# Pathfinder vs. 3.5?



## Ry (Dec 31, 2008)

Can someone tell me why I'd rather one over the other?  

I'd really like to hear both sides, figure what improved, what got clunkier in Pathfinder.


----------



## timbannock (Dec 31, 2008)

Simple version: Pathfinder looks like it's there to add tons of options to players.  It streamlines a thing or two (CMB), but mostly it just adds options (and, to many, that also means power level).

Both are very system-heavy...but I assume you already know what you're looking for.


----------



## kitsune9 (Dec 31, 2008)

Ryan Stoughton said:


> Can someone tell me why I'd rather one over the other?
> 
> I'd really like to hear both sides, figure what improved, what got clunkier in Pathfinder.




I can't tell you what is "improved" or what they did "poorly", because that would be a matter of individual taste. However, I can show some differences.  I don't have this stuff memorized, so you Pathfinder fanboys don't jump down my throat if I make a mistake or I don't cover your favorite change. Feel free to add to what I'm saying here.

Races--slightly tweaked where pretty much all the races have a net +2 modifier to the ability scores. With the exception to humans and half-elves, the other races, get +2 to two abilities and -2 to one ability whereas humans and h/e get +2 to any ability of their choice. Other stuff too in the races, but nothing earthshaking.

Classes--some got tweaked, others got major revisions, but essentially it would seem that the classes have more abilities and powers. HD are more consistent to BAB. If you have a good BAB, you get a d10, okay BAB d8, poor BAB d6. Barbarians are the exception with d12.

My personal favorites is the treatment of cleric to channel positive/negative energy and sorcerers with their bloodlines in which they get certain abilities depending upon which bloodline they have for their character.

Feats--changes to some feats like power attack and cleave. For cleave, instead of getting an extra attack on an adjacent foe after you drop a baddie, you get an extra attack on a different foe should the first attack hit. 

Skills--fewer. Example: Tumble, Balance, and Jump is now Acrobatics. Hide and Move Silently is now Stealth. The ranking system is different.

Rules--some examples is they removed XP costs in casting spells, they have a Combat Manuever Bonus for resolving Grapple and such, and turning undead is different in which the cleric can channel positive energy as a burst that deals damage and requires a Will save on the undead to flee from combat.

Again, I can't really say this is an improvement or a step in the wrong direction as everyone has different tastes. All my players downloaded the Beta which is free from Paizo, so you check it out.

My gaming group is enjoying Pathfinder ourselves and we haven't run into a major issues. It feels and pretty much plays like 3.x for us.


----------



## Khairn (Dec 31, 2008)

Keep in mind that Pathfinder is still in its Beta version and will certainly have some additional changes before its published in Aug 09.

-That being said Pathfinder has made a number of changes to the core classes that provide more options and increases the overall strength (power) so that they are more in line with classes and PrC's that were published in later 3.5 books (Complete series).

-They've made a number of minor changes to hit points, races etc that on their own are minor.

-A number of spells have been modified so you have fewer instances of "save or die".

-The biggest change for me was the consolidation of the various combat moves (Trip, Sunder etc) under a single mechanic.

I'm a big fan of 3.5 and many of the variants that came out (AE, IH etc).  I find the changes to be more along the line of a set of really solid house rules like Unearthed Arcana, rather than anything fundamentally different from the 3.5 core rules.  "Backwards Compatibility" is a goal of the design team, and even though we see many different opinions as to just how "compatible" Pathfinder is to 3.5, in my Ptolus games I didn't see any real problems mixing Pathfinder and Complete classes.  The only exception to that are the "save or die spells that were published in later 3.5 books.  They obviously haven't been converted yet so I had to do it myself.

I hope that helps.


----------



## Ry (Dec 31, 2008)

To give a little context, I'm thinking about what to use as a baseline for a new E6... whether Pathfinder is becoming the de-facto 3.75 or if 3.5 stands as the base OGL game.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Dec 31, 2008)

kitsune9 said:


> Feats--changes to some feats like power attack and cleave. For cleave, instead of getting an extra attack on an adjacent foe after you drop a baddie, you get an extra attack on a different foe should the first attack hit.
> 
> Skills--fewer. Example: Tumble, Balance, and Jump is now Acrobatics. Hide and Move Silently is now Stealth. The ranking system is different.




I like that they streamlined skills.  Are Spot, Search and Listen also condensed into one as well?


----------



## BluWolf (Dec 31, 2008)

Ryan Stoughton said:


> To give a little context, I'm thinking about what to use as a baseline for a new E6... whether Pathfinder is becoming the de-facto 3.75 or if 3.5 stands as the base OGL game.




Given this criteria I would say stay with 3.5 over Pathfinder. I like what Pathfinder is doing and have incorporated many of these things into my E10 game. However I think the Power-race" has scaled much like 4e, it seems to be escalating.

For Example (and this could have an impact in E6), fighters gain a feat every level. In a 6 lvl game this does not grant a HUGE number of additional feats but it does raise the ainty STS.


----------



## Woas (Dec 31, 2008)

NewJeffCT said:


> I like that they streamlined skills.  Are Spot, Search and Listen also condensed into one as well?





Yes, and it is now called Perception, and includes all 5 senses as possible sources of alertness.


----------



## lrsach01 (Jan 1, 2009)

It's not as major a decision as people are making it out to be. If 3.5 has all the rules you need, there is more than enough gaming content out there to keep you running for YEARS. The Pathfinder Rules are just going to be tweaked 3.5 rules (backwards compatibility is a priority) but they have the advantage of active developement and management. If it does it for you, STAY with 3.5... ESPECIALLY if you generate your own loacations and NPCs. If 2nd or 1st do it for you, stay there. If 4e is more your thing, go there. It's gaming! Have fun!


----------



## Runestar (Jan 1, 2009)

Pathfinder does have a few rather weird changes, such as the apparent nerfing of trip and power attack (is the math that hard? PA is an option, not an obligation!). The attack maneuvers seem solely the purview of npcs, considering the fairly low success rate PCs will be expecting.

Spellcasters still seem as strong as ever. It seems almost as though the designers knew that something is wrong with the classes, but no idea of just where the problems lie.

Some of the new features are nice though, such as races getting a net stat bonus, faster feat progression, rebalancing of spells such as polymorph/wild-shape, and consolidated skill lists.

Seems like for every problem they solve, a new one crops up as a consequence. So may not necessarily be any better or worse, just different.

How backwards compatible is pathfinder anyways? It seems like converting your PCs is going to be a pain.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 1, 2009)

It's house ruled 3.5.

But house ruled quite well, IMO. A lot of it needed to happen, most likely. Some of it, I can't really tell. And as I haven't given it a go yet, it's overall neither thumbs up nor thumbs down AFAIK.

It's also hard to say at the moment, because it's still in Beta. When the final version is released, I suspect it will do very well. Better than 3e itself is still doing though? I don't know.

Best thing to do would be: download the free PDFs (there are a couple of supplements, with things such as magic items, more spells, and prestige classes in them). Also maybe check out the Paizo boards for the latest developments, designer posts, and discussions of issues.

For e6 (or 'e6-like') I think it would _probably_ work exceedingly well.

Other things to look at might include the Immortal's Handbook appendix v5 (and soon v6) and Trailblazer. But YMMV, of course.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jan 1, 2009)

Runestar said:


> Pathfinder does have a few rather weird changes, such as the apparent nerfing of trip and power attack (is the math that hard? PA is an option, not an obligation!). The attack maneuvers seem solely the purview of npcs, considering the fairly low success rate PCs will be expecting.




As an inexperienced DM, I will be happy if trip is nerfed, and its not the math. 

I had a PC take down two powerful NPC bad guys in one round with two trip attacks... seemed kind of silly to me that an 8th level wererat fighter and a 10th level werefox sorceress could be knocked down so easily and automatically vulnerable to AoOs by so simple an attack from a Rogue 8/Fighter 1.


----------



## Runestar (Jan 1, 2009)

> I had a PC take down two powerful NPC bad guys in one round with two trip attacks... seemed kind of silly to me that an 8th level wererat fighter and a 10th level werefox sorceress could be knocked down so easily and automatically vulnerable to AoOs by so simple an attack from a Rogue 8/Fighter 1.




Fighter I can understand, but why the spellcaster? Just have her remain prone on the ground and continue casting spells defensively if you do not want her to provoke AoOs. 

Now, pathfinder's trip seems to have a fairly low rate of success, and you no longer get a bonus attack. Against larger PCs, forget about it. At least in 3.5, a 10th lv enlarged fighter with improved trip still had a 50-50 chance against a fire giant.


----------



## Shazman (Jan 1, 2009)

If you want combat maneuvers to have more chance of success, simply change the DC to 10 + CMB instead of 15 + CMB.  How hard is that?


----------



## Kerrick (Jan 1, 2009)

Pathfinder powers up the base classes to put them more on a par with stuff that appeared in later WotC supplements. Many people noted early on that it's "D&D turned up to 11". That being said, it is basically just a heavily house-ruled version of D&D; almost everything that we know and love is still there, and most of it still works the same. I'm not enamored of the changes myself, beyond a few specific examples (the combat maneuvers, though they need some tweaking), but lots of other people like it.

Oh yeah - they got rid of XP costs for everything. Spells with XP costs now have (increased) gold costs, as do magic items; the item creation feats have a skill rank requirement.


----------



## Dagredhel (Jan 1, 2009)

Two things off the top of my head...

There are some very nice spell "fixes".  The Polymorph Problem is resolved rather elegantly through a series of spells of scaling level and power.  The spells aren't overly complicated, and cover a wide range of possibilities.  I was surprised to find that I liked them, since I didn't appreciate WOTC's 'a seperate spell for each particular form' approach, and expected that a 'generic' version would be even less appealing.  If nothing else, check that out as a solution to the Polymorph mess that WOTC made.

The other thing that occurs to me is that the class changes (additions) are geared towards offering an incentive to single-class for 20 levels.  As such, the new abilities tend to either be cumulative bonuses or suites of powers that scale up with character level.  A six-level system may therefore miss some of the "interesting bits", unless the higher-level abilities are reconfigured as feats (which would be *very* cool.)

BTW... I was on vacation from work last week... When the boards were slow, I took he opportunity to revisit and reread all of the E6 threads (that I could find)... thanks again for an inspired idea!


----------



## Pants (Jan 1, 2009)

I like a lot of stuff in Pathfinder and I am, in fact, using a couple of the base classes in my 3.5 FR campaign. I'm only using some of the classes and some of the feats, nothing else. I also tweaked a few of the classes, sorcerers and fighters got more skill points and more class skills, the wizard, cleric, and bard were rewritten. The monk stayed the same, even though it sucks only slightly less than the 3.5 Monk, mostly because I didn't know what to do to make it suck less.

So Far we have:

Human Rogue
Air Genasi Fighter
Human Sorcerer
Tiefling Wizard
NPC Half-Orc Cleric

Everyone really likes the changed classes so far, especially the fighter who likes having some options that don't involve fighting. 

As for some of the things I don't like, well, IMO the PF wizard, bard, monk, and cleric suck. The monk sucks because not enough was done to make it a class with an identity, it's still a mish-mash of rules, though it is slightly better than the 3.5 version, just not much.

The bard has some nice changes, but overall, it doesn't feel like enough was done to fix it.

The wizard and cleric are okay, I just don't like that they seem to get just a collection of spell-like abilities, whereas the sorcerer gets some unique stuff. I wrote up my own version of the wizard and cobbled a cleric together.

I'm not a fan of some of the feat changes. Power Attack and Cleave are staple 'fun' feats IMG even if they are abusable, my players would never let me take them away, and I wouldn't really want to either. However, some feats do get a nice boost. Toughness is now a worthwhile feat fer instance.

The CMB thing is pretty nifty actually, though I have no idea how it plays in game.

As for the powerlevel. I don't mind since that means that I can give out less treasure to the PC's and still challenge them with monsters.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 1, 2009)

Runestar said:


> Now, pathfinder's trip seems to have a fairly low rate of success, and you no longer get a bonus attack. Against larger PCs, forget about it. At least in 3.5, a 10th lv enlarged fighter with improved trip still had a 50-50 chance against a fire giant.



Honestly, you need to play it before you cement your opinion about this.

(1) Trip in Pathfinder no longer requires a touch attack.  (Granted, the touch attack in 3.5 is usually _pro forma_, but still.)

(2) Trip in Pathfinder no longer requires a STR vs. (STR or DEX) check.  It's all Combat Maneuver Bonus (CMB).

(3) The size modifier for Large creatures is only +1 to their CMB.  (Irrelevant for comparison to Trip in 3.5, but meaningful for stuff like Grapple, where in 3.5 it was +4.)

(4) At least so far, trip in Pathfinder is in place of a melee attack, and the CMB bonus doesn't go down with iterative attacks.  So using your last attack for a maneuver like trip is often a good idea, since the last attack often won't hit anyway.

So, a fire giant has BAB +11, STR +10, Size +1, for a CMB of +22.

An enlarged fighter 10 has BAB +10, STR +7, Size +1, Feat +2, tripping weapon +2 for a CMB of +22.

The DC is 37, so the fighter 10 has a 30 percent chance to trip a giant.  (On one attack.  On a _hasted_ attack routine, the chance rises to about 65 percent, although this doesn't count the fighter being counter-tripped (25 percent), and it doesn't count duplication of tripping.)

Is that chance too low?  A lot of people on the Paizo boards seem to think so, but I'm not so sure.  A 30 percent to 65 percent chance to take away the giant's full attack routine (or force it to attack at -4)?  To cause the giant to provoke AoOs at +4 to hit?

Maneuver effects are very powerful mechanically in 3.5, and they remain very powerful in Pathfinder.  I _want_ them to be relatively difficult to perform.

That said, I do think the +2 feat modifiers should be +4, and I think it's likely Jason Buhlman will drop the base DC from 15 + CMB to something like 12 + CMB.  But if that happens, about a month after the finished game is released, be ready to listen to people complaining about how special maneuvers are broken.


----------



## Thondor (Jan 1, 2009)

I would note that while most of the classes got 'powered up' and give many more options the druid remained almost identical, if i recall correctly the cleric didn't get much of a power boost either. In my opinion this is good as these classes were in many ways the most powerful. The warrior classes certainly got a nice boost, they're all a lot more complicated of course. I really like the changes to the Barbarian, a lot more versitile, more choices and they might actually be able to stand up to a well built fighter. Someone says the fighter gets a "feat" every level, this is incorrect. They do however get _something_ every level.


----------



## Pants (Jan 1, 2009)

Thondor said:


> I would note that while most of the classes got 'powered up' and give many more options the druid remained almost identical, if i recall correctly the cleric didn't get much of a power boost either. In my opinion this is good as these classes were in many ways the most powerful. The warrior classes certainly got a nice boost, they're all a lot more complicated of course. I really like the changes to the Barbarian, a lot more versitile, more choices and they might actually be able to stand up to a well built fighter. Someone says the fighter gets a "feat" every level, this is incorrect. They do however get _something_ every level.



No, they _do _get a feat every level as characters in PF get a new feat every odd level regardless of which class they're playing and fighters get a bonus feat on every even level.

So, a feat every level.


----------



## azhrei_fje (Jan 1, 2009)

Visit the Paizo.com forums if and check out the posts by Jason Buhlman if you want to get an idea of where the PF Final will be going in Aug '09.


----------



## Kaisoku (Jan 2, 2009)

Pants said:


> No, they _do _get a feat every level as characters in PF get a new feat every odd level regardless of which class they're playing and fighters get a bonus feat on every even level.
> 
> So, a feat every level.




However, they don't get it by virtue of being a fighter, so _the fighter class_ (aka "Fighters") do not get a feat every level. The character playing a fighter gets a feat every level.

The important distinction is that if you say the Fighter class gets a feat every level, it sounds like a character would then get 30 feats (20 fighter feats and 10 character feats), when that's not what you meant.

It's actually not even a change to the Fighter class that you are describing, rather something everyone gets. Balance-wise, the Fighter is no better off due to this change.

However, the Fighter does get a Will save bonus vs Fear, Armor training (allowing higher dex bonus and less penalties from heavy armor), Weapon Training (bonuses to groups of weapons), and their respective masteries (DR and Crit increases).
This does mean that the Fighter gets something rather significant every level, instead of having boring levels of nothing but HD bonuses (lvl 5 used to be a pain... nothing but a BAB, HP and skill boost.. not even saves).


----------



## Kerrick (Jan 3, 2009)

Pants said:


> I like a lot of stuff in Pathfinder and I am, in fact, using a couple of the base classes in my 3.5 FR campaign. I'm only using some of the classes and some of the feats, nothing else. I also tweaked a few of the classes, sorcerers and fighters got more skill points and more class skills, the wizard, cleric, and bard were rewritten. The monk stayed the same, even though it sucks only slightly less than the 3.5 Monk, mostly because I didn't know what to do to make it suck less.



I know this is slightly off-topic, but check out my revised monk. Some folks say the PF version is still better, but I'm not convinced. At the least, it's not a random mishmash of abilities (I felt the same way you do).


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 5, 2009)

I've become fairly disenchanted with Pathfinder.  I was elated that there was going to be a company that a) continued 3.5 design and b) was an alternative to WotC.

I was extremely hopeful at first but unfortunately, once I started seeing the changes and the beta release, I quickly realized Pathfinder wasn't for me.

It adds more of what 3.5 doesn't need and doesn't change the things that need changing.  I won't go into specifics again because my opinions are going to be different than everyone else's but I will say that 3.5 needed changes to core mechanics and not more crunch and power creep.

I've also become quite disillusioned with Jason's design philosophies.  It seems very "throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and hope something sticks", which is what got WotC in trouble with 4E (see Skill Challenges).


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 5, 2009)

azhrei_fje said:


> Visit the Paizo.com forums if and check out the posts by Jason Buhlman if you want to get an idea of where the PF Final will be going in Aug '09.




Any linkies?


----------



## azhrei_fje (Jan 5, 2009)

He's the lead designer for PF RPG.  Search on his name and find his profile, then you can click the link that gives you his recent posts.  He posts on a variety of topics (classes, magic, combat, etc) so there'd be way too many links to add here.  But the search will let you see the thread topics and then you can decide which you're interested in...

(Edit:  looks like a search only brought his name up 5 times!  He's some kind of "stealth poster"!  But a little looking around brought me to this page which is his profile.  And there's a "Recent Posts" link at the top.)


----------



## Voadam (Jan 5, 2009)

Ryan Stoughton said:


> To give a little context, I'm thinking about what to use as a baseline for a new E6... whether Pathfinder is becoming the de-facto 3.75 or if 3.5 stands as the base OGL game.




I'd say 3.5 is still the de facto base OGL game.

PF is still in beta form and is a variant of 3.5. While the freely available srd version means thousands have downloaded it, I expect most 3e games being played are still at base 3.5. I know that even though I'm incorporating a bunch of PF and 4e things, my games are still 3.5 at base with lots of house rules.


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 6, 2009)

kitsune9 said:


> I don't have this stuff memorized, so you Pathfinder fanboys don't jump down my throat if I make a mistake or I don't cover your favorite change. Feel free to add to what I'm saying here.




I wouldn't worry about it. They spent the holidays obsessed with an XMas card with a pinup Seoni on it.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jan 6, 2009)

Deleted, already stated


----------



## Kerrick (Jan 7, 2009)

KnightErrantJR posted some concerns and comments in his blog. It pretty well hits on what a lot of people are thinking, judging from the comments in the thread on the Paizo boards.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 7, 2009)

Kerrick said:


> KnightErrantJR posted some concerns and comments in his blog. It pretty well hits on what a lot of people are thinking, judging from the comments in the thread on the Paizo boards.




That dude is on the ball.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 7, 2009)

Kerrick said:


> KnightErrantJR posted some concerns and comments in his blog. It pretty well hits on what a lot of people are thinking, judging from the comments in the thread on the Paizo boards.




Great stuff.  I was thrilled at the idea of Pathfinder originally but my opinion has changed.  

Basically, I think Paizo has created a monster and they can no longer contain or control it.  I totally agree about the people gravitating towards PF.  The worst thing Paizo did was give the power level an overall “bump” with PF.  Now they are picking up the munchkin and powergamer crowd, which can never be pleased (just like powergamers in MMO’s).


----------



## azhrei_fje (Jan 7, 2009)

GlassJaw said:


> Great stuff.



Really?  I just trotted over there and read his "three things" and all I thought was, "No need to state the obvious."

Every game is going to have those same three groups.  So what?

I can understand if the game designers decide to "bend to the will of the masses" and include things that shouldn't be there then each player of the game has the right to be annoyed.  But I haven't seen that.  In fact, I've seen comments from the Paizo folks that certain things will NOT change either because of their goal of backward compatibility (as much as practical) or that it would change the feel of the game too much.

All I got out of his blog posting was a nice nap.


----------



## smug (Jan 7, 2009)

Kerrick said:


> KnightErrantJR posted some concerns and comments in his blog. It pretty well hits on what a lot of people are thinking, judging from the comments in the thread on the Paizo boards.




It's what the people that are concerned about PFRPG are thinking, more or less. I don't have the sense that they are in the majority, though (and KEJr later says he'd be happy if the Beta, pretty much as-is, became the final ruleset; he is mostly worried about potential further changes).


----------



## Phlebas (Jan 7, 2009)

i'm DM-ing freeport using pathfinder beta - gotta say i dont think the power creep is as big a factor as some make out and conversion time is minimal - in fact often i don't bother unless i want to use pf abilities for npc's.

one thing that does giver me a warm feeling for the final version are the changes jasons posted as design options beyond the beta - changes to animal companions so that they grow in power and size with the druid, changes to the way paladins smite/lay on hands works and a simplifcation of rage points

but the key thing is that the players like the new system and feel its freshened up - for example they had a long discussion on tactics to use against negative channeling clerics which is something new and scary dangerous in the game...

not saying it hasn't got its flaws but no more than ay other system and simple to revert to 3,5 or houserule the sub-system that doesn't do it for you


----------



## Pants (Jan 10, 2009)

GlassJaw said:


> The worst thing Paizo did was give the power level an overall “bump” with PF.  Now they are picking up the munchkin and powergamer crowd, which can never be pleased (just like powergamers in MMO’s).



See, here's where I disagree.

Boosting the overall powerlevel of both races and classes is great, because it means that I don't have to hand out as much treasure. A lot (well, more than usual) of the power is contained within the classes as opposed to being contained within their respective trinkets.

Granted, this didn't seem to be one of PF's stated goals, but it's a good thing anyways. 

As for the article, personally, there seem to be some good, solid points (not that I agree with all of them, but they were good), however there were too that just seemed kind of... whiny.

One of the most glaring points that I came across was this:



> 8.  While I know that many WOTC PrCs were pretty out there, bumping, say, the Dragon Disciple or the Eldritch Knight to be just as overpowered doesn't seem to be the answer, *and taking spells away from the assassin, while logical from a certain point of view, also seems to invalidate a number of 3.5 sources that added assassin spells*  (I read a lot of comments that never saw any extra assassin spells, but the Spell Compendium, as well as a few of the last WOTC offerings, and Green Ronin's Assassin book all added them into the game, so for someone that is interested in using this material with Pathfinder, you are telling them that they are on their own).



From my understanding, one of the tenets of PF was to stay relatively close to the Core 3.5 rules (if they strayed from that philosophy is a different point). If they concerned themselves with ALL of various 3rd party and non-core WotC releases, nothing would get done. There's just too much stuff out there.

Now, Assassins having spells was one of the things people liked to complain about. Now PF takes away their spells and... people complain because some books had assassin spell lists in them? Buh?



> 10.  Monsters . . . sigh.  Again, I understand adding Charisma to intelligent undead for hit points, but it does change a whole lot of monsters that exist in the game.  Given that a lot of high HD undead seemed a little out of whack for their CR, I think I could live with that, but the more talk comes out about the monster book, the more I hear about monsters having abilities added that they used to have, changing some of them to match CR, etc.



Some things just can't be fixed without breaking some stuff. Seriously, since they were going to release a monster book, they could A) ignore the various issues, then people would cry with 'but why didnt u guyz fix tihs ting????' or B) Fix issues, to the lamenting discord of people who want PF to 'be just like 3.5 but FIXED' (an utterly impossible situation).

Undead having gratuitous amounts of HD (which caused problems) and pathetic amounts of HP was one such issue. I was a big proponent of the unholy toughness ability back in the MM3 (and the corresponding feat in the ToH3) so I see this as a 'good change.' Even with all of their various immunities, undead just seem to get chewed up really quickly by fighter-types.

I DO agree with his first two points though. I've never been a big fan of the PF wizard and clerics.

Anyways, I'm done rambling.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 10, 2009)

I whole heartedly recommend pathfinder over 3.5.  

Pathfinder feels like the natural progression of 3.5. We have not had a power with power creep, as we have mostly an rp heavy group. Yeah, some classes are slightly better, but no more so that can break a game. I've run modules, creatures and 3.5 adventures with no more visible easiness than Idid my previous 3.5 campaign.  My favorite things.

CMB - really eases up special attacks and aofo, though i would have still wanted auto aofo.  In my game i use a 4 for the modifier instead of 1.

Magic users get normal magic use - magic users feel like magic users, always accessto a helpful power as exposed to a cantrip.  Unlimited cantrips are a great idea.  This has created more focused characters. My sorcerers and clerics don't feel the need to become mildly adequate at something else in order to make their character combat useful at early levels.  

Turning is simplified/ useful - the positive energy burst is a real simplistic way to deal with turning and again, more enjoyable.  Eliminating the lame charts of a turn check is nice.  

Fighter - I like the fighter, but wish it was more interesting like Monte Cooks fighter sin experimental might 2.  Which I give my players the option of in my pathfinder campaign.  

Spells- Much easier and cleaned up.  There was more thoguht put into what would effect what.  

Skills- The skill are condensed,smaller and more useful.  Allowing players to concentrate on skill based characters if they wished.


----------



## Ry (Jan 12, 2009)

Having now looked at Pathfinder, I'm decidedly unimpressed.  Seems like the design process got pulled off-course at some point, stopped being minimal changes and obvious fixes.  

I'll be sticking with 3.5 as E6's base if I do the complete E6 book.


----------



## trickybob (Jan 16, 2009)

I think the main question you need to ask yourself is what do you like about 3.5.
If its all the prestige classes and the crazy number of splat books and munchkin-ised gaming then PF probably isn't for you unless you convert everything to PF.
However the reverse is also true if you like the feel of 3.5 but want more control over what's allowed in your games.

Ultimately, PF is going to end up a separate game to 3.5. Paizo will need to release Monster books, Game world books, adventures, and splats. But by the time they get there you'll already either be in or out.

Personally, I want a balanced game and you can't have that in 3.5 unless you stay strictly with core...And then you need to look at some of those spells and sort them out. Well there isn't anyone out there that's going to do that for you, you're on your own.
PF, on the other hand, if you stick with only PF stuff, will give you a better balanced game, a fresh look and feel and that's all good to me. But this is just my view.

Honestly though, I already know exactly what I'm going to be playing and GM-ing. I'm going to use the PF Races, Progression, Combat rules and Feats [but not the new Power Attack changes]. I'm using my own Skills list [a mix of PF and 3.5], some house rules, mainly PF spells [with some alterations] and PF Classes but with some alterations. So 80% PF & 20% 3.5.

In short, I'm really enjoying PF but prefer some of the old rules, here and there, to the new ones. I think everyone that doesn't either move to 4.0 or religiously stick with whatever edition they currently play will end up using a combination of PF *and* 3.5.


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 16, 2009)

Ryan: please let the community know when you decide to release the E6 book. It's something I would buy, as I find the concept fascinating and the execution elegant, at least what I've seen of it.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jan 23, 2009)

Kerrick said:


> I know this is slightly off-topic, but check out my revised monk. Some folks say the PF version is still better, but I'm not convinced. At the least, it's not a random mishmash of abilities (I felt the same way you do).




I just got out of a meeting about two hours ago in which Jason laid out his plans for the final version of the monk and bard. I think you'll be pleased to know that a lot of his thinking and subsequent post-playtest development is geared toward addressing the "weakness" of the Beta monk (which is, of course, rooted in the weakness of the 3.5 monk).

I suspect you will like the final version considerably more than the Beta version.

--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing


----------



## vansung (Jan 23, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> I just got out of a meeting about two hours ago in which Jason laid out his plans for the final version of the monk and bard. I think you'll be pleased to know that a lot of his thinking and subsequent post-playtest development is geared toward addressing the "weakness" of the Beta monk (which is, of course, rooted in the weakness of the 3.5 monk).
> 
> I suspect you will like the final version considerably more than the Beta version.
> 
> ...




*Does a jump spin heel kick in celebration!*


----------



## azhrei_fje (Jan 23, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> I suspect you will like the final version considerably more than the Beta version.
> 
> --Erik Mona
> Publisher
> Paizo Publishing



Is there anything better than a gaming publisher that posts their thoughts in a public forum?

I mean, really?  I'm a fan of Paizo (charter PF subscriber) and I love seeing the staff involved with users...


----------



## Felon (Feb 2, 2009)

Last I looked at Pathfinder (which was a while ago), I recalled looking at the classes and getting a "gee, these are all over the place" feeling. Barbarians had some kind Iron-Heroesish token pool that they could expend to do things like get a free bite attack. It felt eclectic and kind of directionless. Even if we're avoiding 4e's hard-coded role-orientation, I'd still like to have an idea of what a barbarian brings to the table.

Has there been some streamlining since then?


----------



## smug (Feb 7, 2009)

There are new suggested Barbarian rules that are closer to the old ones (rounds of rage, rather than rage points). Jason suggested them here.


----------



## James Jacobs (Feb 8, 2009)

Felon said:


> Last I looked at Pathfinder (which was a while ago), I recalled looking at the classes and getting a "gee, these are all over the place" feeling. Barbarians had some kind Iron-Heroesish token pool that they could expend to do things like get a free bite attack. It felt eclectic and kind of directionless. Even if we're avoiding 4e's hard-coded role-orientation, I'd still like to have an idea of what a barbarian brings to the table.
> 
> Has there been some streamlining since then?




There has been... but we haven't been posting every final change to the Beta to the public. It's important to remember that the PF RPG is still in its Beta playtest, and will be for a couple more weeks. We're deep into the analysis of the playtest feedback, from the messagboards and from our own in-house playtests, and there's been a LOT of feedback to go through. And even though we're still gathering the last bits of data before we nail things down and send the book over to editing in a month or so, I can say this: the final game will be closer to compatibility with 3.5 than the Beta is. Not everything in the Beta works, and in some cases, experimenting with options only showed us how elegant and strong a 3.5 (or even 3.0) design element really was.

In the end, though, all I can ask is that folks check out the final rules when they release this Gen Con. If the game works for you, great! If you still prefer 3.5, also great! As it turns out, we'll still be printing adventures and sourcebooks that are compatible for both systems, so even if you don't switch to Pathfinder RPG, there'll still be options for 3.5 gamers. (We'll be releasing a conversion booklet, in any event, to help folks make the transition from 3.5 to PF RPG, or to help transition PF RPG products to 3.5.)

I suppose that, in the end, the best preview for what kind of game we're hoping to make PF RPG be is to look at the adventures and sourcebooks we've been doing in Pathfinder's Adventure Path and our other products; if we can't keep making products with those sensibilities and design philosophies, then we failed at the PF RPG.

Anyway... like I said above, we're getting close to the end of the playtest. If there's still something about the Beta you'd like to see changed (or would like to NOT see changed), please post on the playtest threads at paizo.com. Or alternatively, shoot me an email at james.jacobs@paizo.com with your concerns. I can't guarantee a response to every email... but I can guarantee they'll all be read and if the concern's something that hasn't been addressed already I'll make sure Jason hears about it.


----------



## Allaric (Feb 9, 2009)

I experimented with Pathfinder in the World of Aereth/Castle Whiterock campaign I ran. Some of my players really disliked the skill system. We all recognized that there was major problems with the v3.5 skill system and it needed updating. We tried the Pathfinder alpha/beta system and just couldn't get used to it. By changing the core skills it made the game incompatible with every prestige class and character sheet on the market. What was our solution? We added 2 extra skill points to the formula for every class in the game. The game should have had less skills to begin with but it didn't. It is easier to add more skill points to fix it. Now we can continue to use every character sheet out there and hundreds of d20 products. The more feats thing was great too. We adopted it. Changing PHB feats was not acceptable to us because those hundreds of d20 products out there built on them. Same for official D&D products. If you change toughness to be improved toughness feat then what does improved toughness do? We had already house ruled that casting spells and making magic items didn't cost XP so we beat them to it. Pathfinder is a great idea but for my group to use it you can't invalidate my current game library. I subscribed and am running Second Darkness module path and it is great so I know they do great work. It is a matter of compatibility.
Good Gaming
-Allaric


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 9, 2009)

Allaric said:


> We tried the Pathfinder alpha/beta system and just couldn't get used to it. By changing the core skills it made the game incompatible with every prestige class and character sheet on the market. What was our solution? We added 2 extra skill points to the formula for every class in the game. The game should have had less skills to begin with but it didn't.




First off let me say I am not bashing you or anything . But here is the deal the alpha and the betas had diffent skill systems so I am not sure which one you mean. The beta system is very usabel with 3.5 and I am not sure how it  makes PRC's useless. There was a side bare saying count all skill requirements as -3 . Meaning if it took 8 in PF it is now 5. That is 5 ranks...not counting the +3 for trained . For meeting  requirements only ranks count...meaning points you put in


I do wish they would kill that gods awful 2 skills per level wotc messed up by not fixing that long ago





Allaric said:


> Changing PHB feats was not acceptable to us because those hundreds of d20 products out there built on them. Same for official D&D products. If you change toughness to be improved toughness feat then what does improved toughness do? We had already house ruled that casting spells and making magic items didn't cost XP so we beat them to it. Pathfinder is a great idea but for my group to use it you can't invalidate my current game library. I subscribed and am running Second Darkness module path and it is great so I know they do great work. It is a matter of compatibility.
> Good Gaming
> -Allaric
> [/SIZE]




Also this one confuses me? They are not doing a 3.5 reprint things change. Feats changed in 3.0 to 3.5...did that stop you from using a cool 3.0 feat? Improved toughness is gone.. as is a few other feats not every thing will work . I heard but my extra rage feat wont work with rage points alot. Sure it will its 1 extra rage+1 level wroth of rage points

I use many 3.5 books , can I use everything 100%, well no then I would be using 3.5....But I can convert most of it on the fly so it works as it is meant to work


----------



## The Highway Man (Feb 17, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Also this one confuses me? They are not doing a 3.5 reprint things change. Feats changed in 3.0 to 3.5...did that stop you from using a cool 3.0 feat? Improved toughness is gone.. as is a few other feats not every thing will work . I heard but my extra rage feat wont work with rage points alot. Sure it will its 1 extra rage+1 level wroth of rage points
> 
> I use many 3.5 books , can I use everything 100%, well no then I would be using 3.5....But I can convert most of it on the fly so it works as it is meant to work




I think it goes down to personal inclinations as far as DMing is concerned. Some DMs want all the rules to be right there, in the book, and that's it. Their role is adjudication only. Other DMs love to bring their own vision to life through dozens of side books, houserules, input from the players themselves on the rules.... and the game rules at the game table evolve.

I strongly suspect that 3.5, and Pathfinder through it, will ultimately appeal to this latter sort of DMs.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 17, 2009)

I've been sufficiently satisfied with 4e that I haven't been watching Pathfinder really closely, but from everything I've seen, they're using a VERY loose definition of "backwards compatability".


----------



## trickybob (Feb 18, 2009)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> I've been sufficiently satisfied with 4e that I haven't been watching Pathfinder really closely, but from everything I've seen, they're using a VERY loose definition of "backwards compatability".




It's VERY loose seen through eyes that haven't been watching really closely....Hmm, why not take a GOOD look and then tell us what you ACTUALLY see?


----------



## czak (Feb 18, 2009)

I'm running an adventure path right now, have no time to spend converting / messing around with the rules and the Pathfinder Beta rules are working just fine.  Only thing I've had to do so far is give some baddies a HP boost, and calculate CMB.

It seems to be very backwards compatible to me.


----------



## Belen (Feb 18, 2009)

James Jacobs said:


> There has been... but we haven't been posting every final change to the Beta to the public. It's important to remember that the PF RPG is still in its Beta playtest, and will be for a couple more weeks. We're deep into the analysis of the playtest feedback, from the messagboards and from our own in-house playtests, and there's been a LOT of feedback to go through. And even though we're still gathering the last bits of data before we nail things down and send the book over to editing in a month or so, I can say this: the final game will be closer to compatibility with 3.5 than the Beta is. Not everything in the Beta works, and in some cases, experimenting with options only showed us how elegant and strong a 3.5 (or even 3.0) design element really was.
> 
> In the end, though, all I can ask is that folks check out the final rules when they release this Gen Con. If the game works for you, great! If you still prefer 3.5, also great! As it turns out, we'll still be printing adventures and sourcebooks that are compatible for both systems, so even if you don't switch to Pathfinder RPG, there'll still be options for 3.5 gamers. (We'll be releasing a conversion booklet, in any event, to help folks make the transition from 3.5 to PF RPG, or to help transition PF RPG products to 3.5.)
> 
> ...




Thanks for posting, James.  I was a bit concerned that their would be too many changes.  Overall, I like pathfinder.  I do wish that we could get away from all the conditional mods etc, but realize that may be impossible.


----------



## jephlewis (Feb 18, 2009)

I like the pathfinder adventure paths, and some of the pathfinder chronicles. I'll be buying the 'legacy of fire' adventure path for sure [last 3.5 adventure path]. I just got PF17 yesterday, and it's as gorgeous like the rest of them as well as 'not just a dungeon crawl'.

I'm not yet sold on pathfinder:RPG...I'm not sure what it's going to be, what changes will be made and what will be different, so I'll wait until either someone releases a review with 'here's what's changed!', or something like that before I make up my mind.

James, thanks for posting and reminding us things can still possibly change. I've downloaded the alpha and the beta, flipped through them, and liked a lot of stuff, such as the bigger HD for the wizard and rogue. The reason I like this change is because it 'narrows the gap' between characters that gets bigger at higher levels.

What i'd like:


have the game more simplified [buff spells last until the end of the encounter; the DM defines 'encounter']
 fighters get cool stuff too [tome of battle type stuff for martial classes]
 less numbers fiddling [no skill points, trained or untrained, no touch or flat footed AC...just give a bonus to hit]
 easier for the DM to prepare, run, and make an adventure [smaller monster stat blocks, 'create an NPC' rules and instructions just like spycraft 2.0 chapter 7, monsters have one or two special abilities but the DM chooses from a list of three to five]
multiple campaign options and guidelines for them [E6, high level, gritty]
notes on weak points of 3.5 and multiple suggestions for how to handle them [ban polymorph OR limit polymorph this way OR this way]
tl'dr: quicker and more flexible than 3.5, classes closer in power level/abilities, less math, easier on DM.

P.S. James, I love Wayne Reynolds' art. He really helps me 'see' golarion.


----------



## Erekose (Feb 19, 2009)

Belen said:


> Overall, I like pathfinder.  I do wish that we could get away from all the conditional mods etc, but realize that may be impossible.




Sums up my feelings too


----------



## dnddays (Apr 16, 2009)

jephlewis said:


> What i'd like:
> 
> 
> have the game more simplified [buff spells last until the end of the encounter; the DM defines 'encounter']
> ...




Perhaps then you should be checking out 4e?  It meets every one of your points.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 16, 2009)

dnddays said:


> Perhaps then you should be checking out 4e?  It meets every one of your points.




He didn't list all the stuff he _doesn't_ want. 

Presumably 4e has all that, too.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 17, 2009)

Heh - thread necromancy....

I am still playing my 'just three sessions' Pathfinder campaign. (Session 25 was last week.  ) One really noticeable thing - folks are playing sorcerers. Previous to Pathfinder I had more players who wanted bards than sorcerers. Now it is even. (One of each in the current party.)

Barbarian was a short lived choice for one player. Both figuratively and literally - got deaded in the second session as the first casualty for the group. His fighter has been longer lived. (He is also a tad more conservative in his actions - the barbarian died charging into a combat where he was outnumbered four to one, at second level.... Even with the tweaks for starting characters in Pathfinder he only lasted two rounds. Sadly, the rest of the party stayed in hiding rather than aid the annoying barbarian.)

Other than a few changes the feel is very much like 3.X. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## DragonBelow (Apr 17, 2009)

I don't see it as a contest of systems. they are compatible. That's the great advantage.

I would go with PF as a base just because it is currently being supported by a company. but I wouldn't hesitate to sprinkle it generously with elements of 3.X


----------



## joela (Apr 17, 2009)

DragonBelow said:


> I don't see it as a contest of systems. they are compatible. That's the great advantage.
> 
> I would go with PF as a base just because it is currently being supported by a company. but I wouldn't hesitate to sprinkle it generously with elements of 3.X




Ditto.


----------



## jephlewis (Apr 17, 2009)

dnddays said:


> Perhaps then you should be checking out 4e?  It meets every one of your points.



Hi!

I've checked out 4E, and there's a lot of things I like about it. I intend to house rule healing surges into 3.x, for example.

However, what's wrong with paizo asking themselves, "perhaps we should check out modifications to the 3.x/d20 system, and see which ones work _better than stock 3.x_ for what we're doing"?

For example, the NPC creation rules in spycraft 2.0 or the backgrounds in Green Ronin's black company campaign setting are both things that I think add to the game and/or simplify the DM's load. I don't see them taking away anything.

See, _IF_ pathfinder isn't going to be 99% compatible with current 3.x stuff, then I don't see what's lost by "streamlining" the rules to reduce high level wonkiness, make things faster for the DM, and generally "tweak" the 3.x engine.

I am curious though. In your opinion and your game, which of the items that I listed that I want do you not want for your 3.x/OGL game?

Dnddays, I think what I personally prefer would be something similar to 4E's core rules with 3.x's customization options [for example, multiclassing]. Does that make sense?



Wulf Ratbane said:


> He didn't list all the stuff he _doesn't_ want.
> 
> Presumably 4e has all that, too.



I try to focus on the positive . BTW, when is trailblazer being released? Will it be offered in print or POD?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 17, 2009)

jephlewis said:


> BTW, when is trailblazer being released? Will it be offered in print or POD?




It will be released before GenCon and be available in PDF and POD.


----------



## James Jacobs (Apr 17, 2009)

jephlewis said:


> However, what's wrong with paizo asking themselves, "perhaps we should check out modifications to the 3.x/d20 system, and see which ones work _better than stock 3.x_ for what we're doing"?




Part of it is the simple fact that we're busy busy busy, and have been for the entirety of Paizo's existence—producing monthly gaming products, be they magazines or books, is a non-stop series of looming deadlines, and as a result we simply don't have time to be completely familiar with every d20 open content development. We're familiar with a lot of it, but the example you mention about  the alternate NPC creation methods are unfamiliar to me.

That said, part of the PF RPG's goal is to remain as close as possible to the baseline of the SRD. In so doing, we more or less build in support and ease of use for other modifications publishers have been doing without forcing those changes on customers and gamers who don't like those changes as much. By remaining close to the SRD's baseline, even if we don't directly build upon those alternate NPC creation rules, we can ensure that those rules work as well with PF RPG as they did with the 3.5 SRD.

There seems to be an erroneous assumption going around in some circles that the PF RPG's goals are to vastly "improve" 3.5, when in fact its goals are more humble—we just want to keep in print and supported by stores the incarnation of the rules we prefer. We ARE making changes, to be sure, but those changes are mostly inspired by both our and 3.5 players' reactions not only to our public playtest, but to reactions to 3rd edition in general over the past several years. In a way, the entire lifecycle of 3.5 was a playtest as well.

But we don't want to drift TOO far from 3.5. Tightening things up here and there, offering more options without taking options away, and rebuilding the ability generation and experience point award sections (both of which were NOT open content) were the main goals of the PF RPG.

After all, I want to be able to continue using all the great open content we've been using from other companies (primarily Green Ronin and Necromancer Games), and if we change the game too much, that makes it difficult for us to do that!



jephlewis said:


> See, _IF_ pathfinder isn't going to be 99% compatible with current 3.x stuff...




It won't be 100% compatible, no. Nor was 3.5 100% compatible with 3.0. But I can absolutely guarantee you this—the final PF RPG game (which is in its final few weeks of editing here at Paizo) will be closer to 3.5 than the beta was. The beta was about testing limits and new ideas. Some of those ideas worked well and were popular; they'll be staying. Some of them were not or didn't work well, and in those cases, we've learned that the rules in 3.5 were better and will be staying the same or very similar.


----------



## Treebore (Apr 17, 2009)

DragonBelow said:


> I don't see it as a contest of systems. they are compatible. That's the great advantage.
> 
> I would go with PF as a base just because it is currently being supported by a company. but I wouldn't hesitate to sprinkle it generously with elements of 3.X




I think in the final version we will see 3E generously sprinkled with Pathfinder.


----------



## dnddays (Apr 17, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> He didn't list all the stuff he _doesn't_ want.
> 
> Presumably 4e has all that, too.




Yeah, it has all that character balance, solid gameplay and fun.  Who wants all that!?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 18, 2009)

dnddays said:


> Yeah, it has all that character balance, solid gameplay and fun.  Who wants all that!?




A little late for the edition war, don't ya think?


----------



## Eridanis (Apr 18, 2009)

dnddays said:


> Yeah, it has all that character balance, solid gameplay and fun.  Who wants all that!?




This line of commentary ends here. This is a months-old thread, and will not be derailed by snark. There are many other threads to discuss 4E; this is 3.5 versus Pathfinder thread.


----------



## jephlewis (Apr 18, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> It will be released before GenCon and be available in PDF and POD.



Sweet, dude . Looking forward to a print version.





Hey James!







James Jacobs said:


> Part of it is the simple fact that we're busy ...and as a result we simply don't have time to be completely familiar with every d20 open content development...the example you mention about  the alternate NPC creation methods are unfamiliar to me.



Completely understandable. In short, they use a real big chart to select things quickly.



James Jacobs said:


> There seems to be an erroneous assumption going around in some circles that the PF RPG's goals are to vastly "improve" 3.5, when in fact its goals are more humble—we just want to keep in print and supported by stores the incarnation of the rules we prefer. We ARE making changes, to be sure, but those changes are mostly inspired by both our and 3.5 players' reactions not only to our public playtest, but to reactions to 3rd edition in general over the past several years. In a way, the entire lifecycle of 3.5 was a playtest as well.



My bad. I was one of those people under the assumption that pathfinder was going to be more different than what you're saying. I'm glad I was mistaken.



James Jacobs said:


> But we don't want to drift TOO far from 3.5. Tightening things up here and there, offering more options without taking options away, and rebuilding the ability generation and experience point award sections (both of which were NOT open content) were the main goals of the PF RPG.



Some people note that 3.x plays very different at high level. Also, some people note that the CR system isn't always accurate [cakewalk or TPK]. Can you discuss at this time how pathfinder addresses either of these issues?



James Jacobs said:


> It won't be 100% compatible, no. Nor was 3.5 100% compatible with 3.0. But I can absolutely guarantee you this—the final PF RPG game (which is in its final few weeks of editing here at Paizo) will be closer to 3.5 than the beta was. The beta was about testing limits and new ideas. Some of those ideas worked well and were popular; they'll be staying. Some of them were not or didn't work well, and in those cases, we've learned that the rules in 3.5 were better and will be staying the same or very similar.



I'm okay if it's not 100% compatible. In fact, the more improved the game is in my very subjective opinion, the more forgiving I will be concerning compatibility. Thanks for answering my questions, James. You've gone a long way on making me want PF:RPG.


----------



## James Jacobs (Apr 19, 2009)

jephlewis said:


> Hey James!Completely understandable. In short, they use a real big chart to select things quickly.



We do have a revised and streamlined method for generating NPCs in the book, in any event, including a lot of advice on what feats and skills to give them. The fact that skills themselves work a bit more simply (max rank = HD, not max rank = HD +3, and so on) goes a long way toward making NPCs easier to build; that's for sure!



jephlewis said:


> Some people note that 3.x plays very different at high level. Also, some people note that the CR system isn't always accurate [cakewalk or TPK]. Can you discuss at this time how pathfinder addresses either of these issues?



We've done a lot of little things to address making high level play easier, but we haven't made it simple. While a lot of folks cite high-level play as "too complex," there's a fair amount who enjoy that complexity, and stripping the complexity out needlessly is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to use a cliche. Nevertheless, we have made a lot of changes to needlessly complex rules. Many of those are changes to how spells work; dispel magic, in particular, was good at single-handedly disrupting high level play because it got used ALL the time and it took forever to sift through its results, especially when there's a lot of spell effects to go through.

The CR system is a bit more complex. It's value, in my opinion, is more of a way to measure monsters against each other, really, than against the PCs, especially since the power level of a PC depends on house rules, the skill of the player, the skill of the GM at running monsters, the choices made at character creation, and how many beyond-core rules are allowed in the character's creation. That's a lot of impossible-to-quantify variables. As a result, CR can only REALLY be a measure of how a monster balances out against other monsters, or against cookie-cutter strictly-by-the-book PCs. We've done a lot of research and investigation into determining what a specific CR can do, say, in terms of average damage per round, what its average hp and AC should be, what its saves and save DCs should be, and so on, all associated against the standard PC. The _Pathfinder Bestiary_ will have the results of this rebalancing and rebuilding, and the RPG will have a new XP table and method of awarding XP that's a LOT simpler and more straightforward than 3.5's version, I think.

Anyway, I can't go into exact details about how high level play, CR, and other things work in Pathfinder RPG yet... although I believe we'll start doing preview stuff in May over at paizo.com...



jephlewis said:


> I'm okay if it's not 100% compatible. In fact, the more improved the game is in my very subjective opinion, the more forgiving I will be concerning compatibility.



The game is different, but from what I've seen personally as a GM and a player, the ease of using 3.5 (or even 3.0) mechanics in a Pathfinder game (or vice versa) is something that a GM can handle at the table. My current Pathfinder GM is running a 3.5 Necromancer Games module in a Pathfinder game, and with the exception of periodically having to calculate a creature's Combat Maneuver Bonus and Defense in game when we tackle a creature that he wasn't prepared for us to fight, it's going pretty seamlessly. (And calculating those values only takes like 10 or 15 seconds anyway... less time than it took to look up the different rules for the various combat moves like grapple and trip and disarm did!).


----------



## Leif (Apr 19, 2009)

DragonBelow said:


> I don't see it as a contest of systems. they are compatible. That's the great advantage.
> 
> I would go with PF as a base just because it is currently being supported by a company. but I wouldn't hesitate to sprinkle it generously with elements of 3.X





			
				joela said:
			
		

> Ditto




Double Ditto!


----------



## jephlewis (Apr 20, 2009)

James Jacobs said:


> We do have a revised and streamlined method for generating NPCs in the book...



Pathfinder is sounding better and better to me . 




James Jacobs said:


> Anyway, I can't go into exact details about how high level play, CR, and other things work in Pathfinder RPG yet...preview stuff in May over at paizo.com...



No problem. I think what you've told me can hold me over until may.


----------

