Assuming you thought Pathfinder wasn't the worst

[Ted the Flayer]

Before anyone responds, I'd like to ask politely that everyone keep the hyperbole to a minimum because I'm trying to get some decent info.

Alright, I've acquired some pathfinder books because I'm leaving the area in less than two weeks and I'm assuming that I'll be more likely to find a Pathfinder group than a 3.5 group to join. A cursory examination makes it seem like it's not that much different than 3.5

What can I expect that I might not realize? (The ruling that spellcasting PrC's don't give spells in a wizard's spellbook surprised me, as well as the rule that most things can now be critted and are vulnerable to sneak attack except oozes, incorporeal things, and elementals)

Also, I've seen guides explaining how to convert classes, and the ones I would bother to convert SEEM like they wouldn't be an issue, but you know how that goes.

Also, it seems like the claims that the local Pf people say that "Monsters are twice as powerful" means that they have a decent increase in HP, are harder to trip, and occasionally have some new SLA's (not that I've compared EVERY damn monster side by side, so that might not be accurate).

Although I might tweak a few things still. I'm going to give monks full BaB when using unarmed/monk weapons, and I might restrict Mithral to chain shirt/chain mail and Adamantine to breastplate and half/full plate. Not because I think there's a mechanical problem with mithral full plate, but because I think mithral full plate is STUPID, and I am feeling that adamantine should be some sort of plate armor. the armor thing is an aesthetic choice mostly.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The six biggest changes that will likely trip you up:

1.) Combat maneuvers (sunder, trip, dodge, etc.) use a completely different system. The feat lines for these maneuvers, such as improved trip, have been broken up and nerfed. Read up on it.

2.) Magical items are much easier to create, in that prerequisites are more relaxed and they don't cost experience anymore. MI creation in Pathfinder is so good that there's no reason NOT to grab a few feats between the parties.

3.) Hit points are completely changed.

4.) Skill acquisition is mostly but not completely changed. The net bonus is the same, but you get everything up front.

5.) Almost every 'obvious' save-or-die is nerfed. For example, plane shift and wall of stone work just fine as they always did. Slay Living got nerfed into uselessness.

6.) Power attack is nerfed to hell and back. Sorry. You can't just slap it onto a character and expect to have a decent level 4-8 fighter anymore. By the same token, cleave is both better and worse than it used to be.

7.) You get more feats. Not a whole lot more feats, but more of them.

8.) Every class has archetypes for them. Except for the cleric (who in nearly all cases needs to give up a much more powerful in Pathfinder domain for one), there's no reason why you SHOULDN'T take an archetype, as nearly every class has one that's almost better in every way than the core class.

9.) Staves are completely changed around. Unlike being completely useless like they were in 3.0E, they're really good for cheese.

10.) Mithril armor no longer counts as the armor being of a lighter category. Heads up.

11.) A lot, though certainly not all games use firearms. Like many new things in Pathfinder they're pants unless people cobble together an abusive combo.

12.) Prestige classed wizards no longer get the free two spells for level for advancing in a prestige class. Of course all of the wizard prestige classes suck anus, so who cares?

13.) Polymorph is completely changed around. It no longer uses stat replacements but out-and-out buffs. Again, like many things in Pathfinder it's a net nerf unlike you're abusing it.

14.) Depending on how much of a stickler your DM is, you may have to read up on the Fly skill. It's technically applicable to almost all forms of flight, but it's an enormous pain in the ass to use in actual games so I see it skipped.

15.) You get a favored class in Pathfinder. Unlike in 3.5E, it's not an experience point penalty but a cynical bonus to hit points or skills per level. Many of the races have class-specific bonuses. Like most things in Pathfinder, these racial favored classes are mostly pants but there are some really good ones out there like wizards and sorcerers getting a free spell known per level.

[Josh_Kablack]

The six biggest changes ....

1.)
....
15.)

[Lago PARANOIA]

Whoopsie-daisy.

[Koumei]

You'll find that Polymorph is less of a pain in the ass in return for it being a kind of underwhelming stat boost thing. It's now a whole bunch of separate spells that give you some stuff. Note that the Druid's Wild Shape is "as per these spells" so you're not side-stepping that downgrade that way. But honestly, that's all right, because they're still okay if what you wanted to do was staple a bunch of pluses onto yourself and then start punching enemies in the face. With your own face. And it's quicker to resolve and all that.

You might find yourself enjoying "not playing" more than "playing". But I'm willing to put that down to my previous DM sucking ass.

You'll basically have to re-read any given thing you think you know, because it was probably changed in some minor way. Or major way.

Prestige Classes seriously take a back seat in this. There are fewer of these than in 3.X (and not just because of the time thing - they publish fewer), they're generally kind of shit, and they generally expect you to instead take an archetype or whatever - playing your "Like a ___ but ___" class from the start. This is a good idea in theory, though it does mean looking over a lot of options the first time you get into it (and every time you run a new game).

The game "works best" when you don't include anything from 3.X (not including stuff that has specifically been converted). If you just pick "A save or die that isn't from the SRD" then you're happily showing everyone how tame the PSRD spells tend to be. Of course, you can simply pick a "Not quite a save or die but it may as well be" from the actual PSRD. And yes, I did just say that backwards-compatibility is a fucking joke, but you knew that already.

At the end of the day, after you get past the pretty pictures, you'll find it to be like an instant frozen dinner for one: not as nice as it looks.

[Juton]

Pathfinder HATES multiclassing. You can get away with the right dip here or there but putting levels in a secondary class will really hamstring you.

This probably won't surprise you but Paizo didn't really fix anything. High level gameplay still breaks in nearly identical ways to 3.5. High level divination is still hel-a-broken. Casters get more and better abilities than non-casters.

Race matters more, especially with the new splat book the advanced race guide. A human sorcerer will be vastly more powerful than a gnome sorcerer because of their favoured class options.

Classes have had some small changes relative to their peers. Fighters are arguably better than Barbarians now at melee, CoDzilla has been toned down (but is still strong). Paladins are now way better than monks as opposed to being only slightly better before.

The have tinkered with all your favourite spells. It behooves you to bring a iPad or similar to look up all the little rules changes.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Prestige Classes seriously take a back seat in this.

There are some good prestige classes but like most things in Pathfinder they're pants unless they're used for abusive purposes. For instance, the Veiled Illusionist is so goddamn good for a blaster cleric that you'd seriously turn down a chance to go into Radiant Servant of Pelor / Contemplative double combo to get in. The Hellknight Signifier is a straight-up powerup of the cleric. I'd rank it between a full-classed Church Inquisitor and a Hospitaler.

[Ted the Flayer]

A few things:

I can infer what the term "pants" is by context alone, but what's the etymology of that term? I don't get it.

1. Yeah, I noticed that. Grapple seems like less of a clusterfuck, and it seems that the size bonuses have been nerfed. Not sure if that's good or bad, because I'm actually okay with it being REALLY hard to grapple something ten times your mass. In wrestling, assuming it was lean mass and not flab as little as 10 pounds extra could break someone down quick.

3. Does that refer to the fact that most things get bigger hit dice and you die at -1*(your con score) rather than -10, or am I missing something else?

6. In my final 3.5 campaign, I had killed a total of 5 PC's just with power attack. (When I run giants, I have them swing for the fences unless they miss for two rounds. Sometimes, I crit...) I think my players might like the nerfs, I'm not sure what I think until I see it.

8. Saw that. I don't claim to know EVERYTHING, but I like that a bit better than many of the sill PrC's that existed. That means I can just allow PrCs that are elothar of Bladereach style and not have to allow them because there's something my players want to play...

10. I remember the arguments back in "the day" about mithral armor back years ago. I think that was what Custy Service ruled, at which point I ignored them and never stopped. I still say mithral plate is stupid though.

11. My homebrew campaign world has been through X system changes (Rules cyclopedia, SAGA, 2E, 3E, and 3.5). Might as well advance the tech a bit. I've always been fine with the concept of guns, I just have never seen rules for them that didn't make them seem like bigger crossbows. YAWN.

12. I was under the impression that a wizard PrC that didn't make you give up spellcasting levels and gave ANYTHING was super awesome?

14. Not deciding if I like it or not until I see it in play, but considering as a DM I like to use Trip to knock things the fuck out of the air, that WOULD stop my players from arguing if there was a skill involved that took that into account.

Juton: I'm STILL getting 3.5 and 3.0 spells confused. Might as well add some more almost identical but fundamentally different version to the stack...

[Koumei]

I can infer what the term "pants" is by context alone, but what's the etymology of that term? I don't get it.

In the United Kingdom, "pants" refers not to trousers but to underpants. So it's basically the same as saying something is ass.

Some other things I forgot:
If there's a way to get some stupid minor gift, then casters always get a better one. Best example is the Favoured Class shit, where a Ranger or something can get +5' movement per 5 levels and a Sorcerer gets +1 spell known per 2 levels (or per level?)

They have Traits, which are tiny things nobody cares about... usually. Basically attaching a minor stat effect to "having a personality trait" or "having a background". Except naturally some of them actually are good. Often it's shit like "You do more damage with your unarmed attacks unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike" or "You get +1 to Diplomacy", but then you get "You get +2 to Initiative". Which stacks with the other two that give Initiative boosts.

[infected slut princess]

6. In my final 3.5 campaign, I had killed a total of 5 PC's just with power attack. (When I run giants, I have them swing for the fences unless they miss for two rounds. Sometimes, I crit...)

You are a psycho DM.

[Koumei]

I used to Power Attack down to multiples of 5 - so from +28 to +25 for instance - until I glaivecritted a PC and the +18 PA damage pushed them past the Alive/Dead threshold.

Yes, being a bit autistic/OCD about the numbers cost a character their life for a little while.

[MfA]

Magic item pricing is still at the early 3e level ... ie everything is horribly overpriced unless something slips through the cracks (boots of speed) or more likely someone wants to gift their favourite class (I don't see how something like sniper goggles gets published otherwise).

WotC was learning at the end with MIC but Paizo regressed.

[Koumei]

Trust me, Magic Item Compendium is not a sign of them learning. Sure, they had more "X per day" items rather than limited charges, and tiny stupid modifiers, but come on, it had the Amber Amulets of Winning the Game.

[hogarth]

What can I expect that I might not realize? (The ruling that spellcasting PrC's don't give spells in a wizard's spellbook surprised me, as well as the rule that most things can now be critted and are vulnerable to sneak attack except oozes, incorporeal things, and elementals)

Unfortunately, there are a large number of very small changes vs. 3.5. For instance, the rules for tying someone up with a rope are in the Combat chapter under "Grappling". Here's a (long) thread from the Paizo boards that lists a bunch of them:

What are some things about the Pathfinder rules that you think most people do not know?

[ishy]

Natural attack rules have changed quite a bit in pathfinder (important to note as a DM).

Attacks are now secondary / primary based on type, not on amount of attacks (so if you get bite /claw / claw, you have 3 primary attacks and no secondary).

Monks can't take improved natural attack because they 'crunched the numbers' and it would make the monk too strong or something.

The rules in the phb for combining weapon and natural attacks are wrong because after their open playtest, and after shipping their phb to the printers they still didn't know what rules they actually wanted to use for that. And later said that you should use the rules in the bestiary.

The power attack change isn't really that much of a nerf. The penalty you can take is limited, but the damage you get is increased and at higher levels if you're off the RNG you can take other feats for an attack penalty so that your attacks will daze etc.

There are many many tiny changes that you will not know about unless you comb through the book. Like that you now retro-actively gain skill points for past levels if you increase your int later on. Or that 10 ft reach means you don't threaten on diagonals (since they omitted the you even threaten on diagonals with 10 ft reach line).
But while these are annoying, many people don't even know about them and they don't matter much in actual play.

[hogarth]

Or that 10 ft reach means you don't threaten on diagonals (since they omitted the you even threaten on diagonals with 10 ft reach line).

Ugh. I don't even want to go into the list of things where they clearly changed things inadvertently. Or where they changed a 3.5 rule in one place and now a related rule in a different location makes no sense.

[virgil]

There are at least three changes to how monks work, for the worse. Unarmed is't a natural weapon for the improved natural attack, you can't use a single weapon for your flurry, and unless an item enchants all natural attacks, it will only enhance half of your flurry (counting unarmed as a multiple weapons). I may be wrong, but I think they forbade mixing unarmed and natural attacks from mixing in a full attack, but I want to be corrected there.

[RobbyPants]

6. In my final 3.5 campaign, I had killed a total of 5 PC's just with power attack. (When I run giants, I have them swing for the fences unless they miss for two rounds. Sometimes, I crit...) I think my players might like the nerfs, I'm not sure what I think until I see it.

That's more of an issue with iterative probability and crits than it is with Power Attack. Note, how if the PCs switched and used the exact same tactic, you wouldn't notice anything significant improvement from them.

Exposing the PCs to lots of low-accuracy-high-lethality attacks over a long period of time is pretty much certain to drop some PCs.

[erik]

Exposing the PCs to lots of low-accuracy-high-lethality attacks over a long period of time is pretty much certain to drop some PCs.

Indeed. And please don't count on Pathfinder to fix this for you.

Having enemies always power attack for full is bad metagaming where you are trying to kill players. It isn't different than throwing tons of low DC save or dies, hoping for that natural 1 to come up and have them auto-fail the save.

Consider your two sides of the coin. Heads, you have lame battles where opponents miss 90-95% of the time; Tails, a PC dies when a spot of bad luck appears. Neither of those options is very desirable. Winning because the opponents used sub-optimal tactics is not exciting, and dying because your opponent got lucky is even worse.

[edit: I missed the after 2 rounds of no-hits, drop power attack clause which I suppose is less nasty in the long-run.]

[Wrathzog]

Exposing the PCs to lots of low-accuracy-high-lethality attacks over a long period of time is pretty much certain to drop some PCs.

It's also hilarious.
High-Five, Ted. You're my kind of people.

Also, Nthing the idea that Pathfinder didn't make any significant changes to 3E. Minor adjustments here and there; don't sweat the small stuff.

[Ted the Flayer]

Unfortunately, there are a large number of very small changes vs. 3.5. For instance, the rules for tying someone up with a rope are in the Combat chapter under "Grappling". Here's a (long) thread from the Paizo boards that lists a bunch of them:

What are some things about the Pathfinder rules that you think most people do not know?

I'm picking through that thread now, but most of that seems to be crap either I picked up on, or stuff that didn't change from 3.5 (Did anyone NOT rule that your allies could give your enemies soft cover in addition to the firing into melee penalty? And they acted like every archer DIDN'T take precise shot ASAP in their games. Is that just my game?)

[hogarth]

Unfortunately, as you note, that thread is polluted with a bunch of stuff that hasn't changed since 3.5 as well.

Please fix your quote tags.

[Ted the Flayer]

Tags fixed, sorry about that.

And about the power attack thing, that's just how I play Giants. They swing for the fences. And if by mid-levels, I feel if I've given you plenty of options to buy items that negate critical hits and you don't take it (instead, you get "as many pluses" as you can on your magic items when Magic Vestment and Greater Magic Weapon are available both cast from party members and as scrolls), then I don't feel bad when a stone giant knocks you the hell out. Also Dragons. (Although I don't give my dragons Wraithstrike, I let them hit on their own merits).

[Dominicius]

6. In my final 3.5 campaign, I had killed a total of 5 PC's just with power attack. (When I run giants, I have them swing for the fences unless they miss for two rounds. Sometimes, I crit...) I think my players might like the nerfs, I'm not sure what I think until I see it.

That's more of an issue with iterative probability and crits than it is with Power Attack. Note, how if the PCs switched and used the exact same tactic, you wouldn't notice anything significant improvement from them.

Exposing the PCs to lots of low-accuracy-high-lethality attacks over a long period of time is pretty much certain to drop some PCs.

In my games I never have the mooks use Power Attack or Combat Expertise. Only the bosses get to do that.

I find that to be the right balance for things.

[Ted the Flayer]

Alright, I have read more of the books. I have a few more questions for specific things.

First, I want to encourage gun use. I want use the "guns are everywhere" variant, and make bows exotic. If no one except elves and crazy hermits use bows, mission accomplished.

In play, how does the called shot mechanic play out?