3.5 v Pathfinder

[Cam_Neely]

*** PLEASE don't have this fall into the path of other PnP threads. If you want to have an epeen quote off, hit up one of the other threads ***

I'm looking for some details on the pros and cons of both 3.5 and Pathfinder. I played AD&D for a while, then stopped, and did not pick up until recently with 4e coming out. Started as the DM for a group of 5 PCs and we went 4e cause it was the newest. Worked well because none of them had table top experience (some WoW ect but thats it). We are rotating DMs and one guy that is willing would prefer to play 3.5 because of the expanded options and better multiclassings.

Why should (or Shouldn't) we go for 3.5 or Pathfinder?

Thanks

*EDIT* would also love if you know a good link for further info on either*

[flynnjsw]

One is not too much difference. About the biggest issue at this point is that Paizo is very much supporting Pathfinder, while WotC has gone the way of 4E, and the 3.5 books have gotten harder to find.

I prefer Pathfinder, but it is all a personal preference; don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

[Esserbe]

I just feel that 3.5/Pathfinder with some good houseruling and DMing allows for more interesting character builds and concepts, 4E feels (keyword feels, your mileage may vary - it's really up to personal choice) so very streamlined and the solution to "wizards sorcerers clerics druids own the world" seems to have been to make *everyone* function as a spellcaster, instead of just empowering the DMs with more tools to deal with situations and making magical feats such as being able to be invisible and *fly* a bit more limited (which is still a problem in pathfinder).

But - Pathfinder has the Witch, which is a very cool spellcasting class.

[SquelchHU]

*** PLEASE don't have this fall into the path of other PnP threads. If you want to have an epeen quote off, hit up one of the other threads ***

I'm looking for some details on the pros and cons of both 3.5 and Pathfinder. I played AD&D for a while, then stopped, and did not pick up until recently with 4e coming out. Started as the DM for a group of 5 PCs and we went 4e cause it was the newest. Worked well because none of them had table top experience (some WoW ect but thats it). We are rotating DMs and one guy that is willing would prefer to play 3.5 because of the expanded options and better multiclassings.

Why should (or Shouldn't) we go for 3.5 or Pathfinder?

Thanks

*EDIT* would also love if you know a good link for further info on either*

3.5 wins. That was easy.

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=211361

Here's the Reader's Digest version:

3.5:

Pros: Actual versatility in character building and playing. Various options available to support a decent number of archetypes. Combat remains interesting due to not dragging on.

Cons: Non casters don't really number among the supported archetypes, as they aren't really viable at all, nor are they versatile. The downside of fast combat is that PCs can die a lot too, but as long as you keep in mind that death is just a status effect you won't take this too seriously.

PF:

Cons: Take everything good about 3.5, and remove it or otherwise mess with it. Take everything bad about 3.5 and either leave it alone or exasperate the problem. That's Pathfinder - worse in every way.

Pros: Um, it has pretty pictures? I'm really stretching here.

[baletraeger]

Pathfinder = when I tried to 'rewrite' my brothers A+ Defenbaker essay in grade 10 history so it didn't look like it was plagarized = FAIL

[sainy_matthew]

I suggest looking at the rules for both... I'm pretty sure they released the rules for both online for free. Then make up your own mind.

-M

[Nospheratus]

3.5 wins. That was easy.

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=211361

Here's the Reader's Digest version:

3.5:

Pros: Actual versatility in character building and playing. Various options available to support a decent number of archetypes. Combat remains interesting due to not dragging on.

Cons: Non casters don't really number among the supported archetypes, as they aren't really viable at all, nor are they versatile. The downside of fast combat is that PCs can die a lot too, but as long as you keep in mind that death is just a status effect you won't take this too seriously.

PF:

Cons: Take everything good about 3.5, and remove it or otherwise mess with it. Take everything bad about 3.5 and either leave it alone or exasperate the problem. That's Pathfinder - worse in every way.

Pros: Um, it has pretty pictures? I'm really stretching here.

You mean stuff like, super-complex and non-logical grapple/disarm/trip turned into logic unified and simpler system? For example...

Pathfinder = when I tried to 'rewrite' my brothers A+ Defenbaker essay in grade 10 history so it didn't look like it was plagarized = FAIL

Not really, it was just the continuation of a great game that WotC decided to DUMB down and turn into an MMO-like game. SHAME on you WotC!


As for PF vs 3.5, i think that PF really solves some of the ickiest problems 3.5 had while at the same time adding some good OPTIONS for character development.

Stuff like, cantrips at-will, super-simplified combat "maneuvers" mechanics - grapple/trip/disarm actually make sense now (ever tried to spec a fighter for disarm in 3.5? = no chance to weapon wielding opponents...), new features that actually make it worth staying pure in your base class, skill system tweaked, and a lot more.

I think that PF really made some things much better, most tbh. What i don't like about PF, in order, is:
- 3.5 has incredible amounts of resources/books. You can convert all to PF, but it's not the same
- Insta-death spells are gone
- Images - races/classes/monsters - too much spiky hair, HUGE sword japanese cartoon style for me - but that's really not an issue while playing

"D&D" 4.0 - only played it once or twice because my group insisted, and then gave up because i disliked it too much. This is the impression i got:
- Every round a wizard will throw an magic missile and nothing more to chose
- No multiclassing
- Very few choices in terms of spells/skills
- Everyone feels like the same character...
- Spells no longer exist as you know them.. You have a hand-full number of useful "powers"
- Rituals - something weird they decided to introduce - all useless

overall feeling:
- D&D 4.0 is an MMO and i hate it. For that i would just play DDO and guess what - you can still play DDO with your friends
- D&D 3.5 is complicated and requires you to really know a lot if you are DMing, but allows you to "go wild" and really create *that* character you really want. It only breaks if you really try. Easier for the Players and harder for the DM, but with some patience, consensus and a couple house rules you can easily do it
- PF is D&D 3.5 with some fine tuning, implemented some house rules if you prefer - easier for DM than 3.5

All in all i still prefer 3.5 at the moment, but would change to PF if there were as many resources as for 3.5. I guess with time that may happen.

[dkyle]

the solution to "wizards sorcerers clerics druids own the world" seems to have been to make *everyone* function as a spellcaster

While I personally never have felt that way about 4E, WotC is addressing that concern in 4E Essentials. There are new Fighter and Rogue (and probably Ranger) build options that opt-out of encounters and dailies (like how Psionics don't get encounters) and instead gain a suite of class features and at-wills. For example, Rogues get various acrobatic/movement tricks.

Not trying to start a debate, just communicating what's going on in the near future in 4E that might partially alleviate your issues with it.

[SquelchHU]

You mean stuff like, super-complex and non-logical grapple/disarm/trip turned into logic unified and simpler system? For example...

If by simpler system you mean 'don't even consider using any of these, because they won't work, ever' you are correct. If you meant anything else you are dead wrong.

Pathfinder is the system where if Hulk Hogan gets in the ring with the Undertaker, he'll pull out a **** sword and start auto attacking, because actually wrestling isn't going to work. Why? Because James Jacobs and friends think math is hard, so they can't do it. And they actively BAN people that do. That's right. Their playtest forums ban actual playtesters. Because what they want is people to play the game (which is NOT playtesting) and then spout off lots of feel good empty praise they can quote mine.

Now not all companies are smart enough to listen to their playtesters, but they're the first I've seen to invite people to do something and then actively discourage them from doing it right.

[flynnjsw]

Snip...
All in all i still prefer 3.5 at the moment, but would change to PF if there were as many resources as for 3.5. I guess with time that may happen.

Not to derail, but why do you feel like you "need" the splat book? Give me the SRD and the Wiki and I have all the info I need.

[szaijan]

Pathfinder's flaws tend to surface once you hit 10th level plus, and they're nearly all a result of keeping the dross that is high level 3.5. AC, Save DCs, SR, CR and most other 3.5 systems start to break down mathematically above 10th level. Good GMs can adjust for the poor scaling, but you're working around a bad system rather than with it.

To quote the great Jackie Gleason, "You can't polish a turd." 3.5 sucks. It's just SO much better than any system utilized by other MMOs that DDO's bastardized version of it shines brightly.

[Aspenor]

Not to derail, but why do you feel like you "need" the splat book? Give me the SRD and the Wiki and I have all the info I need.

Well, you don't have proprietary D&D stuff...beholders, mind flayers...

[flynnjsw]

Well, you don't have proprietary D&D stuff...beholders, mind flayers...

True, but they have added other monsters. It still doesn't answer the question of why someone would "need" the splat books before they started playing. IMO there are still plenty of options without them.

[Aspenor]

True, but they have added other monsters. It still doesn't answer the question of why someone would "need" the splat books before they started playing. IMO there are still plenty of options without them.

True. Check this out though. If that doesn't have OP written all over it, I don't know what does. Some pretty crazy stuff makes it onto the wiki.

Make your token your spell component pouch, win at life.

The capstone? You are immune to dying, with no level loss for dying.

[flynnjsw]

True. Check this out though. If that doesn't have OP written all over it, I don't know what does. Some pretty crazy stuff makes it onto the wiki.

Make your token your spell component pouch, win at life.

Yeah, that's quite OP there, though at least you can't even get the first level of it until 9th level (though even then it is still OP). The Pathfinder Wiki is not nearly as bad; at least not yet. It is mainly geography and history/lore.

[Symar-FangofLloth]

All in all i still prefer 3.5 at the moment, but would change to PF if there were as many resources as for 3.5. I guess with time that may happen.

Use your 3.5 resources in Pathfinder then, adjusted as necessary.

[Nospheratus]

If by simpler system you mean 'don't even consider using any of these, because they won't work, ever' you are correct. If you meant anything else you are dead wrong.

Pathfinder is the system where if Hulk Hogan gets in the ring with the Undertaker, he'll pull out a **** sword and start auto attacking, because actually wrestling isn't going to work. Why? Because James Jacobs and friends think math is hard, so they can't do it. And they actively BAN people that do. That's right. Their playtest forums ban actual playtesters. Because what they want is people to play the game (which is NOT playtesting) and then spout off lots of feel good empty praise they can quote mine.

Now not all companies are smart enough to listen to their playtesters, but they're the first I've seen to invite people to do something and then actively discourage them from doing it right.

What do you mean specifically by "because they don't work"? At some point i rolled a fighter with CE, spring attack, wirlwind attack and disarm with a heavy flail. It was a terror for the enemy in the battlefield! There was no enemy that could keep his weapon, even larger ones! That much that the DM started adding locked gauntlets to some mobs, and even then i was able to disarm 1 or 2...
So, while it makes sense that specialization is about being better in 1 thing, the disarm is one of the mechanics that was broken. A dex-based character had 0 chances of keeping his weapon, disregarding his dexterity that he could use to "dodge" the disarm atempt if DEX was included in the equation. This is just one example and i'm sure there are more.

I don't know about those things you are saying, but the truth is D&D 3.5 needed some tweaking because it falls apart too soon. Way before level 20...
I believe PF has tackled some of those challenges and i sure like it a lot more than D&D 4.0.

Don't get me wrong, i love 3.5 but some things need adjusting and the aditions of the PF are good imo. They add flavor with things that are mostly found in variants from the unearthed arcana., which you can use anyway but they are variants and may not fit right in what you are doing. If nothing else, you can use some ideas from PF.

Not to derail, but why do you feel like you "need" the splat book? Give me the SRD and the Wiki and I have all the info I need.

There is a lot of nice stuff that is not in the SRD. Actually, the best stuff isn't

Use your 3.5 resources in Pathfinder then, adjusted as necessary.

Yes, i agree. I just haven't bothered yet, because it's not just me but my whole D&D group that would have to make that effort and i'm not sure they would want to.

It's been a while since i'v played though, maybe sometime i'll try and do that.

[SquelchHU]

What do you mean specifically by "because they don't work"? At some point i rolled a fighter with CE, spring attack, wirlwind attack and disarm with a heavy flail. It was a terror for the enemy in the battlefield! There was no enemy that could keep his weapon, even larger ones! That much that the DM started adding locked gauntlets to some mobs, and even then i was able to disarm 1 or 2...
So, while it makes sense that specialization is about being better in 1 thing, the disarm is one of the mechanics that was broken. A dex-based character had 0 chances of keeping his weapon, disregarding his dexterity that he could use to "dodge" the disarm atempt if DEX was included in the equation. This is just one example and i'm sure there are more.

Because of the math. Disarm is a fail maneuver even when it actually works, but thanks to the math they used, it won't work. Let me guess, you ran around knocking weapons away from 5 HP mooks, at level 15?

I don't know about those things you are saying, but the truth is D&D 3.5 needed some tweaking because it falls apart too soon. Way before level 20...
I believe PF has tackled some of those challenges and i sure like it a lot more than D&D 4.0.

Don't get me wrong, i love 3.5 but some things need adjusting and the aditions of the PF are good imo. They add flavor with things that are mostly found in variants from the unearthed arcana., which you can use anyway but they are variants and may not fit right in what you are doing. If nothing else, you can use some ideas from PF.

PF is only good if you want casters to be even more dominant, and everyone else to be even more fail. Despite what certain people strawman about me, this is not the case.

Also, PF breaks even more if you use any other sources with it, despite their claims. But what do you expect from a company that asks for playtesters, and then actively discourages actual playtesting, up to, and including BANNING PLAYTESTERS?

[Nospheratus]

Because of the math. Disarm is a fail maneuver even when it actually works, but thanks to the math they used, it won't work. Let me guess, you ran around knocking weapons away from 5 HP mooks, at level 15?

How is it that you did that math?...

Here's the numbers:

I played him up to level 13 or 14 i don't remember exactly. It was rolled, 5d6 take 3 highest, and thus it had good stats. Something around - 17 str, 17 con, 15 dex, 13 int, 12 wis, 5 cha:
human fighter level 13 has 6 + 7 (fighter) feats = 13:
combat expertise
improved disarm
dodge
mobility
spring attack
whirlwind attack
weapon focus
weapon specialization
greater weapon focus
greater weapon specialization
melee weapon mastery
iron will
power attack

Disarm check:
13 BAB
7 - 24 STR (with 3 levelups on STR and a +4 item)
2 weapon focus + greater weapon focus
2 melee weapon mastery
4 improved disarm
2 two handed weapon
4 heavy flail
3 heavy flail has an enhancement bonus of +3
-----
37

Any character at level 13 has - note that most monsters will have none of this even if they have weapons:
13 bab
8 str - even more than me, but ok
4 - two-handed weapon - not everyone has
3 - enhancement bonus
10 - locked gauntlet - most don't have 1
------
38

Even though he has a locked gauntlet, i'm almost with the same bonus as him, even though he has more str, a locked gauntlet and a +3 two-handed weapon.. whoever doesn't, good luck!

I'm not even considering weapon enhancements that would ignore the size of the weapon... A giant would be trivial to disarm for me - i'm guessing


If he has a light weapon and no locked gauntlet, he gets -4. That means he has 21 vs my 37.
If i roll a 1 he needs a 17 to TIE... good luck with that... A dex based character has absolutely no chance to survive this!

Now, consider i have whirlwind attack and spring attack. I can place myself where i want and disarm basically everyone around me. Monsters should only rarely have locked gauntlets though, perhaps some of the boss mobs would have if they heard of me

I'm not even considering the potions of enlarge i always carried! That's another +5 (4 from size and 1 from the +2 STR)


Either way, i admit i don't know PF that well at higher levels, but i believe that some situations like the disarm one would be more balanced because you can add your dex modifier to your "defense roll", while still taking penalty for having a 1-handed weapon and/or a light weapon - in comparison to the heavy flail.


Sorry for the OT, but this analysis may still be interesting read for the OP trying to decide - maybe


EDIT: Just re-read your post and got the impression that you are assuming that this character existed in PF. No, this is a 3.5 character and it proves my point that some things need re-adjusting and PF may have gotten them right.

[SquelchHU]

Either way, i admit i don't know PF that well at higher levels.

EDIT: Just re-read your post and got the impression that you are assuming that this character existed in PF. No, this is a 3.5 character and it proves my point that some things need re-adjusting and PF may have gotten them right.

I skipped to the part that is actually relevant.

If your character existed in PF you would fail, at minimum 70% of the time. Disarm is pretty weaksauce as is, even if it worked 100% of the time because it only works against humanoid melees, aka the weakest things you could possibly face. But when a move only works 30% of the time, if it does anything less than 'kills the enemy without fail if it hits' then that move is made of fail. And all maneuvers do this in PF, because apparently James Jacobs thinks melee should do nothing but auto attack, such that if Hulk Hogan gets into the ring with the Undertaker, they will say 'screw this' and pull out swords and start auto attacking. So he went and heavily nerfed all maneuvers by giving them a success rate somewhere between 'Hail Mary' and '**** you, go play a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard if you want to influence the combat'. And then lied about it out of both sides of his mouth, his ass, and other orifices. And people actually drink that kool aid, which is sad. However confusion has a chance to break when struck.

Oh yeah, and even in 3.5 all that stuff gives you a mere 50% success rate or so. Yawn.