Uhm I think I've said a couple times I'm running a Pathfinder converted version of Curse of the Crimson Throne. Currently it feels a lot like 3.5 but with some subtle changes. (Like the fact the party diviner's ability to roll Inits higher than some rogues makes him go first more often than most wizards. There's less issue of a wizard at 1st level surviving most fights thanks to going to d6s instead of d4s.)

I'd recommend trying it to see what you think. If you don't like it, then you know now.

Quote from: Koltar;393461Are any of you guys on here currently in a PATHFINDER campaign or mayube running one as a GM?

Whats it like compared to other RPG campaigns?
Does it feel like 3.5 D&D while playing ? - or are there many subtle differences in the mood or tone of the game sessions?


There is a chance I might be able to join in with a local group thats playing PATHFINDER.


- Ed C.

I'm both running a Pathfinder game and playing in one.  Both games use many 3.5 elements and books, including the Spell Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, the various monster books and Complete X books, 1 character in 1 game is a 3.5 class that had no Pathfinder equivalent, and the game I'm playing in is using the War of the Burning Sky (3.x) campaign, while the game I'm running is set in the Forgotten Realms.  So given all that, it naturally feels a whole lot like 3.5.

However, we really like the additional class options and giving the classes new things at each level instead of front-loading them.  One big difference between Pathfinder and 3.5 is that in our last 3.5 game, there were lots of multi-class and prestige class characters.  In Pathfinder, many of the characters are single classed.  Some have a few levels in a 2nd base class, but no one has taken a prestige class or seems to have any plans to.  The base classes are just so much fun and more interesting at higher levels now that prestige classes aren't nearly as crucial

Also, the most powerful, deadly, dominating character in combat out of either game is easily a Fighter/Barbarian that is playing in my game.  He is absolutely deadly, and routinely does more damage per round than the Sorcerer.  That's not something you'd often hear in 3.5.

The spell changes have helped keep the casters in check, and the unlimited Cantrips + inherent powers for a Sphere, School, etc give casters something to fall back on when their spells run out.

Quote from: Koltar;393461Are any of you guys on here currently in a PATHFINDER campaign or mayube running one as a GM?

Whats it like compared to other RPG campaigns?
Does it feel like 3.5 D&D while playing ? - or are there many subtle differences in the mood or tone of the game sessions?


There is a chance I might be able to join in with a local group thats playing PATHFINDER.


- Ed C.

It just feels like 3.5 with a bunch of house rules. I like it better because no one shows up to play with any splat books.

Ran the open beta with some 3.x monsters more or less unchanged.
The game felt sort of like more of the same, with cooler stuff for bbns, fighters, and rogues (the three classes I used in the one-shot as GM).

Friends of mine, all die hard 3.x fans (not really Paizo fans until recently) all use it now. I've played in a few games so far.

Personally, I like the skill rules. Faster feat progression and stronger core races/classes are pretty nice. There's less cherry picking with the core classes, as others have mentioned. Haven't played far enough to know about PrCs. I also feel like there's more to play with at low levels, without much effect on lethality or pace, so I'd really like to try a slow xp campaign with downplayed magic gear.

Like peanut butter and jelly mixed with Eberron, for a few reasons. Faster feat progressions mean being dragonmarked doesn't take up as much of your character resources. Rebalanced races sort of fit better with Eberron's guys (you *might* drop a penalty off the warforged, but leave shifters as is thanks to faster feat progression and shifter feats... changelings might or might not need a boost, depending how you run things). That sort of thing.

Played a mini-campaign through to about level 5 - actually we started with 3.5 characters and converted over to Pathfinder in the second session (surprise!) - which was kind of bad for me as I was playing a Scout when Christmas arrived for everyone else . I did like the skill consolidation , though, and the extra +3 for trained skills (I like spreading skill ranks around).

Basically not that much different -there are lots of rule changes but mostly very minor - about 25% of them seemed useful while the rest seem to pop up randomly to mess with things (for my character, revised Manyshot was a nasty surprise). The other players probably enjoyed me not rules lawyering, anyway - I try to shut up but don't always manage.

Quote from: Koltar;393461Are any of you guys on here currently in a PATHFINDER campaign or maybe running one as a GM?

Whats it like compared to other RPG campaigns?
Does it feel like 3.5 D&D while playing ? - or are there many subtle differences in the mood or tone of the game sessions?

I'm GMing Pathfinder right now.  My gaming group (a large loosely affiliated group that is actually a bunch of different smaller sub-groups) didn't like 4e and was really fond of Paizo's Dragon/Dungeon work especially the Dungeon APs; one guy ran the Rise of the Runelords AP for us and we all loved it.  We tried Pathfinder Beta for a campaign and liked it, and I started a game right after Pathfinder final came out; we're all enjoying it.  Other guys are running other Pathfinder games too for sub-groups, usually using their Adventure Paths, though there's a new Spelljammer based one starting soon.

The feel is a combination of several things.  Trying to isolate the "pure rules,"  they are a little more fixed, streamlined, and interesting version of 3.5.  Not hugely different, and some of our games have used 3.5 splatbooks fine.  Although we've kinda used it as an opportunity to take back a little more game control - the 3.5e rule sprawl along with the sense of "player entitlement" to use it all had become the 3.5e culture and the PF culture is less about that.

But it's not just the pure rules.  Golarion is our favorite gaming world since Greyhawk; it's interesting and hits the right balance of not dizzying FR detail but loads of good adventure-ready hooks.  Paizo's approach is welcome - not just "customer service" but things like open beta testing the original PF rules and, more recently, the Advanced Player's Guide, makes you feel more like a participant in a community than just a consumer.  And Paizo makes copious and excellent adventures (the six-chapter APs, the individual modules, and the smaller organized-play tourney scenarios).  "A bunch of adventures that don't suck" is what I liked the most about my other favorite D&D editions (1e, 3e with third party support).  

Anyway, our campaigns run a lot like 3.5e, but with definite improvements.  We had all begun to tire of 3.5e but this has made it fresh again and we basically run 50% Pathfinder games and 50% random other non-D&D games (most recently WoD, Alternity, Savage Worlds) - we have like 3-4 campaigns going on at a time across the whole gang, and so have probably 4-5 ongoing or completed Pathfinder campaigns by this point, and we're all extremely happy with it.

There are a couple things still not perfect that come with the 3.5e legacy.  Making high level NPCs is time consuming (though they have a couple products with lots of NPCs to specifically address this) and high level play is complex.  And it encouraged a super-gamist legacy of fretting over legalistic details, but - I don't know if it's Pathfinder or the OSR vibe out there that's making us more comfortable with going back to a bit more of the "rulings, not rules" approach.  

Let's see, random other specifics...  The core classes are powered up (if you use 3e/3.5e adventures unconverted you have to discount them by 2/1 ELs respectively) and made more even in terms of power distribution over level, so we see a lot fewer multiclass characters dipping for one thing or another; most folks are pleased with a pure core class and prestige classes are rarer and done for more in-game reasons.

I think that's the biggest thing for me. I like the idea of Prestige classes, but they became less "prestige" and more "classes" than they did anything else. Now in Pathfinder it's core classes that shine with specialists doing their thing for in game and some out of game reasons.

Quote from: Cranewings;391164I don't see it as stagnation at all. To me, the game is the same thing as first edition. You still do the same stuff. Your hit points still double at second level. Your fighter still gets a 5% bonus to hit every level.

I think Pathfinder will endure for a long time because the exact same shit has endured for decades.

Its not the same as 1e AD&D/OSRIC, as 1e games don't uses feats or skills and the bonuses for stats don't kick in until about 15+, also AC is rated differently, 1e also has less twinking players, due to the lack of min/maxing skills & feats (since there are none).  But PF is good for those who want to keep to their old ways, the same way OSRIC has kept the spirit of 1e alive for me, Yes I am a 1e fool.

Koltar,

I highly suggest you get around to picking up a copy of Pathfinder RPG's Advanced Player's Guide. There's some really GREAT stuff in there.