When classes are not equal, there's basically two ways to make them more equal.  You can nerf the most powerful, and you can buff the weakest (or some combination, of course).  Pathfinder seems to have taken the "buff the weakest" class.  For instance, it's long been shown that mechanically, nobody should stay with the 3.5 Fighter class past level 6 or so.  Nobody should stay with the 3.5 Sorcerer past level 5 or 6.  From level 10 on (at least) magic-using classes were far more power than anything else.  Now there's actually a point in sticking with the fighter or sorcerer classes and they're more balanced.  Some of the "best" classes, like CoDzilla (cleric or druid 'zilla who could roflstomp any other "core only" character after at least level 6 or so) have been slightly nerfed.

Oh I'm not saying the slight downgrading of some of those powerful classes isn't a good thing. But I've had experience where some people have decided to stick with 3.5 because of those nerfs; when they've heard how characters are generally more powerful.

Pathfinder has vastly more customization than 3.x when you consider archetypes and racial ability tradeoffs.  Looking back at the old 3.5 classes, they all feel empty.  Your base class in 3.5 was pretty much what you killed time with while you were waiting to get into your Prestige class.

I don't see PFs few nerfs as a drawback... I feel that it makes the game better.

Okay, one big thing--and this is slowly being eroded--PF does not have the 10 million splat books that 3.5 does.  When it comes to 3.5, you could join a game, build a character with the "normal" rules, and find out that your reasonable character was worthless baggage next to the character of someone who had bought (or downloaded illegally) a dozen or so splat books and used those.  It got so bad that people started publicly announcing which books they did and did not allow in 3.5 games.  And sometimes, you would join a game only to see GMs let anything in, such as the "Saint" template, which was so overpowered that it drives me to hyperbole... so I'll just leave it at that.  Anyway, 3.5, by the time PF came around, was a game for people who had the money (or weak morals) to acquire the best books.

PF changed that.  It had simpler rules.  Every class was decent and had something to offer.  Of course, as more and more customization is added, PF is going down the same dark road.  But right now, it's still a fun, streamlined, and simpler game.

EDIT:  Also SwordC is right.  3.5 has little to no encouragement for players to choose a class and stick to it.  It was all about finding different weird combinations of templates, races, classes, and prestige classes--often mixing five or more classes to get the right combination.  PF really doesn't have that feel.  You can choose a class and stick with it--but the archetype system still gives real options.  This makes building a character much easier.
This message was last edited by the user at 02:49, Fri 22 Aug 2014.

Actually, I think the main reason PF is avoiding that dark path; is less to do with simplicity; and more to do with that everything is available on their SRD. Even if you go for the one on the Paizo website; all the hardcovers are available. D20pfsrd.com is more extensive certainly; but the point is it's all available. You don't -have- to get the books to stay level. I do, but it's as much to do with wishing to support my local game shop and also Paizo; than out of any necessity.

I don't necessarily find that to be true.  The customization options are almost brutally balanced where every good thing costs you another good thing.  A lot of the time, imbalance has more to do with how the GM is running certain rules (for instance, the rules for cover from interposing creatures in ranged combat) than with the options themselves.

As with all games, the GM should take an active role in character generation and smack people with a stick when they're clearly building a one-trick character.  I don't think any game, in the long run, can stand up to that mentality.

The numbers are based so that a level 5 character is basically equal to Einstein in real life. (Even Gandalf is only a level 5)

Example, looking at the jump skill DCs compared to real life people. Well, 3.0 was good, but 3.5 and PF simplified the long jump which threw the DC off by 5 points.

Obviously combat doesn't count, since realistic combat wouldn't be fun.

I've kept quiet through this, most because my question was answered a long time ago.  But why would realistic or even semi-realistic combat not be fun?  I myself prefer a system that is at least close to reality.  In fact one of the reasons I really DON'T like the D20 systems is the fact that in high level characters, they are like walking tanks.  Many other games do have a much more realistic combat system and they are fun.

Because never mind high level characters. By level 2 even, let alone level 3, you're taking injuries which should kill a normal person. And well then there's magic.

Personally, I like my reality and my RPGs as far away from each other as possible.

To each his own.  A game just loses something for me when a normal human takes two or three rounds from a .50 cal and lives.

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 14):

Maybe--we'll see.  There's always the temptation for the new option to be a little bit better.  Then the next.  And the next.

Not that it can't still happen, but PF has been out for five years already.  Aside from a few problems (synthesist summoner, I'm looking at you), it hasn't been a victim of that, in my estimation.  Consider the 3.0 publication cycle was only ~3 years, 3.5 was ~5 years, and 4e ran ~5 years.  Every single one of those devolved into what you describe within a year of publication and it only got worse.

The main reason I don't think PF has devolved quite as badly; is their playtesting for major stuff like new classes, against -everything- currently available. Most of 3.5 was okay if you held it in a vacuum; but when you allowed everything it got ugly. Or that's what it seems like anyway.

I still run 3.5; and if I limit it to the complete series; and the races books, it usually ends up okay. But I did make some mistakes when first running online, by allowing 'everything, just give me a source' and so I got some broken characters. Now, I doublecheck everything even stuff from my allowed sources. I do the same with PF; but I've rarely had to go "Oy!". The only time I have was more to do with how their point-buy system works.

In reply to pfarland (msg # 16):

In a real sword fight, the first strike near always wins. There is no cinematic or dramatic action involved. Also, fancy tends to lose, though not always, but still enough to make it so only masters can really expect to win when including fancy moves.

Most who play want something not only more cinematic and dramatic, but also more forgiving of dice failures.

I also like to point out, the I tend to say realistic but really mean plausible. It should be considered that the rules of physics are the same as reality unless stated otherwise (such as including magic).

In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 22):

I don't want to turn this into a D&D bashing thread, don't get me wrong.  My problem with the mechanics itself come about with higher level characters.  Even a 10th level character could stand there unarmored, and let an opponent hit him a few times with a sword and suffer no issues because of it.

Saying ignores the large number of players whole play games that don't have the same issues.

Look at a system like Shadowrun (or the fantasy version, Earthdawn).  An un-augmented character (or even some augmented ones) could not simply do that.  Regardless of experience.  Heck, that character could only take a blow or two from a sword at most.  Saying such a system as 3.5/PF is more forgiving of dice failures is wrong.  They work only with a single die for an attack and no defensive dice.  Shadowrun and other systems use dice pools.  A system that uses dice pools will always be more forgiving of 'dice failures' compared to one that uses a single die.  A more experienced or better enhanced character has a greater chance of critical successes and a lesser chance of critical failures, than a lesser experience/enhanced character.

3.5/PF kind of gets around that by introducing large numbers of hit points.  While it does solve the issue for single hits (at least for higher level characters), it causes other issues such as my example above.

As for 'more cinematic and dramatic' I wouldn't say either one is more than the other.  Back to using Shadowrun, it can certainly be played HIGHLY cinematically, and for the dramatic portion, my view is that a game where a single bad hit could kill your character is much more dramatic.  This is my view though.

I just want to close is saying I'm not trying to bash 3.5/PF.  I'm just stating mine and others views.  If you and other have fun playing it, then it is a good game.  For myself and other people, it isn't a good game.  For myself, the "No worries, he'll never be able to do more than a few hit points of damage to me." takes away too much fun for me.  Even a group of inexperience gangers can be a danger to my very experienced character (say 1st-3rd level to my 15th-18th level character).  A game where just about anyone is at least a potential threat has much more for me.

P.S.  I've ignored magic on both systems.  Both have it, but neither can be compared to reality.  So my preference is just that, a preference.

In regards to the high HP argument, it all deoends on how you view it. I've never seen HP as an expression of someone's health. Rather, I see it as a representation of how much energy/skill that character has to avoid a fatal blow. A higher level more experienced character is going to be able to survive longer in a fight than someone who has only just picked up a sword.

Thus point of view changes the tone and narrative without changing the mechanics.

In reply to That Guy With The Face (msg # 25):

I would almost agree to it, but it ignores a character that just is completely unaware of the attack (sleeping, sniper, invisible, etc.) and it ignores a character just standing there and taking the hits.  The last D&D game I played (AD&D) years ago had a character do just that to cow a large group of low level soldiers.

He purposefully called out the strongest soldier, took off his armor and let the soldier attack him.  Let him land more than a few blows before killing him with two blows.  That was the final straw for the game in my eyes.

In reply to pfarland (msg # 24):

While what you say in this post is undoubtedly true, I would think there's a point you missed. You say you're not bashing the system and I agree that you aren't, so consider this merely an answer to your considerations, a way to maybe make you appreciate it just slightly more. It is also basically an expansion on what DarkLightHitomi said in his post #15.

Basically, you should never think of a 3.5/PF "level 10th" character as "experienced", for that's not what they are at all; what you should think about is "superhuman". The link at the ends explains it with numbers better than I could, but to summarize, a 10th level character is the equivalent of a Naruto Uzumaki, Monkey D. Luffy, Son Goku or others such manga characters halfway through their manga's progression. We're talking people that can take a beating that should reasonably kill even the strongest human on heart, and not merely survive it, but then get back up and deliver a worse one of their own to defeat their opponent with.

As an example, in the Enies Lobby arc of the One Piece manga, Luffy takes down over 10'000 soldiers all by himself, with a single physical attack, in a second, without getting a scratch. As you can see, all those 1st (oer even 3rd) level character can't truly hope to do anything to him - and he's not even halfway through his journey yet. That's the kind of individual that a 10th level character is meant to portray - and if that kind of strenght is what you want in your story (I personally am not really in favour of such excesses, myself) it does so remarkably consistently.

And 20th level characters might as well be gods - they're capable of the kind of feats you hear of in myths, like Herakles using his mere muscle sterenght to deviate the course of a river, which most character in most stories never would be able to accomplish. This the tier of strenght where Superman resides.

The idea is, basically, that your characters exit the "experienced warriors" category by the time the 5th or 6th level of 3.5/PF comes around; that's why 3rd level characters can't hurt a 18th level one - because any mere human facing a god would be just as ineffectual.

Once you understand that premise, the system does remrkably well at simulating what you need it to - you just need to be aware of what kind of thresholds it will develop torward if you keep letting the characters grow in level. I personally don't like the high level game much, but that just mean I will normally only play in the lowers levels, and I like how the system performs there.

I can definitely agree that it is not for everybody, and you're totally free of not liking it; I just wanted to point out that what you describe as a bug, it's acutally a feature the system has - one you can choose not to use, if you don't like it.

Here's the links who explains this better than I do, as promised:

http://thealexandrian.net/word...-your-expectations-2

http://thealexandrian.net/word...lar-roleplaying-game

And, as a last note and the point where I reconnect myself with the original thread's goal, that's what PF does improved 3.5 on - with 3.5, the power growth was faster and less controlled, while at the same time, the lower levels of play offered much less options. PF, in my opinion, fixes both those problems by making the lower levels of all classes more varied in their ability, slowing down the growth in power a little bit, and allowing for a more balanced approach at all levels - and especially so when the levels are lower, which, given my preference, is what matters most to me. :)

In reply to pfarland (msg # 26):

That's a problem with a bad DM allowing something silly like that to happen, not with the system itself.

And DnD/PF don't claim to be realistic or claim to depict combat in a realistic fashion, so I'm not sure why they're being judged on those grounds.

Because most people play them that way from lv 1 all the way through to lv 20, so it is a common misconception.

In reply to pfarland (msg # 26):

So... if he truly did nothing to avoid the damage to show off... which is what he would have to do to not have the capability of having the HP represent certain aspects of non-physical damage and avoidance.

If on the other hand, they allowed them to strike, however, they wanted... then the GM should have treated those 'free' strikes as a Coupe de Grace and the damage should have been a critical hit, with any sneak account damage.  Then they would have needed to make a fortitude save 10+ (damage from attack) or die.  If they allowed multiple attacks...  that would be awfully brave of them.

In reply to Egleris (msg # 27):

Good info, and I don't disagree with it.  But for me I wouldn't want to play a game where characters had a chance to become demigods.  Not my style.

In reply to Mustard Tiger (msg # 28):

I'm judging D&D, as a game for me to play, by those terms because those are things I prefer.  At least close to reality.

In reply to LoreGuard (msg # 30):

It's been a long time, but there was an argument about it.  The player argued that the fighters couldn't sneak attack and a few other things.  The player had said that "In the rules...", well you get the idea.  And this WAS back in AD&D, so there were no feats or Coupe de Grace stuff around.

I've seen many things before that mention that HP represent a character 'rolling with punches, etc.  The issue was that it never implemented that as any sort of rule if the character just stood and took it.

Other issues I have is that the system itself (any Class based system really) doesn't allow much in the way of generalists or jacks of all trades.  Yes you can multi-class, but even then things are restricted.  If a wizard/cleric decides to learn how to pick locks from his Rogue buddy, he has to sacrifice 2 skills points to learn the out of class skill.

There are other things, but I really don't want to turn this into a D&D bashing thread or a "Convince me that D&D is a game for me" thread.  I was just interested in what the differences were because a friend of mine stated that Pathfinders was 3.5 with another name and I've seen 3.5 and PF games and I wondered why there would be both played if that were the case.

Oh, Pathfinder doesn't cost 2 skill points for cross class skills anymore. (completely forgot about that).

Pathfinder started out as a series of houserules for 3.5, so that should tell you something.

---
If you don't want to reach demigod status, you could try the E-6 variant, which basically limits the maximum and instead allows further growth by spending XP on feats, skills, etc. This basically keeps things at a particular tier of play while still allowing character growth in some form.

---
As far as reality/plausibility goes, this is difficult and there are a few different ways it could apply. Truly realistic would not be much fun, but some realistic things might be desired (such as not being flat-footed on the first round of combat when everyone is in a defensive stance and waiting for the buzzer to start the fight and the attacker has to run 30' before getting to you. This happened to me. The only time I was ever angry about losing a character. Still angry actually.)

---
You can also just swap out whatever health system there is for one closer to what you want. Wounds/Vitality perhaps, or a fort save with growing penalties, or something else of your own design.

The rules are intended as guidelines for play, not absolute unbreakable laws of nature, despite how they tend to be treated.

Well, Pathfinder really started because Paizo published the Dungeons and the Dragons magazines.  Then WotC decided to bring that publishing in house and also to move to a 4th edition, and Paizo said something like, "Ok, you go ahead and do that, we're just going to 'upgrade' 3.5 ourselves and apply the patches and fixes we think are necessary and then we'll go from there, so you just go have a good time trying to do what we were doing and with your new edition."  Sort of.