Pathfinder is the New D&D

[Daryk]

I'd actually characterize the "good" progression as +1/1 level, the "average" as +3/4 levels, and the "poor" as +1/2 levels.  Your description of multiple attacks is accurate and very succint, though.

[beachhead1985]

attack bonus is actually easy in 3.0/3.5

there are essentually 3 BAB (Base Attack Bonus) progression charts
good +1/level
average +0.5/level
poor +0.33/level

so lets say I am leveling as a fighter type .. I get +1 bab every level
if I take a level of say rogue I would only get an additional 0.5 /level meaning it takes 2 levels to get a +1
if I take a level of mage with a 0.33 it takes 3 levels to get a full +1

and every time your BAB can subtract 5 and still have a positive number you get an extra attack strike

magic I would have to know what you were having trouble figuring out to try to clarify it

I just found it was complicated and hard for me to understand, the magic that is.

My problem with BAB came with multiclassing and characters using two and double weapons, or the worst; a two-handed weapon and a spiked gauntlet...

[guardiandashi]

my understanding of using multiple weapons is they really went for a simple method

your "main hand"makes all bab attacks, and iderative (sp)

so as a 1st-5th level fighter for instance you get 1 mainhand attack
at 6th level (+6 bab) you get 2 "main attacks" 1 at +6 1 at +1
at 11th level you get 3 "main attacks" 1 at 11, 1 at 6, and 1 at 1
etc.

if you are dual wielding, using a double weapon etc you always get 1 offhand attack per additional "hand"
so lets say you are using a longsword and shortsword/dager or similar

your mainhand can get multiple attacks but your "offhand" only ever gets 1 additional attack

this is where some of the "monster" races get nasty
dragon? claw, claw claw, claw claw bite, claw claw bite wing attacks etc

demons/devils naga etc with extra arms?
http://images.wikia.com/wowwiki/images/1/19/Shivarra.jpg  is an example

this would have 1 primary attack (set) and up to 5 secondary offhand attacks.

as far as casting is concerned in general you will have 1 spell progression table
such as mage, cleric, paladin, ranger etc.

each time you level up in your casting class you advance 1 row (level) down the table unless otherwise dictated by your class

[beachhead1985]

Pathfinder DOES look much easier in many ways.

I miss some of the weapons (Fullblade, munchy, I know) and classes (Scout) from 3.5, but it's still really cool.

[Fatebringer]

Pathfinder is essentially 3.5 with a lot of house rules that include some of the aspects of 4.0 that were interesting, and then planting it in a new setting with some new classes.

[Coronoides]

Since my last post I've played a bunch of pathfinder and written a mega- review of Fantasy Craft.
If your reading this because you have a big library of d20 books you want to keep using and are basically happy with 3.5 then get Pathfinder.
For everyone else I'd say consider Fantasy Craft. It has faster combat yet a high degree of tactical richness, fast npc and monster creation, and can handle a much greater variety of worlds and characters than Pathfinder or 3.5.

My review based on a year of playing FC is in rpg review 13:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?614353-RPG-Review-13-and-14-Released

[Helaman]

Big fan of PF  but more particulary its 'organised play' Pathfinder Society thats out there.

Getting to a gaming group these days is hard but I can rock up to the odd organised game, sling dice and slowly work on that character (or a number of characters) while enjoying modules that seem reasonably balanced between RP, skill challenges and combat.

[Notsonoble]

Chiming in. Love Pathfinder, moved to it pretty much exclusively. In the middle of a game that should turn into my first published module too.

[Fatebringer]

Nice :) Send a link when you have one.

[joechummer]

Here's a question: What is it about Pathfinder that makes it a unique RPG? Everyone I know seems to be going completely nuts over it, to the point where my local bookstores stock most of their products. Not every D&D clone does well, but those that do usually have a specific reason. For example, I loved Earthdawn because of the really interesting backstory woven into the whole universe, and the classes, which weren't just a retread of D&D archetypes, were very well thought out.

Does Pathfinder have anything like this to set it apart from the rest of the pack?

[Railan Sradac]

I have to confess, I really dislike Pathfinder. It does some things well, but the designers didn't seem to have enough understanding of the system they were starting with to fix the important problems. The vast majority of melee characters are still hampered by a crippling lack of mobility options that don't totally compromise their damage, the Monk is still garbage unless you go Qinggong/Hungry Ghost, and the designers seem to be fixated on nerfing things that didn't need it in the first place like the Improved Trip line, TWF/Flurry combinations and similar. I do like their fix of the Paladin and the half-casters like the Inquisitor and Magus (though the Magus should be spontaneous casting IMO) but they're not enough to save the system in my eyes.

I haven't read much of the setting, but what I've read I really liked. The origin story of Asmodeus and Jazirian was excellent, and the stories of Rovagug the Rough Beast (shades of Yeats, anyone?) and his Spawn (especially their take on the Tarrasque) are inspiring.

Here's a question: What is it about Pathfinder that makes it a unique RPG? Everyone I know seems to be going completely nuts over it, to the point where my local bookstores stock most of their products. Not every D&D clone does well, but those that do usually have a specific reason. For example, I loved Earthdawn because of the really interesting backstory woven into the whole universe, and the classes, which weren't just a retread of D&D archetypes, were very well thought out.

Does Pathfinder have anything like this to set it apart from the rest of the pack?

Not really, IMO. The setting is quite good from what I've read, but it keeps to D&D stereotypes a bit too closely in my opinion (races like Orcs being mindlessly evil is a pet peeve). The base classes are all imported directly from 3.5 with some changes so they contain many of the same design flaws that the originals did; the new designs are better (I actually think the Black Blade Magus is a nice piece of design; it just lacks mobility, but if you can grab Word Magic: Accelerate you're golden). It's easier for new players to vaguely match their idea with the Archetype system, but a lot of them are seriously underpowered.

Overall, I'd rather play 3.5.

[Crunch]

Here's a question: What is it about Pathfinder that makes it a unique RPG? Everyone I know seems to be going completely nuts over it, to the point where my local bookstores stock most of their products. Not every D&D clone does well, but those that do usually have a specific reason. For example, I loved Earthdawn because of the really interesting backstory woven into the whole universe, and the classes, which weren't just a retread of D&D archetypes, were very well thought out.

Does Pathfinder have anything like this to set it apart from the rest of the pack?

It's just a better tested and balanced version of D & D 3.5. It fixes the glaring errors, balances the classes better (and despite what Railan said I just ran a 2 year 1-15 campaign that featured a Bard, a Druid, a Monk, a Paladin, a Mage, a Warrior and a Rogue and no one felt over or underpowered with the possible exception of the Two Handed Paladin having exceptional burst in the 8-10 range), and basically small tweaks that felt lacking in 3.5 (The skill system is simpler and scales better without losing texture, Feats are better balanced against each other.)

If you don't like core 3.5 you won't like it. If you want to play a tactical board game you'll be better off with Descent or 4th E.

[joechummer]

It's just a better tested and balanced version of D & D 3.5.

If that's the case, then why is there more than just a core book? Why are there modules and miniatures and all of the items that go along with a fully realized game line? Plus, if it's just a balanced version of 3.5, why isn't WotC complaining? Did Paizo just license the D20 system and then fiddle with it? I didn't think the D20 license worked like that.

[Crunch]

If that's the case, then why is there more than just a core book? Why are there modules and miniatures and all of the items that go along with a fully realized game line? Plus, if it's just a balanced version of 3.5, why isn't WotC complaining? Did Paizo just license the D20 system and then fiddle with it? I didn't think the D20 license worked like that.

As I understand it the OGL allows people to use the D20 system for anything they want as long as it's properly marked and doesn't claim to be D&D. 

There is also a pathfinder campaign setting, but honestly that would be a whole different review and one of the selling points of Pathfinder is that it can be used with all of your old setting material from 3rd E (unlike 4th for instance). As for why there are minis and expansion books etc I suspect its for the same reason any game company puts out such things. To make money.

[joechummer]

There is also a pathfinder campaign setting

I think this is more what I'm curious about. Is there anything especially interesting regarding this? Some new and engaging twist on the fantasy adventuring setting?

[Railan Sradac]

Some of the stuff is good but overall I'd rather play Eberron.

~EDIT~ To expand on that, I'd say I prefer a more shades-of-gray environment that doesn't stick too close to the standard fantasy tropes. The Pathfinder campaign setting is a fine take on the classical Greyhawk/Faerun style with some interesting bits (Asmodeus' story) and some funny bits (Cayden Cailan) but it's one of the settings that brandishes Always Chaotic Evil like it's its personal saviour. The Orcs are actually trying to cause the end of the world for no good reason and the rest of the monstrous humanoids are gleefully ax crazy. While having Drow that are actually the refined nasties that they originally were is nice I'd rather play in a setting that doesn't beat you over the head with its morality like Warhammer or Eberron.

[Coronoides]

I prefer to craft my own worlds. Pathfinder gimps attempts to do that. It also handles odd-non-humans poorly. So it is not for me. I use Fantasy Craft for fantasy.
However, if you generally liked 3.5, and want a detailed world out-of-the-box, and want to play human-like humanoids only then Pathfinder is pretty good. I'm a player in a pathfinder game.

[Crunch]

I prefer to craft my own worlds. Pathfinder gimps attempts to do that. It also handles odd-non-humans poorly. So it is not for me. I use Fantasy Craft for fantasy.
However, if you generally liked 3.5, and want a detailed world out-of-the-box, and want to play human-like humanoids only then Pathfinder is pretty good. I'm a player in a pathfinder game.

I built my own campaign world for Pathfinder and had no issues with any of that.

[Coronoides]

I built my own campaign world for Pathfinder and had no issues with any of that.

Depends what you want to do and how hard you want to work. If you are creating a fairly std fantasy setting Pathfinder would be fine.
But if you want to depart from the beaten path then FC is a better choice. It lets you define your world.
Want a world with no magic at all? FC can do that neatly. Removing magical healing is no big deal.
Want to play in a Bronze Age, FC has an Era and Complexity system to tell your players what's in and out.
Want wizards but no magic items? No problem, it wont mess up the challenge or balance of encounters
Want combat to be more deadly? Want spells to corrupt your soul? etc. The FC Campaign qualities system can tweak the rules to match your vision.

[rebs]

When my old group gets together, we play 3.5, but use many of the Pathfinder rules as well.  Especially for combat, though our DM's are open to any of PF's various systems being blended in or substituted for the stock 3.5 rules.   The two work so well in hybrid form, that we could never go back to straight up 3.5 even if we wanted to.   

[Cowdragon]

I love the Pathfinder Sorcerer and Dragon Disciple. Those were my favorite classes anyway in 3.5. However, to remove all casting was wrong, and I'm still scratching my head as to why spontaneous casters are one spell level behind others. It's frustrating for some builds because it means you will never get the higher level spells that others get.

Other than that it's great.

[Notsonoble]

I think this is more what I'm curious about. Is there anything especially interesting regarding this? Some new and engaging twist on the fantasy adventuring setting?

Golarion, Pathfinder's Setting, is actually a fairly classic simi-dark Fantasy world, lots of things are just cranked up to 11. I suppose its twist isn't something different about the setting as much as the quality of the work done to make the setting fell real despite all the wild things mashed into the setting that normally don't play well with one another. You can do just about anything from creepy love craft to untamed wilderness to alien invasion in Golarion, and it still fits.

Want a world with no magic at all? FC can do that neatly. Removing magical healing is no big deal.

Easily done in Pathfinder as well. Heal skill isn't quiet as worthless as it was in 3.5, and there's lots to work with in the way of non-magical salves, oils, and other treatments.

Want to play in a Bronze Age, FC has an Era and Complexity system to tell your players what's in and out.

While it doesn't hold your hand in making a non-standard era, all the material to do this is in PF, either in the Core Rulebook, GameMastery Guide, or the Ultimates (especially with Ultimate Equipment coming out soon).

Want wizards but no magic items? No problem, it wont mess up the challenge or balance of encounters

Admittedly this is probably a little harder, but no worse than choosing challenges and encounters in a completely magic-less setting.

Want combat to be more deadly? Want spells to corrupt your soul? etc. The FC Campaign qualities system can tweak the rules to match your vision.

Now this... this is there, in fact, lots of it is already in Golarion specific material. (See material on the nations of Cheliax, Nidal, and Geb).

[Nodachi]

been playing the Kingmaker AP since I last posted. Really enjoy it. PF fixed most of my issues with 3.5. But the big thing is that the modules are much more memorable then 4th. 4th flowed well, but the best adventures were from Dragon, all the stand along adventures were just ok. And the PF campaign setting is the love child of Greyhawk and FR in my opinion.

[Notsonoble]

So, since moving back to abilene my gaming has gone from once a month to an average of 3 times per week. It's nuts, and most of it is a Rise of the Runelords campaign. <-- That right there is one of the best way to answer all the setting questions about pathfinder. The other ways are some of the more recent Adventure Paths.

[Bedwyr]

Going through Rise myself and it's pretty well structured. I'm beginning to see some quest hooks for my characters just in the area surrounding Sandpoint and the countries surrounding Varisia.

[Hawk]

Pathfinder has my ear. I've played every iteration of D&D, and this is fairly much the best balanced most usable version I have come across. I especially like the fact that aspects can be customized, like races; I have been toying around in that department for a while now. Class structure is better balanced, and it doesn't feel right off like 3.0 did....and I remember how off balance that was. Almost as bad as 2.0.

Edit: Still better than D&D the tabletop MMO...the Warcraft clone.

[Daryk]

I recently joined a play by post Pathfinder game, and ended up buying two books as a result.  It's come a very long way since the alpha release I downloaded.  I won't be abandoning my 3.5 games, but I'll definitely be on the look out for more Pathfinder games.

[Crunch]

Pathfinder has my ear. I've played every iteration of D&D, and this is fairly much the best balanced most usable version I have come across. I especially like the fact that aspects can be customized, like races; I have been toying around in that department for a while now. Class structure is better balanced, and it doesn't feel right off like 3.0 did....and I remember how off balance that was. Almost as bad as 2.0.

Edit: Still better than D&D the tabletop MMO...the Warcraft clone.

To be fair both versions of the World of Warcraft RPG are much better systems than D&D 4.

[Istal_Devalis]

Crunch, you know there are 4th ed fans out on the boards too.
Why do you insist on saying things you know will piss them off as they see them as untrue or deliberately provocative? All it does is alienate people and draw larger lines in the sand. Admittedly, it's a bit SILLY to get pissed off this much about it, but I keep seeing it over and over again that it's hit pet peeve territory to me.

As an analogy, imagine you go to another board, and there's a group there that insists Battletech is an inferior game to, oh let's say Heavy Gear, and they keep calling Battletech a failed Robotech ripoff. No matter how much you explain to them why it's not they keep doing it to the point you worry it'll drive away Battletech fans and it just irks you anyways.

[Bedwyr]

And that line of conversation stops here, thanks. Discussion of differences and preferences is fine. Taking things personally and responding in kind isn't.