What's different from 3.5? MUST READ

If you look at the Pathfinder pdf or buy the actual book you realize one thing--it's massive. Even if one understands that it's really the player's book and DM's book combined it still seems a little daunting. Most of us have played 3.5 for years and have are extremely familiar with the rules. Wouldn't it be better, then, to simply have access to a small document that states the difference between 3.5 and 3.75? That document exists.

http://paizo.com/store/paizo/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy89m6

The Pathfinder 3.5 Conversion Guide is an 18 page document--18 pages--that highlights all of the major changes to 3.75. I recommend highly that you read this document. I feel like I've tripled my knowledge of Pathfinder just because I've leafed through this 18 page document, compared to the two hours I spent yesterday looking over the pdf.

figured this was a good place to put this since it is a discussion about the differences between editions.

found this argument online about cleaving.

">...cleave is not anywhere near nerfed. You know how it works? You hit a target as a standard action, then you get to hit the next target that is adjacent to the first and in reach. You don't have to KILL the original target, unlike 3.5 - which means Great Cleave is murderous against minions when you have power attack and a two-handed weapon and lunge or a two handed reach weapon. Also, the target must be adjacent to the ORIGINAL target and WITHIN REACH, meaning if the target is behind/next to the first target and you have lunge or a reach weapon, you can hit both with a melee weapon.

Yeah, taking a STANDARD ACTION is better than a FREE ACTION, and attacking someone adjacent to the ENEMY is better than attacking someone WITHIN YOUR REACH.

That makes no sense.

Cleave is completely fucking useless in Pathfinder. You can't use other feats requiring standard actions like Vital Strike with it. You can't full attack while using it, the one good option fighters have had since 3e began. You can't even use the attacks to trip or disarm. It's a feat that makes your character actively worse for having taken it unless he's fighting piddly little minion shits that don't pose a meaningful threat anyway.

And as for the "can't kill things in 3.5", that is what full attack was for. Guess what Cleave in Pathfinder won't even let you do?

The designers had no fucking clue what they were doing. Take a look at the two weapon fighting feats, which still cost more the higher you get while still giving you worse and worse benefits each time. It goes directly against common sense to make a feat chain this way. It's a mercy they didn't nerf those too while they were at it."




also just glanced at it, but the new Wildshape is a little different as well. I'm posting just because I don't think any of us have played a druid just yet.

Diminutive animal: If the form you take is that of a Diminutive animal, you gain a +6 size bonus to your Dexterity, a -4 penalty to your Strength, and a +1 natural armor bonus.

Tiny animal: If the form you take is that of a Tiny animal, you gain a +4 size bonus to your Dexterity, a -2 penalty to your Strength, and a +1 natural armor bonus.

Small animal: If the form you take is that of a Small animal, you gain a +2 size bonus to your Dexterity and a +1 natural armor bonus.

Medium animal: If the form you take is that of a Medium animal, you gain a +2 size bonus to your Strength and a +2 natural armor bonus.

Large animal: If the form you take is that of a Large animal, you gain a +4 size bonus to your Strength, a -2 penalty to your Dexterity, and a +4 natural armor bonus.

Huge animal: If the form you take is that of a Huge animal, you gain a +6 size bonus to your Strength, a -4 penalty to your Dexterity, and a +6 natural armor bonus.


Magical beasts:

Tiny magical beast: If the form you take is that of a Tiny magical beast, you gain a -2 penalty to your Strength, a +8 size bonus to your Dexterity, and a +3 natural armor bonus.

Small magical beast: If the form you take is that of a Small magical beast, you gain a +4 size bonus to your Dexterity, and a +2 natural armor bonus.

Medium magical beast: If the form you take is that of a Medium magical beast, you gain a +4 size bonus to your Strength, and a +4 natural armor bonus.

Large magical beast: If the form you take is that of a Large magical beast, you gain a +6 size bonus to your Strength, a -2 penalty on your Dexterity, a +2 size bonus to your Constitution, and a +6 natural armor bonus.

I never played a Druid and never took the time to understand their mechanics so I can't comment there.

Cleave is a free action in both 3.5 and Pathfinder. Pathfinder simply identifies that you need to take a standard action to hit something first, before you get the Cleave attack. I agree, however, that not being able to Cleave with a Full Attack does suck. On the upside, fighters no longer have to take out their opponent to get that free attack. Therefore, I think it still remains balanced.

However, I'm interested in why they decided Cleave needed fixing in the first place. I think both work just fine.

Option 3.5: Cleave is a free action after either a standard or full attack action. The first opponent must be killed in order to access the free action.

Option Pathfinder: Cleave is a free action after a standard action only. The first opponent must only be hit in order to access the free action.

I think the importance of not needing to kill your opponent to hit someone else cannot be understated. The person who replied with all of that angst against Pathfinder seems to minimalize that fact quite a bit.

agreed

As added evidence to the value of the Pathfinder Option, think of all of the extra attacks on an adjacent foe you can make over the life of your character (granted, if the PC survives a reasonably long time) versus the number of extra attacks you can make with the 3.5 Option. Simply needing to hit an enemy, versus having to kill it, is a massive difference.

Think of it this way. If there's a lower-level cohort protecting the Big Baddie, the Pathfinder fighter with Cleave should almost ALWAYS swing at the lower-level cohort first. The fighter is almost guaranteed a hit against that lower-level cohort. To use a cliche: Two birds, one stone.

I like the Pathfinder version better than the 3.5 version of Cleave for one reason... It gives you another option to use when multiple enemies are 20 feet away and waiting for you to come to them. How many of us have had no option except to charge in the past? Any DM worth his salt would make you advance on the enemies, and they in turn each take a 5 foot step and start unloading on you with full attacks. Now you can advance and still hit multiple enemies. It's the best option when facing multiple enemies until you hit a +11 base attack bonus. That dude who was bitching about it needs to cut off his pony tail and move out of his mom's basement.

Uncle Mart wrote:

It's the best option when facing multiple enemies until you hit a +11 base attack bonus.

Is that because you get 3 attacks/round? Still, even at +11 your base attack for that third strike is +1. It might stil be better to nearly guarnatee a hit by using Cleave and utilizing your full attack bonus.

Yes, the base attack for that third swing is +1. However, once you factor in your 18 strength, +2 sword and Weapon Focus, you're looking at +8 total to that attack. If you're Hasted, which you should be if the party wizard has brain 1 in his head, now you're getting 4 attacks with a full attack action instead of 2 with Cleave. Get my point?

Uncle Mart wrote:

Get my point?

Yes.

Uncle Mart wrote:

Get my point?

Yes.