PDA

View Full Version : what is pathfinder?



satyesu
01-30-2010, 08:34 PM
o.O

fmitchell
01-30-2010, 08:52 PM
Paizo's version of D&D 3.5, based on OGL sources. It supposedly fixes some problems with 3.5 and balances classes a bit better, without the extreme rewrite of D&D 4. (It's sometimes called D&D 3.75.)

See http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG for more information.

WhiteTiger
01-30-2010, 09:12 PM
Paizo's version of D&D 3.5, based on OGL sources. It supposedly fixes some problems with 3.5 and balances classes a bit better, without the extreme rewrite of D&D 4. (It's sometimes called D&D 3.75.)

See http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG for more information.


Yup... that just about sums it up... :biggrin:

Karrius
01-30-2010, 09:26 PM
Supposedly is a good description of it. Pathfinder is no means superior to 3.5 - each are different systems with different uses.

Regicide
01-31-2010, 01:52 AM
Are they really that different? What would the uses of Pathfinder be as opposed to the uses of 3.5, in your opinion?

Karrius
01-31-2010, 02:15 AM
Pathfinder may be a better use for new players learning the game, who have neither a strong knowledge of 3.5, nor a good set of houserules. It's a decent improvement in some ways - the Paladin, for example, is better, even if it's still not good. And that's really the problem - the major problems of 3.5 aren't anywhere near fixed. Despite being a big deal, and having the potential to fix everything, it still ends up worse than a lot of people's houserules. Class balance is still an issue, a lot of people still can't contribute to non-combat things, many overpowered spells remain such.

For those familiar with 3.5, especially with houserules, it's not worth it. It changes so much you become confused by little, pointless changes. Many changes are bizarre, and a lot is poorly written (Light, Gate, Shield Mastery). If you already have a good set of houserules to handle the fighter-types, Pathfinder is likely incompatible with them. Pathfinder is also pretty much totally incompatible with stuff like Spell Compendium, without rewriting every new spell you use.

WhiteTiger
02-01-2010, 10:12 AM
Are they really that different? What would the uses of Pathfinder be as opposed to the uses of 3.5, in your opinion?


To me, The point of Pathfinder is the active continuation of the 3.X system.

Yes, some of the rules have changed. Some people will like the changes and some won't.

There was also some power creep instituted in Pathfinder.

My personal opinion is that the main intent was to balance the classes but was probably only partially successful. If you want a lengthy dissertation, you can read my lengthy (read: ad nauseum) 4 part blog review.

I hope you actively seek it out and try it for yourself and don't base your decisions based on highly subjective personal opinions here in the forums including mine.

The other point is that hopefully it will encourage other 3rd party publishers to continue putting out more product.

If you already have 3.5 then you probably don't need Pathfinder especially if you have a group and you have already instituted heavy house-rules, it would probably take your group a long time to work all of the issues out.

Lucifer_Draconus
02-07-2010, 04:19 PM
For me if I end up getting it will to have a supported version of 3.x based OGL rules for those players who want a living system compared to 3.5 or getting into 4e. I'll still houserule out the evil tacticle/mini based combat n' movement rules.

Frobozz
02-08-2010, 12:52 AM
Yea, if you're like me, you hate the tactical/mini based combat. I was able to completely nix it in 3.5 and even though I haven't played Pathfinder yet (I own the two core books); reviewing the rules, I see no reason I can't also completely nix it there as well.

I looked over 4e and the problem I saw was the abilities in 4e are so intertwined with tactical movement that you can't get rid of it. You can have two different abilities, each dealing the same damage, but relying on specific tactical positions and movements. Without the tactical combat, the two abilities would be redundant.

Regicide
02-08-2010, 07:53 AM
How do you deal with things like 5 foot steps, AoO's, move speeds, charges, etc etc without minis?

Frobozz
02-08-2010, 09:26 AM
I have the combat laid out in my head. My player asks if there's someone within 5 feet, I tell them. AoO's are simple; are you moving away or inward at faster than a 5 foot step? Are you trying to pass too close to an active combatant that they'll get a free hit on you? If so, AoO. Move speed is wholly subjective and I'd like to keep it so; I give the players the distance to the enemy, and they tell me what they're doing... moving in, charging, etc. If the distance is within their move action, they get there.

My whole group plays this way. We've never used minis unless it was a battle complex enough to warrent it. Last time we did, it was about 15 on one side vs. 30 on the other.

Example from last week's game, note, I'm not the DM on this one, I play Blaine, a rogue/gunfighter in a Final Fantasy themed game:

DM: "You see a man in a robe who looks like a mage and a pair of goons in front wearing leather armor holding glowing blue swords...roll initiative"
*after initiative order is determined*
DM: "Shepard, you're up"
Shepard (fighter): "How far away?"
DM: "You just came around the bend, they've been waiting for you, they're 20 feet away down ten feet of hall in the room beyond."
Shepard: "Can I get through the guys in front to get to the mage?"
DM: "Not without them swinging at you."
Shepard: "Could there be more guys out of sight on either side of the door?"
DM: "It's a possibility"
Shepard: "I'll have to take that chance, run on in and swing at the guy to the left"
DM: "Start rolling - Kalie, what do you do?"
Kalie (monk): "Go after the guy on the right."
DM: "Start rolling" *DM takes a sec to resolve Shepard's attack*
DM: "You rush on up to the guy and slice upwards hitting him, roll damage" *get's Kalie's hit numbers*
DM: "You sucker punch him in the gut, roll damage, Blaine, you're up"
Blaine (rogue): "Snap out my firearms and put four in the mage"
DM: "Roll" *resolves damage on the two guys up front; they're both still up, resolve Blaine's shots, 2 hits and a crit. Resolve's Blaine's damage*
DM: "Blaine hits the guy in the robes and you see the crackle of some kind of shield, but he's bleeding. He's still up. Their turn."