View Full Version : Considering Pathfinder...

06-01-2013, 07:09 PM
I have been considering switching from 3.5 to Pathfinder. Just wondering how railroady (or not) the adventure paths are. Any input on the differences between PF and 3.5 is also appreciated. Thanks

06-01-2013, 07:48 PM
Pathfinder is essentially 3.5 with a lot of little, sensible, refinements. There's not too steep of a learning curve. Also, the entire game (core and supplement books, but not adventures) is available online at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ for searchable reference, and there's a free Kindle app for it too.

Can't speak much on adventure paths. I don't use them, nor did I use modules when I used D&D.

06-01-2013, 10:35 PM
I've been playing Pathfinder on and off for a couple years now and I have to say I really like it. Like with all systems it's got it's bumps and squeaks (I'm looking at you grappling), but on the other hand I've never had a problem building a unique a reasonably well balanced character with it.

As for the adventure paths, I was in a Kingmaker campaign for quite a while and found it pretty damn good. Structured, but by no means railroaded. The DM stuck with the provided materials exclusively at first, but over time as we got comfortable with it, it became easier and easier to add and adapt the campaign to how we were playing. The campaign ended before we reached the end of the AP, but I enjoyed it enough that I'll be using it again in the next campaign I DM, by ripping out the core mechanics of the kingdom building and applying them to a new setting.

06-01-2013, 11:41 PM
Thanks for the help

06-02-2013, 05:44 PM
pathfinder has made some useful changes, and has also broken some stuff that was not broken in the first place. i find it to be six of one, half dozen of another. also, i'm personally ticked by the lack of core psionics support in pathfinder. everything is dsp which is third party. oh well.

06-03-2013, 06:03 PM
I have been considering switching from 3.5 to Pathfinder. Just wondering how railroady (or not) the adventure paths are.

They're a bit railroady, nature of the beast with most adventure modules. They're not called "paths" for nothing! :)

Any input on the differences between PF and 3.5 is also appreciated. Thanks

I still like 3.5, and I'm really happy that WotC released the recent 3.5 reprints of the core rule books. However, I've started to develop new campaign material for Pathfinder, in my opinion, it's a natural and smooth transition, and the game mechanic differences are pretty minor, they really are just (mostly) useful tweaks. Also, having all the core info (except the Bestiary) in one book is pretty nice as well.

06-03-2013, 06:47 PM
Thanks, that is helpful

06-05-2013, 08:34 AM
Pathfinder is excelent in my opinion, personally, and makes some common sense changes that really help the game. Personally, I love what they did with the skill system. It's so much more elegant then 3.5e's and actually makes taking cross class skills not suck.(So I can finally have my wizardly party face!) Anyway, if your going to try pathfinder you'll find that it is quite similar to 3.5e. So much that learning it quickly should be no issue. Also, as stated, the SRD gives you all the info you'd ever need and some you don't, and is generally an excellent tool. Also, if you really want to learn, I'd be willing to teach you since we live somewhat close by. I have the beginner box which is a great teaching tool, so yeah.

06-09-2013, 09:23 PM
Thanks for the input everyone. I'll probably just stick with 3.5 and farm the Pathfinder SRD for ideas and things to add

Hey I Can Chan
08-01-2013, 10:02 AM
I can't speak for the adventure paths, but after a year as a player in a Pathfinder campaign and a year running a 3.5 campaign simultaneously, the system difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder have become pretty stark--much more than the similar update from 3.0 to 3.5 that Paizo would have you believe Pathfinder represents. There are a wealth of buried, changed, unpleasant rules (e.g. maintaining momentum while teleporting is on page 443) and buried, should've-been-changed, unpleasant rules (e.g. fire resistance 1 still makes lava-swimming possible on page 444), which adds up to a lot of thinking you know how something works because it worked that way in 3.5 only to find out that actually there's some minor change for no obvious reason so it works a different way in Pathfinder. Also, backwards compatibility is a myth. Deal.

Pathfinder is someone's 3.5 house rules made flesh, which is fine, but if you've your own D&D 3.5 house rules they'll probably be just as good. I do give the Pathfinder folks mad props for their Web support, though. That's what 3.5 should have done 'cause that makes running the game way easier.