on figuring out over the next week or so.

My thoughts, for what it's worth.



hmmm... yeah that's about where I lay in regards to the ituation. I'm gonna try to keep people within the established rules for the first run through when we start. I've been arguing that the wizards diversity is a major boon, but the prevailing thoughts are that we generally break down to a violence driven campaign which does make the combat sorc a little more desireable. I also as a DM need to work on Down Time. I have a habit of feeding them full of hooks and they havea ahabit of following ALL of them as quickly as possible... makes for a very run run kill kill game... I'm going to attempt to slow it down some this time.

Aesop

[Aesop]

I find that odd with your vocal disparagement of 4e.

It's simple mathematics
A Wizard has 150 people tailored to do specific jobs but can only work 4 hours a day.
A Sorc has 30 people tailored to do specific jobs but can work 8 hours a day.
The wizard comes out ahead in production because he has more people to pull from to garner the best economy of time.

Personally I like the sorc more, but that has more to do with not having to carry around spellbooks.

I came to my opinions on 4e after many many discussions with people both pro and con... in the end I found that I didn't like 4e primarily because of the MC system. It made me feel claustrophobic. Also the system felt very push button like. Apparently its a decently balanced system over all... but not really one that I liked

Apparently they are trying to address some of the MC problems in further books and maybe someday it will be to the point where I will feel like I can play it and enjoy it. Currently though I would be very hard pressed to play for more than 1 session

as a note that analogy doesn't seem right.


I think of it more like

a Sorceror has a Hammer, Screw Driver, Wrench and Saw but can keep working for 12 straight hours

a Wizard has a full tool shed and if he needs a tool can go back to said shed for it ... but the wizard can only work for 8 hours a day

both can complete most jobs but a sorceror work is usually messier because he lacks the detail tools that the wizard can go get


Aesop

[Furluge]

I came to my opinions on 4e after many many discussions with people both pro and con... in the end I found that I didn't like 4e primarily because of the MC system. It made me feel claustrophobic. Also the system felt very push button like. Apparently its a decently balanced system over all... but not really one that I liked

Apparently they are trying to address some of the MC problems in further books and maybe someday it will be to the point where I will feel like I can play it and enjoy it. Currently though I would be very hard pressed to play for more than 1 session

as a note that analogy doesn't seem right.


I think of it more like

a Sorceror has a Hammer, Screw Driver, Wrench and Saw but can keep working for 12 straight hours

a Wizard has a full tool shed and if he needs a tool can go back to said shed for it ... but the wizard can only work for 8 hours a day

both can complete most jobs but a sorceror work is usually messier because he lacks the detail tools that the wizard can go get


Aesop

In my experience the Wizard won't memorize the full toolshed because those tools usually aren't versatile enough. Instead he'll focus on the hammer, screw driver, wrench, and saw because most problems can be fixed with those. ;) Especially since most of the problems he'll face that are also the most threatening to him are the nails. Oh the hordes of nails that are after his blood. XD

[DagazUlf]

Experience so far is that it's a big, "meh". It really doesn't do anything we hadn't already handled with our own houserules.

Honestly, we've started tinkering with 4E for something different at this point, and it certainly seems to me that most of the naysayers haven't even actually played that system.

Whichever, it doesn't really matter. Play games with friends, have a good time, and tell tall-tales about it all. That's basically the point.

[sigtrent]

I always found that min-maxing a wizard in 3.5 is all about item creation. While your palls make due wtih whatever they can find, Mr wizard carefully uses his spell lists and feat selection to create at will items that duplicate spell effects which after a while trumps the sorcerers multi casting ability. The XP costs are generally trivial and you end up amassing a vast arsenal of magic.

For a dungeon crawl, a wizard is pretty limited. For a campaign however they are a ton of fun to really dig deeply into. All those spell slots can be loaded up with social advantage powers for a city game and with combat powers for a dungeon game.

Overall pathfinder is a worthy effort but I find the whole thing a bit "munchkin" as in LOOK WE MADE EVERYTHING BIGGER, AWESOME DUDE!

I've mostly moved on to 4th because as a game master its much less of a hassle to create adventures for. I miss a few things from 3.5, mostly elements of character building, but all in all 4e is just less obtrusive.

[Aesop]

I always found that min-maxing a wizard in 3.5 is all about item creation. While your palls make due wtih whatever they can find, Mr wizard carefully uses his spell lists and feat selection to create at will items that duplicate spell effects which after a while trumps the sorcerers multi casting ability. The XP costs are generally trivial and you end up amassing a vast arsenal of magic.

For a dungeon crawl, a wizard is pretty limited. For a campaign however they are a ton of fun to really dig deeply into. All those spell slots can be loaded up with social advantage powers for a city game and with combat powers for a dungeon game.

Overall pathfinder is a worthy effort but I find the whole thing a bit "munchkin" as in LOOK WE MADE EVERYTHING BIGGER, AWESOME DUDE!

I've mostly moved on to 4th because as a game master its much less of a hassle to create adventures for. I miss a few things from 3.5, mostly elements of character building, but all in all 4e is just less obtrusive.

As a note ... Item Creation doesn't cost XP in Pathfinder

Aesop

[sephiroth1084]

I seem to recall seeing errata that rendered the new abilities that the sorcerer and wizard get slightly less useful by limiting them to times per day, instead of at will. Not looking at the book or errata at the moment so I can't be sure.

Definitely scaled down the power of casters a little tiny bit, while giving some huge bumps to everyone else. Certainly everyone is much more interesting, and it is now actually worthwhile taking a character from level 1-20 without multi-classing or hitting a prestige class.

I really like most of the changes made to the paladin, though I feel that they should get at least a few bonus feats scattered into their progression and the sword-companion thing could probably due to have a longer duration, or a shorter duration but usable more times per day. Love the smite evil change!

Barbarian looks kind of odd now with all the rage abilities, but it may work well in play...just that some are so useless compared to others (ie rage-swim, rage-jump, etc...).

Rogue looks really awesome! Maybe too good, gaining almost as many feats per level as a fighter does (Weapon Focus, Weapon Finesse, +1 feat available from lvls 1-10 I think, then a feat available every other level from there onward).

Personally, power aside, I really like that domains, bloodlines and specializations now have a real flavor to them.

The revamped system of combat maneuvers (cannot recall the name presently), seems like it may still be skewed with odd interactions, but it may end up as being simpler.

Half-orc stats are weird, and they still need some more defining characteristics.

While I understand that insta-kill spells cause problems, and are a real issue for caster vs. other balance, I loath the "fix" applied to most of these. Damage =/= necromantic spells.

It's weird how channel energy is a burst that can heal living targets or harm undead, but doesn't do both at the same time.


DEFINITELY maintaining my house rule that the cleric, fighter, paladin, sorcerer and wizard each get 4 skill points per level. Skill points should not be a balancing point and an extra 2 skills is not going to do anything other than give the characters more interesting options and something to do outside of combat.

May also remove the prerequisite 13 Int for Combat Expertise, since Int is a dump stat for most of the character who would be most likely to use it (Fighter, Paladin, Monk).

[GramercyRiff]

First off, I just got my book and haven't read through it as completely nor as thoroughly as I'd like yet.

Since skills ranks are still dependent on Int, the Wizard can do a lot more with skills, especially Knowledge. Knowledge is power, even in a game.

The bonus feats the Wizard gets supplement casting better than the bonus feats the Sorcerer gets. The Wizard also gets more bonus feats. Sorcerers do seem to make better Gish types from I've read so far. The Wizard still seems to be King of Control.

As for what Sorcerers got versus Wizards, Sorcerers had little going for them save spells. Admittedly and obviously spells are the most powerful class feature, so Sorcerers were still very powerful, but they lacked any other abilities save a familiar, which is admittedly another powerful option. Still the Sorcerer was feat/spell starved relative to the Wizard, and also very generic until the Dragon books came out. Sorcerers also had (and still have I think) problems with metamagic. Pathfinder changes this (save the metamagic problem) with a whole mess of goodies for the Sorcerer.

As for the Wizard, let's face it, it was easily one of the most powerful classes. Only the Druid and Cleric could compare. It didn't need anything to help it out in my opinion. However, Divination has some amazing powers. Always acting in the surprise round regardless of failed Perception is a really big deal. It lets you set up BC even if surprised. Initiative becomes even more important if that's possible. And whaddya know? You get a bonus to Initiative (1/2 Wiz level) and auto 20 (plus Init mods) at level 20. That's amazing; it's like built in Celerity. Get surprised, win Initiative and punish the fools for trying to sneak up on you. I haven't read the Divination spells in Pathfinder yet, but the 3.5 Div spells were great. They weren't Trans/Conj awesome but they were quite useful.

Also, I definitely agree with those that say spell versatility is better than quantity of spells cast. Versatility is power in 3.5 and so it is in Pathfinder.

On a side note, I LOVE that Dragon Disciple and Arcane Archer progress spellcasting, albeit at a reduced rate. It's still greatness though. Also, Fighters (beyond lvl 2-4), Monks, Paladins, and Rangers all got a good boost.

Rogue got the biggest boost. Probably because it needed it the most. Supposedly immunity to sneak attack is less prevalent. This was the biggest kick to the nuts for Rogues in 3.5.

[Mylon]

I like pathfinder. It carries on the torch so new players will have books to buy (face it, D&D 3.5's player population will dwindle over time, much like AD&D's has). It buffs everyone all around and makes feats (the most customizable part of a character) more common.

I've been playing with a 3.5 DM doing some level 10-12 adventures and either me, an experienced DM, is missing something or many of the encounters have turned out to be very hard. So a little power boost might be necessary.

Anyway, the core classes look much more appealing compared to the previously obviously better prestige classes. I'm not quite sure the melee/caster disparity has been dealt with.

I'm still not fond of Pathfinder multiclassing, trying to do a fighter/wizard without the help of a gap-filler like the Eldirch knight (which can only be taken at 7th level at the earliest, which is very late in character development) is impossible. I would love to see something more like 2nd edition's dual classing ability, but without the silly cannot-return restriction.

But, back to the topic, pathfinder is a maintained product, which means we'll be seeing more content for it, and it has more flavor and actual role playing potential overall. I mean, 90% of the 3.5 book was all about combat or making a combat-character, but the other 10% still gave enough info to give the illusion of being in a world. 4.0 tossed that out the window and even made the mechanics more gamey and unbelievable. So pathfinder all the way.

[SquelchHU]

My gaming group is going tobe starting up a run with this new rules set shortly, but we've been discussing them before we start the party up (and playing a Rifts game while we discuss)


The major complaint thus far is Wizards. Our resident wizard lover is displeased with the way Wizards came out. Its not that they were gimped, just that they weren't buffed up as much as Sorcerors were.

What do all of you think? Are there any other issues that people see/have with the Pathfinder system? What do you think about the XP-less Crafting System?

I'll check back after work... for now I'm off like clothes in a shower (or orgy as the case may be)

Aesop

I've only read the original post.

Here are my instructions for best enjoying Pathfinder.

First, gather a number of large rocks. The exact number required will depend on your area and availability, but you should be able to space them out in such a way so as to form a circle at least one yard in diameter.

Next, gather some dirt. Use it to fill in the cracks between the rocks so as to form a solid circle.

Once you have done this, ensure the wind is calm, gather some matches, a lighter, or similar, and optionally gather lighter fluid or a similar accelerant.

Deposit your Pathfinder books within the circle.

Apply fire liberally. Ensure nothing remains.

???

Profit!

I know that may seem like a joke post, but I am being entirely serious here. About the only thing you will gain by playing that system is Intelligence and Wisdom damage. It makes no improvements over 3.5 whatsoever despite the developer's claims to the contrary and indeed in spite of them. It does take many of the problems with 3.5 and exasperates them, in short spellcasting classes are even better, non spellcasting classes are even worse, and most of the enemies that slaughter non caster PCs but do not pose a threat to casting PCs have been improved. Stealth nerfs to weak characters and stealth buffs to strong characters is the name of their game, and they also stealth buffed a lot of monsters. In addition to all that they make use of smokescreen tactics to trick the gullible into thinking they are doing things that they aren't. Their product quality is poor, their business practices are deceptive, and they are the worst thing that has ever happened to 3.5. At least 4th edition will never be confused as the same game so it gets marketed to a different niche (those who want World of Warcraft, on paper) so the many things that have and will go wrong with it do not impact 3.5 in any way.

If you really must play with some house rules in place (and you probably should, having 3-5 viable classses out of 11 in core is not a good start) sit down and write them yourself. If your time is limited just take a minute or two whenever you have it to devote to the project, until you have spent several hours in total. Chances are what you came up with in a few hours by yourself will be far better than what Pathfinder offers even if you do not understand 3.5 well enough to know what needs to be fixed about it, and if you do have any degree of system mastery you are assured of doing a better job.