FrankTrollman wrote:So there's a fair amount of discussion about Paizo, because they are the only major publisher who is still putting out new 3rd edition compatible stuff, their art is good, and they are shifting everything over to "Pathfinder" which makes people wonder if they should switch their games over to Pathfinder as well.
There is a fair amount of discussion around Paizo because they make awesome products, no exceptions. For those of us who like 3.5 better than 4E, Pathfinder is a really nice supported alternative.
FrankTrollman wrote:I heard that Pathfinder is compatible with 3rd edition rules. As such, does it really make any difference if I use pathfinder or not?
I played the Beta for several months now and if you know how to play 3.5 you know how to play Pathfinder. They fixed a lot of things as well as made all of the core classes extremely interesting to play.
Hit points are no longer rolled, it will use a standard amount of hit points per level similar to 4E. Of course, if you really want you can roll.
I've played the beta with 3.5 monsters and everything was fine. Paizo is redoing the Monster Manual and making a new bestiary, in the past they've done an excellent job so I'm very interested to see what they did here.
The spells that were changed needed changing and make the game more interesting. For example, Neutralize Poison doesn't automatically work, so poison (and disease) are still potentially a threat past level 5. All spell changes were made to make the game more fun and they did that.
Play was not slowed down at all for my players and they loved the extra feats and re-worked classes and spells.
The biggest upgrade was to class abilities, but I think these are changes that your players will want to read about. The class changes are amazing, all classes have something to look forward too. Finally the Barbarian, Bard, and Monk are good class choices.
FrankTrollman wrote:Didn't Pathfinder do the biggest open RPG playtest in history? Doesn't that mean they solved all of D&D's problems?
They had 50,000 people participate in the beta playtest. As well they consulted many of the best designers in the industry for opinions.
Several people on the Paizo boards comment that their feedback made it into the final version, and I think that's cool. Paizo really listens to the fans, more than any other gaming company I've seen.
Did they "fix everything". Who knows, only time will tell. After 2 years of design and 1 year of open playtest upgrade from 3.5 to Pathfinder is much more worthwhile and substantial than the upgrade from 3.0 to 3.5. A lot of thought and creativity and genuine listening to player feedback went into this product.
FrankTrollman wrote:Doesn't Paizo's system address some of the most broken parts of D&D?
Of course it does. Melee classes are much more powerful and have many more combat options in Pathfinder.
Fighters are very interesting to play imo and have many more feat options and trees to be more effective and have better gameplay. One of the worst problems with Fighters is they had nothing to look forward in upper level gameplay, they do now.
Barbarians have had a major overhaul of their rage system and now have different rage powers they can choose and learn, so although you are a Barbarian you are also different.
Rogues no longer have sneak attack handicapped by only affecting living creatures and Rogues have many talents and ways to customize your rogue starting at level 2.
Spellcasters have more options to customize your Sorceror (amazing work here), Wizard, Bard, and Cleric.
I think all classes have something to be happy about.
FrankTrollman wrote:How are spellcasters more powerful? Aren't a bunch of spells nerfed?
Pathfinder rebalanced the classes and spellcasters indeed have trouble casting spells under fire, as well melee classes have more options to stop spellcasting, if that matters to you.
This kind of thing doesn't matter to me because my games aren't centred around my players attacking each other at the table, but it matters to some people, so the changes will make some people happy.
Sure, spells like Charm Person still exist, but that's what makes D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder different from 4E.
Melee classes are still the main damage dealers in the game, this has not changed. Wizards still have AE spells but that's what Wizards do.
FrankTrollman wrote:OK fine, I understand that spellcasters aren't any less powerful casting ghoulish hunger instead of finger of death, but you said they were more powerful. How can that be?
Spellcasters were slightly nerfed and some unbalancing spells were altered to make gameplay more interesting.
Races get stat bonuses and penalties that are very similar to 3.5 and 4E. So yes, Elves typically make better Wizards and Half-Orcs typically make better Fighters, but it's what you'd expect. 4E gives out more stat bonuses than Pathfinder, so balance isn't an issue here.
Spellcasters do not get any buffs to skill points.
All core classes were balanced so that they are more interesting and it's a viable alternative to play all core classes to level 20, which is a good thing. Prestige classes are still great options for flavor and even more variety of course.
Regarding Wizard banned schools, they're banned for a reason and there is still substantial penalty.
FrankTrollman wrote:More feats? Doesn't that help warriors too?
Yes, there are many new options now including lots of feats for 2 handed weapons, feats if you fight with a shield, feats if you are a defensive tank, even more feats if you fight with two weapons. Fighters have more feats than ever before. Fighters are more customized and fun to play than ever now. No two fighters are the same.
FrankTrollman wrote:What? Tell me more about how warriors got the bad touch? Improved Disarm sucks and it's difficult for me to imagine that being two feats.
Special attack feats have not been broken into two feats although the bonus for performing these attacks has been reduced to +2.
"Warriors" (Fighters, Barbarians) were two of the most improved classes so I'd suggest you look for yourself.
All of the special attacks (Combat Maneuvers) were streamlined for easier game play and they are still very effective combat options.
FrankTrollman wrote:Ouch. What if I wanted to make a "does big damage Fighter" like the Sir Chargealot that you mentioned instead of one of the maneuver specialists? I mean, that is also a standard character in 3.5 and it can work OK. I heard they gave Fighters bonus damage and AC or something?
There are more options than ever to make "big damage Fighters" (and especially Barbarians finally). This is done by high level feats for Fighters and high level rage abilities for Barbarians. Both classes are very viable and exciting to play until level 20 now.
Pathfinder Power Attack is still a useful feat and it's still more powerful than Power Attack with 4th Edition.
FrankTrollman wrote:What?
Cleave is a great low level feat and does your full damage to an adjacent opponent (not just STR). Cleave is still a great feat and it's better than the 4E power, but it's not the "must have" feat that it was in 3.5.
Archers weren't nerfed or buffed in Pathfinder. Skilled Fighters will be able to force archers to take more than a 5' step if they want to fire their bow (unlike in 3.5).
Multiclassing is as great as ever in Pathfinder and you can still create great characters you want to make.
FrankTrollman wrote:Are things at least clearer?
Things are clearer than ever in Pathfinder, that's why some rules have been simplified (trips and other special attacks for example).
The rules of Pathfinder were in a state of flux during the playtest period because the designers were responding to player feedback, which is a good thing.
FrankTrollman wrote:So why would I use Paizo's rules?
Because the Pathfinder game is going to be a beautiful and well needed facelift to 3.5. Pathfinder is what 3.5 should have been. ALL classes are very fun to play now and more balanced. Skills are more streamlined. The game is easy to play than before, with many interesting options.
Also, many people are unhappy that Living Greyhawk was canceled. Pathfinder has it's own "Living Greyhawk" in the "Pathfinder Organized Play". The scenarios are high quality and it's a lot of fun if you're missing that kind of organized play experience. They use the Pathfinder rules of course.
FrankTrollman wrote:How does Pathfinder address bookkeeping? Bookkeeping is annoying and I don't want to do it.
Bookkeeping isn't any harder than D&D 3.5, for some things it's easier.
FrankTrollman wrote:So are Bards somehow more weak sauce than they were before? Is that even possible?
Bards are better than ever before and are actually good now. The have abilities now that make them desirable and viable at high levels. With streamlined skills, they are more useful than ever.
A bard can inspire someone long enough for them to take 20, just like before.
FrankTrollman wrote:Is Polymorph Fixed Yet?
Polymorph is good but it's balanced. Polymorph does not grant you and powers or abilities of the creature. Your Str and Dex (with bonuses) and base attack bonus get used to make attacks, so although you are more effective at physical attacks, you will not surpass melee characters.
I'm glad that polymorph is in the game because it's interesting, rather than completely remove it altogether.
FrankTrollman wrote:I hear great things about the skill system. What's up with that?
Skills are streamlined and the skills system as a whole looks a lot better. The skills you choose matter also.
Choosing skills at level 1 is no longer complicated and there are no rule loopholes to get more skills at level 1.
FrankTrollman wrote:You mention Diplomacy, is it fixed?
Diplomacy works fine, it can only adjust a target's attitude by 2 levels, which is fixed from 3.5.
FrankTrollman wrote:Are Sorcerers still getting it in the earhole?
Sorcerors now get "bloodlines" which further defines what kind of Sorceror they are. Powers and bonus spells are based off of the bloodline you choose. Bloodlines like Celestial, Aberrant, Destined, and Abyssal. There are many. In general, Sorcerors are more unique and interesting to play than ever. So they had a slight buff here.
Physical abilities are "ok" but they are in addition to bonus spells, bonus feats, an additional class skill, and other special abilities like breath weapons, natural armor and even flight. In general, the core classes like Sorceror are a good alternative to prestige classes.
Wizards weren't buffed so Sorcs are a little more balanced with Wizards now.
FrankTrollman wrote:Monster Levels? Is that fixed?
Standard monsters stats have always worked and making leader type monsters couldn't be easier.
The truth is neither I nor the OP really knows what innovations the folks at Pathfinder have created because the Bestiary (Monster Manual) is released in September. Needless to say, in past bestiaries they've done award winning work, so I have high expectations.
FrankTrollman wrote:What?
Rogues were buffed a lot in Pathfinder, starting with sneak attack affecting every target. Rogues also get special rogue talents, starting at level 2, that you can further customize your rogue. They get a new talent every 2 levels after that and there are over 22+ talents to choose from. Talents allow rogues to perform "special attacks" beyond "just doing more damage".
At high levels, Rogues will be as good or better than other classes who specialize in dealing damage.
Rogue fans will be very happy with the Pathfinder Rogue.
FrankTrollman wrote:Many things in D&D are broken on the face of it. Like rolling for hit points or having different definitions of "day" for purposes of recovering spell slots. Is any of that addressed?
Hit points are standardized now like in 4E and are not rolled. However, the beauty of the 3.x system is that if you really wanted to roll for hit points, you could do it, it's your game afterall.
All known problems with D&D were fixed in Pathfinder and it's a more interesting game because of it. Is it perfect? Probably not, but I can still call it "D&D".
FrankTrollman wrote:So my Cleric of Pelor still prepares spells at dawn and my Cleric of Lolth still prepares spells at dusk?
You can still play Pathfinder within any 3.5 campaign, Pathfinder was designed to be backward compatible. I actually tested my cleric of Ilmater in Forgotten Realms 3.5.
Having said that, the folks at Pathfinder have created the best world system that I've seen, more interesting than Eberron imo and with the same amount of flavor and flexibility as FR.
Golarion was created by 20+ of the best world designers in North American, and it shows. Although I love the Forgotten Realms, I also love Golarion and will be using it in the future. Of course, you don't have to use it, but once you learn more about the factions and territores, you'll want to.
FrankTrollman wrote:If you're a Dread Necromancer you can cast remove disease spontaneously if you happen to worship that goddess
It's true, clerics of different gods no longer get the same skills and abilties, but this is a good thing. Clerics weren't buffed but were re-balanced in Pathfinder and cleric fans will still be happy with the results.
So in closing, Paizo makes great quality products and Pathfinder is no exception. If you're someone who misses 3.5 then you'll love Pathfinder. If you're content with 4E, that's OK too.
The best part is they made their Pathfinder RPG cost only $9.99 in PDF format, so if you don't like it you've sunk almost no money into it. I think most people will like it though.
I just wanted to give some
love to the Pathfinder system and the awesome people at Paizo, they've created a great new system for people who prefer the 3.5 system and should be recognized for it.
Happy gaming.