Gamers rise up.
i love striketober. :lets-fucking-go: also btw as someone that used to play lots of D&D 3.5 but never went beyond it, is Pathfinder a good upgrade?
Yes. It's 3.5 but better in basically every way and much more expansive. And also bad in most of the same ways.
The biggest draw is probably the absurd range of ways to modify your class(es).
Everything's here: http://aonprd.com/
The second edition's a different beast but I only played the playtest.
Yes. My group started out with 3.5 then moved to PF and when we looked back at 3.5 it was like, "How did we ever put up with this?" Not to riff too hard on it but like for example, 3.5 Barbarian gets some cool stuff at level 1, and then basically a bunch of garbage until like level 11, and they don't make a single decision in the entire progression, so mechanically every barbarian is pretty much exactly the same. Pathfinder Barbarians get rage powers which make the progression more natural and gives some options for customization. Pathfinder gives everyone more stuff, and while I can understand that some people prefer a lower power level, there's a lot more "dead" levels in 3.5 where you don't really get anything, which is pretty frustrating.
Personally, I'd say skip PF and go straight to 5E because I think it's a smoother, more balanced system, but if you do like 3.5, you'll probably also like PF because it's very similar but improves some stuff.
i stick with 3.5 because years ago i pirated the complete collection of all the books lol. i haven't messed with the torrent scene in awhile so i haven't had a chance to look at the 5e books and refuse to buy them.
They smoothed down a lot of 3.5's rough edges, although it is still colloquially called "Mathfinder" because you're doing the old bonuses-on-top-of-bonuses thing from the original.
5e is definitely an easier game to get into. But Pathfinder (1e) has a lot of the style and character of the 3.5e system along with a setting that rivals Forgotten Realms and Eberron.
hmm yeah i often prefer custom settings that's probably one reason i never really explored Pathfinder. is 5e like 4e basically perfectly tuned so you have to have a 4 person player group minimum? main reason i still play 3.5 is because you can easily adapt it to smaller or even solo groups but i heard the later editions aren't really mechanically set up for that.
That's hard for me to say. 5e is definitely more flexible than 4e in terms of party composition. Also, the Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything release massaged a lot of the rules around races and classes, allowing you to trade generic stat increases for specific niche skills and abilities you wouldn't normally have.
Just running a Bard fills quite a few niches sub-optimally. Alternatively, Artificers allow you to pull solutions out of your ass as necessary.
I don't think it really improves on 3.5, but it's not worse, they're still publishing new stuff, and you're more likely to find a group that plays PF than one that still plays 3.5.
Hey came to post about this, this is fantastic and as far as I know an industry first. Similar to video game the TTRPG industry exploits the fact that one should enjoy the work so much that they sacrifice themselves and fair wages to even get to work in the field.
Love this tweet in the thread
"In pretty much every company in America today, the bosses have all the power. That’s by design. Workers have precious few mechanisms with which to affect their workplaces, except one: their voice. And when all our voices come together, we actually can effect change. "
That's fantastic!
I hope they negotiate some big wins, and then are very loud about it.
