Pathfinder Vs. 3.5

>>48802110
They are nearly the exact same game.

Pathfinder plays a lot smoother and has a ton, ton more content and support from the creators now.

Just do Pathfinder because more people play it nowadays.

>>48802196
That sounds like it's a straight upgrade. Any downsides you can think of? Some reason people would stick to 3.5 short of ignorance or familiarity?

>>48802241
Do you have experience, or already own the 3.5 books and thus wouldn't have to pay money on the Pathfinder core books?

In that instance, just play 3.5.

All their rules are free up on the SRD, but having the book is nice for the group.

>>48802241
>>48802260
It's all about money, Pathfinder might have a lot more support, but even if all the rules are up for free, all those adventures and add-on's cost money.
Or you could just get them all for free just like DnD because 4chan. It doesn't matter.

Pathfinder is a straight-up downgrade from 3.5. It is a gaggle of idiots' bad houserules.

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083&start=0

>>48802260
I do have 3.5 experience, all the players in my local group do too. But I'm also pretty open to learning something new if it could be considered better.

>>48802275
I also have no compunction regarding obtaining books illegally, so there's that.

>>48802241

Due to creator hatred of the very concept of minmaxing, minmaxing in pathfinder has a lot less to it than 3.5. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of interesting top tier builds you can do in 3.5. Good luck finding the same in Pathfinder. Instead you get to go cookie cutter or sub-optimal.

>>48802327
Aside from clarifying some wording, everything from 3.5 is in PF, so this is clearly false.

>>48802110
It has an improved skill system, is still updated, and the 3rd party scene is incredible (Dreamscarred Press and friends.) The downsides being that Paizo doesn't understand their own system for shit and the Martial-Caster disparity is as alive as ever. I would run PF over 3.5 these days just because of how easy it is to get the rules and steal the pdfs.

Pathfinder is 3.5+; Not in that it's better, but everything you've heard of 3.5 (good or bad), Pathfinder is moreso.

>>48802327
Well, it's not quite that they removed minmaxing, but they did pretty much remove all of it from non-casters.

Good example is how Feats work now. Everyone gets more of them across the board now...
but all the Fighter feats (like improved grab and such) are nerfed by at least half. So feats that used to give +4 to something are split into 2 feats that give +2

Metamagic and other caster feats, naturally, are untouched.

>>48802361
>>48802416

To add on: At low levels (sub level 11), Barbarians and most optimized weapon martials are way too strong, being able to nearly one-shot all enemies.

Then when you get higher than level 7-11, the numbers for enemies saves start to really peter out and casters start to have less and less of a chance of wasting a turn.

Basically it's the same as 3.5, with a little stronger martials at low levels.

File: kitten mittens.jpg (46KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1280x720px

play 5e instead

>>48802416
There are bonuses to staying single classed, but martial characters were the only ones that really needed to do that for more power. So all the casters get substantial buffs for doing what they were doing before.

They did spot-nerf a bunch of the more famous I Win spells, but didn't do anything about why they were so strong in the first place. So now you just cast whatever was in second place, plus all the new spells they printed that are just as bad.

>>48802110
>I'd rather play something else, but people like D&D.
Maybe try playing a better edition then? Choosing between 3.5 and PF is like picking your favorite dumpster fire. At the end, you're still stuck with a pile of flaming garbage. Play 5e. Play Basic. Play something else.

>>48802110
Pathfinder is literally 3.5 with small as fuck differences that only make it even more caster supremacy system

>>48802327
Hahahaha ha ha no, there're tons of broken builds in PF, less than 3.5 because, even after all these years, 3.5 still has more content.

>>48802437
Druids and Summoners, in this case Synth, say hi.

>>48802437
>Barbarians and most optimized weapon martials are way too strong, being able to nearly one-shot all enemies.
Pointless though, even at high levels Barbs and well done Fighters can OHK most monsters, the problem is that they don't survive shit or they can't even act because monsters are faster and have more way os fucking you up than reducing your HPs

Even in fucking 3.5 Barbs and Fighters could kills stuff easily, this was never a problem, the problem is that killing stuff by hitting it is probably the worse way of dealing with encounters and martials can't do anything beyond that

>>48802110
Let's take a moment to look at these.

They are almost identical.
>Skill system in PF is slightly better and more fleshed out without counting obscure sources like Powers of Faerun for 3.5.
>Combat Maneuver Bonus/Defense system is a bit more streamlined for PF's favor.
>PF tried to nerf spells, succeeded in a few cases and accidentally made the problem worse in others. Haste, for example, is still plenty potent with little to no change. Divine Power only gives you an extra attack on a full attack rather than raising your BAB to your character level.
>Casters have a lower skill floor because of the class features they get now, but a higher skill ceiling because of the same; not that it matters, there's no actual ceiling in either version, but it makes it less of a pain for a newer player to enjoy casters without needing to know and charop a bit to do things at 1st to 3rd level.

3.5 has fucktons of content both in old shit from years of use to fuckloads of homebrew content.

PF is increasing its content mass by similar fucktons and is getting New official content in addition to homebrew.

Both editions are going to take some work and research to avoid awful options that're traps; wasted or useless character options.

Physical copies of the PF books will cost you money to get and PDFs will be risky to nab due to copyright garbage. 3.5 books will be a pain in the ass to get but the PDFs can almost all be found online and you can download a literal library worth of content. PF does have PFSRD though for online access to most of the content

Basic > 2e > 1e > 5e > 3.0 > 3.5 > PF > 4e

Now go play.

>>48803485
>>Combat Maneuver Bonus/Defense system is a bit more streamlined for PF's favor.
Sure, more streamlined, but it completely fucks martials though, in 3.5 you could make a maneuver focused one, for example Trip builds worked, in PF they don't

>>48803541
Not terribly well I'll give you that. And more so this brings up a point; the two systems are VERY EASY TO TRANSLATE INTO EACH OTHER. Feel free to grab both and just pilfer and translate one into the other for options you like. (Close Quarters Fighting from 3.5 is a godly defense against big critters in PF because the bonus per size category on grapples got halved, though you can half the bonus against offensive grapples to compensate).

You could use CMB/CMD for the most part but let a player keep the opposed Dex or Str checks for tripping functionality.

You really have no reason at all for this thread to be a One or the Other dichotomy when really you can just pick one and take the other too.

>>48803541
>tfw literally blew 4 feats into a trip monk and never ever was able to trip anyone
Thanks Obama

>>48803621
What actually prevented this by the way, were you just never able to beat CMDs or did your DM keep throwing flying or multi-limbed critters and oozes at you?

>>48802110
Here is the thing, there is a third path, the true path. PF hints at it with the system being 3.5+house rules. The right way is to just play 3.5+your own house rules. Take a look at path finder, see if you like any of the house rules. Think about problems with the system, and make up solutions. Pathfinder fixes nothing really, but it shows a shadow of how to actually fix it.

>>48803883
Never able to beat CMDs, we started at a mid-high level and already by then their CMDs were pretty fucking high

>>48803621
Please. Your problem has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with Republican obstructionism. Everybody knows Obama tried to subsidize feat acquisition, but Republicans linked it to a repeal of Obamacare, so nothing got done. You need to quit getting all your information from Fox News. Next thing you know, you'll be claiming Obama never played D&D in college because you've never seen his long-form character sheet. That *was* his long-form character sheet, dumbass. D&D was simpler back then and didn't have a bunch of skills and shit to take up space. Educate yourself.

>>48803920
>Took a look at the CMD of random CR12s.
>45
Well that's pretty hi-
(Can't be tripped)
Well okay let's try again.

Great Cyclops
CMD 38.

Alright, level 12 Monk starts with effective BAB for CMB at 12, then +7 dex on a pure trip build should be easily within reach presuming WBL for +17, then Improved and Greater Trip feats for +4 to +21, heirloom weapon trait for +2 into 23, then party buffs like +2 bardsong or +2 cleric spell for 27 vs 38.

This is a ridiculous amount of focus and investment just to be viable at ONE combat maneuver but if anything this does kind of make the point of where PF's CMB system falls short.

File: Why Not Both.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

>>48802110
They are essentially identical.

Most DM's in my area who still use 3.PF use material from both sources, and allow players to do the same, based on their build. We have yet to run into any problems.

There is almost no difference, so "converting" from one to the other would be downright silly.

Just use both.

File: 5e in a nutshell.png (212KB, 544x179px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 544x179px

>>48802469
>playing AD&D + 3.X + a bit of 4e, written by idiots

Just play AD&D if you're OSR, or 3.X if you're NSR. Don't bother with the bland mashed-together version of the two.

>>48804373
5e is a straight upgrade to 3.5*****

*****without just dumping 90% of the shit published and even then the 5e core rules are better.

>>48804495
>hard capping ability scores at 20 because you can increase them by +2 every four levels
>a progression mechanic added so that players would hit the cap, then "round out" their character by putting the +2 into something else
>instead of just adding +1 to two skills, which rounds out character better, and means the maximum score is 23, meaning that capping ability scores isn't even required

>without just dumping 90% of the shit published
Ironic that you say this, when the 5e PHB drops far too much to begin with.
>no negative mods on races
>no stat changes based on age
>only "spawn of asmodeus" tieflings in the PHB
>only one shield present
>removing the paladin's mount
>gutting the mounted combat rules
>etc.

Don't say you can just homerule a fix, because you can do that with 3.X too. We're looking at RAW here. You'd be surprised how often that's the immediate response when I've posted this argument before.

At times it feels like they tried trimming 3.X back to meet the AD&D grognard standards, which I think Mearls admitted to at some point, but they kept around things like ability score increases and feats, which are what pissed the AD&D players off about 3rd in the first place.

>>48804373
5e is *literally* the best edition of D&D ever made. Sorry grandpa, that's just how things are.

>>48803516
>Basic > 2e
You got that backwards there.

Fantasy Craft is the same idea and very easy to get into if you have experience in 3.PF. At the same time, it's miles better.

>>48802322
>something new
kek
don't overextend yourself learning a strange new system like Pathfinder!

>>48802110
Basically
Pathfinder
>Made the skill system smoother
>Streamlined combat maneuvers, but fucked them up for most martials (Dirty Trick is the only decent one atm)
>Might have given fullcasters even more dangerous tools
>Full BAB martials are still below 6/9 and fullcasters
On the other hand
>Most 6/9 caster classes are good design
>3rd party Psionics and Path of War (Port of ToB) provide a wide array of stuff that is well written, somewhat well balanced and provides a vast array of character building options, particularly for martials (and PoW martials CAN make decent combat maneuver builds).

>>48805111
>it's miles better
That's because it has no players to soil its perfect mechanics.

>>48805456
Yeah yeah I've heard it before I'm in four games someone stop me

If I had to pick one I'd play Pathfinder because it's all online and it's easier to say "OK lads pick a tier 3 or 4 class".

That all said:
If I wanted a decent game that said 'DnD' on the cover and had a large userbase I'd be playing DnD5e.
If I wanted a GOOD game that said DnD on the cover I'd be playing BECMI or 4e.
If I wanted a class-based fantasy game with some tactics and optimisation mixed in I'd be playing 13th Age.

And if my players didn't give a shit about combat I'd be playing Dungeon World or Fate or some other game.
Pick the game that makes sense for your group.

>>48804644


Nah they trimmed back the perfect amount.

Also paladin's can get the spell to summon a mount yo.

>>48804644
Literally all of the things you call trimming are actually good design decisions.

>>48802110
There is some content that's crappier in pf, like the feats for combat maneuvers.

That's about it .

And you can always use any 3.5 content you like in Pathfinder.

3.5 monsters have slightly lower numbers than pf ones (assuming they're not the "iconic" d&d monsters wotc arbitrarily reduced the cr of to make them much harder).

They got rid of the shitty LA rules as well. That's good.

And d20pfsrd/archives of nethys makes finding character options way easier than it ever was in 3.5.

Only thing i really miss is 3.5 style alternate class features.

But yeah. There's very little reason to choose 3.5 over Pathfinder, especially when you can use 3.0/3.5 stuff (including character options) in Pathfinder with very minimal effort.

>>48806601
As someone who dislikes 5e I 100% agree with you, all of these 'dropped' things were dropped for the better and their word count was better spent on other things.

Kinda goofy that every special effect is a spell now though. I half expected a Torch in 5e to just have the description 'casts Light for two hours'.

Pathfinder is more complex, and less balanced.
And 3.5 is already poorly balanced.
Many of the hybrid and advanced classes in PF can be hard to wrap your head around unless your familiar with 3.5 already.

Pathfinder has archetypes, 3.5 has prestige classes. (Yes Pathfinder adopted some of the core 3.5 prestige classes and 3.5 has ACFs that function like proto-archetypes, but they don't approach each other's extremes at all.)

>>48807213
Pathfinder is not well balanced, but it's no worse than 3.5

>>48807229
I always assumed PF Archetypes were like 3.5 Variant classes.

>>48807213
Pathfinder is easy less complex than 3.5. Not every character has a minimum of 3 classes, and you can play the class you want from level 1, 99% of the time. As opposed to 3.x where the first 6-10 levels you're not playing the character you want, you're jumping through hoops to unlock what you want to play.

Archetypes > prcs.

>>48807276
>and you can play the class you want from level 1, 99% of the time
Didn't know there were 99 casters for every martial

>>48807286
>martials going from 1 to 20
Haha, what? Unless you mean Tome of Battle martials, which everyone treats as meta-casters anyway.
Barbarians become Frenzied Berserkers, Rogues become Avengers, even Fighters become Exotic Weapon Masters if they have any reason to them.

>>48807478
Either you replied to the wrong guy or you can't into reading comprehension.

>>48807276
You need archetypes to accomplish that (believe it or not not every GM allows them) and sometimes not even with them, see Monk, Rogue and even Fighter and Paladin.

File: ACKS.jpg (628KB, 900x1165px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 900x1165px

Related question: Has anyone played Adventurer Conqueror King? It's supposed to be 3.5 but tweaked to work with kingdom building and battles.

Starting a 'make an empire' campaign soon, don't know if I should use ACKS or another system.

File: Nice Trips.jpg (87KB, 937x895px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 937x895px

>>48803584
>>48804333
>>48806661

>This

Apologies in advance for the wall of text.

3.PF works well when treating Pathfinder somewhat like a source of errata or system update (3.0 to 3.5 to 3.75, most recent version takes precedence) With good judgement and an eye for the tier you wish to run your games at, the fusing of the two systems allows for more character choices. Notably, within Pathfinder, 3PP featured on their d20SRD is of high-quality. (DSP in particular for both quality and balance [tier 3])

No need to force updates, either. if somebody particularly liked a 3.5/3.0 feature, good judgement/house rules helps things go a long way. For example, within a largely pathfinder-classed group, we have a particularly old wizard with access to the most ancient of magics. He, however; sticks hard-and-fast to the ancient methods of wizardry, and has access to 'errata'd' ancient-magics only through adherence to the 3.5 character-creation rules. (feats, hitdice, favoured classes--updated skills/CMB used for system fit, though)

TL;DR in both online and RL games, 3.0+3.5+PF is viable and fun as long as you know your people.

>>48804128
Coincidentally enough, 38 is the average CMD of CR 12 monsters.

So even crazily optimized and with the help of everybody, you still need 11+ to trip the average encounter at that level. Lets pray you aren't Flurrying because that will force you to roll 13+.

The only one who can trip shit is the Barb if he rage cycles to get +8 to maneuvers and attacks every turn on top of rage bonuses.