Pathfinder - Your thoughts?

[Purr]

I am a long-time Dungeons and Dragons player. I have only recently gotten interested in Pathfinder - enough to order the core book (which is on its way). That's probably the only book I am going to get for awhile, but it seems to have everything one needs to play the game.


I have long been thinking of becoming a storyteller here on RoleplayZone. Perhaps with Pathfinder, perhaps with Rifts, or something else.


To whomever reads this - What are your thoughts about Pathfinder? What do you think of it as a game goes? Do you like or dislike it? Et cetera... =)


Honor and fun,


Dannigan =)

 

[SephirothSage]

I think it's better than Fourth Edition, that's for damn sure.


But in all seriousness- it's an enjoyable system, very similar to 3.5 DND.

 

[Zyden]

I agree with Sephiroth. Really did not like 4e, but that was my personal taste. Pathfinder is a good evolution on top of 3.5 mechanics. It isn't without its problems, but every system has something to gripe about. Overall I'd give it a thumbs up (again personal taste).


Thanks to OGC/OGL a chunk of the PF content is free online. There are several nice references websites that make looking up things easier than looking in the core book. For example: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/


Best of luck to you whatever you decide!

 

[Purr]

Thanks, you two. =)


I really enjoyed D&D 3.5 (and aspects of Modern d20, too).

 

[Kaerri]

Dann already knows my opinion, but I do want to add that I enjoyed 4th edition for what it was - had I never played any other D&D, I probably would have liked it a lot. Unfortunately (for Wizards of the Coast) I have played other D&D versions (all but 1st, as it happens) and thus far 3.5 is my favorite. 4th wasn't broken, it was just more like a pen-and-paper video game than a pen-and-paper roleplaying game.

 

[Axelgear]

I got my start in D&D and, despite my profound love for different systems, probably have more actual IRL playtime with it than any other system, 3.5 especially. Pathfinder was a very small but elegant upgrade to 3.5, which might best be called 3.6; it doesn't change much, merely fixes some of the more annoying problems (like spending XP on items you already spend gold and a feat in crafting, or permanent level loss on resurrection).


Unlike others, though, I have no distaste for 4th Ed and, indeed, will tell you that there's not really a great gulf between it and Pathfinder, save that Pathfinder has more "utility spells". This is something that can make a crucial difference in how much fun you have but, thematically, I don't think it makes that much of a difference as an overall game.


D&D is a game built around combat. It got its start as being made to simulate a group of adventurers going dungeon-delving, in search of loot and treasure. It wasn't designed for deep social interaction or much in the way of realism; you advanced in level primarily as a means of expanding combat power rather than anything else, and the game hasn't changed much since then; most of what you get in terms of powers and abilities is combat-based, and ability is very much segregated by level. While specialization matters, two characters of the same class who are different in level are going to be more or less objectively better or worse than each other (regarding their respective levels) in tasks the class is geared towards; a higher level barbarian is just plain better in battle (again, barring specialization and player creativity) than a lower level one.


I don't play many IRL games anymore but the ones I do play are the ones that follow that combat focus, because combat focus is easy. Not many people I know are comfortable getting into the roleplaying; they're in it for a laugh and a good time and clear and easy goals. Your group may be different, that's a thing for you to assess. Online, I tend to stick to games that focus more on character development and story, and thus favour more holistic systems, where being knowledgeable about a subject can make you just as useful (or potentially even just as deadly) as being good at swinging a sword. I also tend to prefer ones where you don't have distinct levels or classes, and thus allow for specializing or broadening a character's abilities as one sees fit without penalization.


Pathfinder is a true D&D inheritor. It's definitely 3.5's love-child; it does all the same songs and dances, but the daughter's learned how not to fall flat on some of the notes her mother does, but you're still going to face caster/fighter disparity and CoDzillas.


This doesn't mean you can't have fun with it but, when you choose it, make sure you remember what it's made for; it's a game made for you to be a dungeon-delving warrior who beats up ugly monsters, not a game about courtly intrigue and politicking. That's where the meat of your action and focus and conflict will be.


Phew. Okay, I hope you weren't looking to avoid a wall of text because I have babbled one up, alright. Sorry about that.

 

[Inquisitor]

I'm pretty new to Pathfinder, myself, but I'm really enjoying it so far! It's a really neat system overall, I think. Really intuitive if you know how to work it. I suppose I really enjoy the Archetypes system overall, but a major problem with it for me is the combat maneuvers system. I just don't see the need for a whole new addition of statistics for something that was already there, really. Seems a little awkward in ways, if you get my drift. Can't say a lot about it though, seeing as how I don't have a ton of experience with it yet.


EDIT: on the subject of 4e, it wasn't terrible if you wanted a video game experience. But for a roleplaying experience, it's really not the ideal thing. It's missing SO very much of the roleplaying aspect. Pretty much tore out a lot of things I genuinely enjoyed from 3.5.

 

[Silent Wayfarer]

I like 3.x, so Pathfinder delivers more of the same in a prettier package.

 

[Kaerri]

EDIT: on the subject of 4e, it wasn't terrible if you wanted a video game experience. But for a roleplaying experience, it's really not the ideal thing. It's missing SO very much of the roleplaying aspect. Pretty much tore out a lot of things I genuinely enjoyed from 3.5.

Me too. As a long-time player of rogues, I think my biggest problem was the lack of skill customization without "wasting" feats (I have plenty of other things to use those feat slots with!).

 

[hellrazoromega]

I got my start in D&D and, despite my profound love for different systems, probably have more actual IRL playtime with it than any other system, 3.5 especially. Pathfinder was a very small but elegant upgrade to 3.5, which might best be called 3.6; it doesn't change much, merely fixes some of the more annoying problems (like spending XP on items you already spend gold and a feat in crafting, or permanent level loss on resurrection).
Unlike others, though, I have no distaste for 4th Ed and, indeed, will tell you that there's not really a great gulf between it and Pathfinder, save that Pathfinder has more "utility spells". This is something that can make a crucial difference in how much fun you have but, thematically, I don't think it makes that much of a difference as an overall game.


D&D is a game built around combat. It got its start as being made to simulate a group of adventurers going dungeon-delving, in search of loot and treasure. It wasn't designed for deep social interaction or much in the way of realism; you advanced in level primarily as a means of expanding combat power rather than anything else, and the game hasn't changed much since then; most of what you get in terms of powers and abilities is combat-based, and ability is very much segregated by level. While specialization matters, two characters of the same class who are different in level are going to be more or less objectively better or worse than each other (regarding their respective levels) in tasks the class is geared towards; a higher level barbarian is just plain better in battle (again, barring specialization and player creativity) than a lower level one.


I don't play many IRL games anymore but the ones I do play are the ones that follow that combat focus, because combat focus is easy. Not many people I know are comfortable getting into the roleplaying; they're in it for a laugh and a good time and clear and easy goals. Your group may be different, that's a thing for you to assess. Online, I tend to stick to games that focus more on character development and story, and thus favour more holistic systems, where being knowledgeable about a subject can make you just as useful (or potentially even just as deadly) as being good at swinging a sword. I also tend to prefer ones where you don't have distinct levels or classes, and thus allow for specializing or broadening a character's abilities as one sees fit without penalization.


Pathfinder is a true D&D inheritor. It's definitely 3.5's love-child; it does all the same songs and dances, but the daughter's learned how not to fall flat on some of the notes her mother does, but you're still going to face caster/fighter disparity and CoDzillas.


This doesn't mean you can't have fun with it but, when you choose it, make sure you remember what it's made for; it's a game made for you to be a dungeon-delving warrior who beats up ugly monsters, not a game about courtly intrigue and politicking. That's where the meat of your action and focus and conflict will be.


Phew. Okay, I hope you weren't looking to avoid a wall of text because I have babbled one up, alright. Sorry about that.

I respectfully disagree that the gulf is not that great, that is of course my opinion. I think the two systems have a very different 'fee'l while there are striking similarities.I have heard Pathfinder called D&D 3.75 by some reviewers. I do agree with what @Kaerri said--4th is fine for what it is--I tried it an did not care for it but I liked some of what it had to offer. I see a link between older MMO's a newer ones. In older MMO's you got tons of abilities, in newer one you still get tons of abilities but you can only slot 8-12 of them at a time. That is one major functional difference between Pathfinder and 4th ed. in 4th ed. you only get to "slot" a few of your abilities at a time and when you level you can switch them out. In Pathfinder, while some stuff may only be usable a few times a day with few exceptions you always have access to it. My biggest beef with 4th ed was that they did not utilize the skill challenges to the extent that the could have and as @Axelgear has said it really lacks in utility powers, even with all the books it now has there are so few utility powers. Due to that I see Pathfinder as much better for doing things that are not directly related to combat.


I much prefer Pathfinder, I to started with D&D--basic because when I started AD&D was still about a year or two out. And while I agree with what you say about what D&D and it's inheritors were designed for I have seen some masterful tweaks over the years that have made for some very awesome RP intensive games with some awesome intrude--are there systems that can do the social stuff better sure. But that said I have always believed that whenever possible the social stuff should be Roleplayed and not Rollplayed, so to me the system should not matter. It all just take some work and so depends on how much work you are willing to put in. I will say this, in all my years of gaming I have yet to see a GM or group run a game out of the box without at least one House Rule or tweak to suit their play style, on the flip side I have seen some groups with enough House Rules to make a second rule book out of. I suppose there have to be those that run thing straight out of the book, I have just never seen it. That is to say every GM I have seen makes tweaks, so it is a question of how many you are willing to make.


(That said I have seen a GM run a module verbatim and it was funnier than heck, considering the module was made for a good party and we were all playing evil PC's. I'll have to recount that story sometime, but some of the encounters were funnier than heck because of how they were geared for particular alignments. )


@Dannigan I think you will enjoy the heck out of Pathfinder and I'd love a chance to play in a game of you ran one, from what I have seen of your RP style in the game we are in together I think it would be fun.

 

[solyrflair]

Pathfinder is the next half-step in updating of the D&D system. I started with Basic, went to Advanced, hated Second edition, cheered 3e, and was mostly satisfied with 3.5. Pathfinder unifies many things, making the game easier without making it simpler. The combat maneuver system is a definite improvement over a haphazard collection of disarm, grapple, overrun, etc. actions that got so rules heavy, you needed to look it up each time.


That said, it is a level system, and has the benefits and drawbacks inherent in that system. The most difficult part is waiting between levels to get skills and feats you might find you suddenly need. The nice part is that there are various rules to adjust the system should you wish. Biggest is the leveling speed you want for the characters. Slow is good for a longer term gaming group, while Fast will give very steady updates to the character, even at higher levels.


When it comes to books, you will probably need to get the Beastiary as well to start playing. With the Core Rulebook you should have enough options to get you started. The World of Golarion is the default world for PathFinder. You don't need that to play, as you can fit it into many worlds, just be careful of putting it a world where magical firepower is not supposed to be prevalent. PathFinder magic system is a heavy arsenal of severe damage, and while subtlety exists, mostly raw damage is the caster's best option.


Good luck.

 

[hellrazoromega]

Indeed any level system has its drawbacks.


I would recommend the Ultimate books that you think you are inclined to use, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Psionics are all good books (Even though some frown on Psionics I actually like em as a change of pace from time to time) and give nice options but they are not required. Make sure to check our the PFSRD where the base stats for most things, such as the classes in the books I mention above and even the beasts in the Bestiary are listed. You just don't get the picture and all the world specific flavor text with the SRD.

 

[Exthalion]

For what its worth, 4E did have some good features that I have seen ported into Pathfinder like Minions/Extras/whatever they are called. If nothing else they saved time setting up encounters.

 

[hellrazoromega]

For what its worth, 4E did have some good features that I have seen ported into Pathfinder like Minions/Extra's/whatever they are called. If nothing else they saved time setting up encounters.

That was one of the nice things. I also liked how they cut down the skill list to get rid of some superfluous skills. The fact that they made it official that Paladins did not have to be Lawful Good but just were the alignment of their deity was awesome. 4e did have some good concepts and systems that I liked, in fact based on what I have seen to date it introduced more things I liked to D&D (even though many of those concepts had been seen in other games before) than I have seen from from 5e. Though I will admit I have not given 5e a very close look. With 4e I really tried, I per-ordered the Big 3 books and I even participated in a release event at a local game store. But so far with 5e after looking over the beta materials and glancing at the books it looks like a 'crazy quilt' hodge podge of taking what you want from previous editions and dropping what you don't---heck I can do that myself without shelling out $150 for 3 new books.

 

[Grey]

I like the way PF ties the mechanics and lore together. People may have noticed my unhealthy fixation on physical manifestations of power, characters evolving aesthetically as well as mechanically, and unique mechanics. So I like PF for many of those reasons - better balance than 3.5, more imaginative than most other D&D derivatives, and a real sense of character through mechanical decisions. Also Witch is an absurdly fun class.


But I'd always rather play it than GM it, and I will always find it less conducive to actual roleplaying.


(and for the record, I think 4th ed. was an excellent system if you wanted to beat up monsters without, say, buying a PC and a copy of Heroes of Might & Magic).

 

[SephirothSage]

I'd prefer the Heroes of Might and Magic- 4th... whatever it was, I wouldn't' call it DnD.

 

[hellrazoromega]

I do like how PF got rid of 'dead' levels and made it so most every class gets something significant for remaining in a single class all the way to 20. Do I tweak stuff, sure. I make Read, Write and Detect magic at will abilities for casters, never made sense to me why they shouldn't be. Ever since 2nd ed Pally's in my games are the alignment of their god or they can have no god and just be a crusader. In either case they just have to give ma a code that they follow for which they will be penalized if they stray from the path. I have long used spell points for caster as I never cared for Vancian magic. So like any system it takes tweaks and while there are other fantasy games I enjoy far more sometimes I get in the mood for some good old fashioned D&D and currently Pathfinder is the my favorite version of the progenitor of the genre.

 

[Shining Lotus Sage]

Everyone else has explained all the good reasons already. Except for the greater variety PF supports for each class than 3.5 did. Another sentence fragment.


I just wanted to offer my deep, abiding fondness for it and eagerness to see Ravenloft remade using the PF system.

 

[hellrazoromega]

here[/URL]


It is a fan conversion but I have heard good things.

 

[Pineapple]

Pathfinder has a lot of stuff to really customize a character and make exactly what you want. This is because f the crazy number of feats and the many classes with even more archtypes within.


I would say for a group who has experience with other table top games (DnD3.5 especially) then pathfinder will be a very good system. If the group has minimal table top experience or even none, then they may drown in the sea that is pathfinder options unless you give them a life vest (sit with them and literally explain what they should be doing picking the entire time). There is too many things in the system for a new player to navigate them self.


That is why it's a great system though. You can be who you actually want to be by picking the right feats and class and race and everything. Unfortunately, that makes it tough for newbies.

 

[hellrazoromega]

Pathfinder has a lot of stuff to really customize a character and make exactly what you want. This is because f the crazy number of feats and the many classes with even more archtypes within.
I would say for a group who has experience with other table top games (DnD3.5 especially) then pathfinder will be a very good system. If the group has minimal table top experience or even none, then they may drown in the sea that is pathfinder options unless you give them a life vest (sit with them and literally explain what they should be doing picking the entire time). There is too many things in the system for a new player to navigate them self.


That is why it's a great system though. You can be who you actually want to be by picking the right feats and class and race and everything. Unfortunately, that makes it tough for newbies.

I suppose that depends, maybe there is a lot of material for PF so as far as volume I agree. The cool thing it that all that stuff it optional, but when I started gaming most every game had a steep learning curve--it was very much part of the hobby.

 

[Shining Lotus Sage]

Also, something I love about PF that just congealed for me today: dump stats. It almost does away with them. You can make your orc barbarian with 4 Cha if you want, but even if you're running a dungeon crawl, there's going to be -some- feature of your class you suck at. It helps my immersion a lot, to know my characters needed to have the basic ability to survive up to the point where the adventure begins, you know? Even my beloved AD&D 2.x with the Black Books expansion doesn't penalize dysfunctional characters as effectively.

 

[SephirothSage]

Hehehehehehehe.


"HOW DO YOU INTEND TO LIVE WITH A 5 WISDOM?!"


"Because my Class Doesn't use it."


"OTHER THAN TO HAVE ANYTHING RESEMBLING COMMON SENSE!"


"That's what the Wizard and the Cleric are for."


"RAAAAGH!"