Hello everyone! Here's a quick summary on my situation: my experiences with Dungeons and Dragons are quite limited. I played a bit of AD&D 2.0 and even less D&D 3.5, but now a couple of friends and I are interested into getting a campaign started - and I got the DM job.
Now since I am not extremely experienced - even as a player, I have a hard time figuring out by myself through simply reading the differences between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder which one suits me (or us as a group) better, so I wanted to know what was your opinion on the matter. What I want you to keep in mind while debating: -Which one would be the easiest for someone with close to no experience to begin DM'ing with? -Which one is the most balanced? -Which one gives the better experience for a group of persons who prefers roleplaying to fighting? -Which one offers the most options?
Price related to books are not really revelant since we have the core books for both.
I have no experience with Pathfinder, but I'm apart of my school's DnD Club and we run 3.5e, and in my experiences (as a not-DM, although I'm doing the DM thing next year)
As far as balance is concerned, theres actually a tier list for which classes are the best, and if your group is filled with min-maxing SOBs like myself, you'll quickly find out that some classes are highly abusable. Wizards and Clerics, for example, are capable of being utterly campaign warping in their strength, whereas some classes such as Fighter or Monk are generally weak and mildly ineffectual.
That being said, assuming your group isn't the min-maxxing type, you're going to have a very reasonable time having players be useful. If you're into homebrewing, then you'll have even less problems.
DnD 3.5e has pretty good roleplay, I do admit that I often have problems with high skill point classes being able to sort of just dominate other players via Intimidation and such, but if you're DM'ing you can set more reasonable metrics. But I find the roleplay is satisfying in 3.5e, you'll have plenty of success in running a generally roleplay-centric campaign.
Assuming you're confident in homebrewing, DnD 3.5e can be pretty much anything you want it to be, and even assuming you're not as comfortable adjusting the rules a bit, DnD 3.5e is pretty good for pretty much anything you wanna do.
I should also mention one of my favorite parts of DnD is the BOOK OF EROTIC FANTASY which is one of the most hilarious official books I have ever seen and I legitimately plan to incorporate it in my next year's campaign.
Okay, but yeah, DnD 3.5e is pretty great, I don't have experience with Pathfinder, but 3.5e has fairly limitless potential!
I've played 3.5 and Pathfinder, but I've only DM'd Pathfinder. They are very similar on many important points, and Zambrah's mention of "limitless potential" is a good goal to keep when DM'ing any RPG. I don't know how much you've read already, but I'll mention a few notable differences between the two systems.
Ease: Both are fairly crunch-heavy as far as RPGs go. That means there are many, many mechanics to learn, as well as pieces of data that are consequences of those mechanics (feats, spells, items, etc.) You'll have substantial reading on your plate no matter which you pick, though if you're running only core book for each it should be fine.
Balance: PF attempts to treat some of the balance issues in 3.5 and succeeds partially. Zambrah mentioned one of the classic DnD imbalances: full spellcasters dominate. PF tries to nerf some particularly powerful spells like Grease or Glitterdust while injecting more power and some options for martial classes, but ultimately full spellcasters still dominate because having all those spells means more options and versatility. While a martial character can excel in one or few areas, like tripping, grappling, or damage dealing, a full spellcaster can do virtually anything.
The consequence of this is that the final steps of balancing are left to the DMs, which is true for almost all RPGs and is also the reason why almost all of them have some sort of DM-role.
Roleplay: I find that quality roleplaying rests more with the players than the games they play. 3.5 and PF both codify a few social skills, but let's be honest, almost all of their mechanics are devoted to combat or activities that will relate to combat. I don't know what kind of roleplaying you and your group desire, but regardless the DM often has the responsibility of setting the tone of his campaign by how he roleplays.
Options: Depends on what you mean by options. 3.5 has a storied wealth of extra material to work with. I'm pretty sure it still has more 'splatbooks' out there for you to read about rules on anything you could imagine. PF has also been out for years now, though, and also has tons of material to let you deal with everything from giant robots to elder gods to space travel. Basically they both have tons of books, but I think 3.5 should still have more.
In terms of options for things like character building, the two games approach that differently. 3.5 has a vast array of what are called 'Prestige Classes', which are specific classes that a character could multiclass into once he met certain requirements. Of course, since so many character advancement options were available, certain combinations of feats and/or class features could result in extreme power.
PF has an approach where multiclassing and Prestige Classes still exists, but often results in suboptimal builds. Instead they introduce more base classes, make full-20 base class progressions more powerful, and add 'Archetypes' to allow diversification.
3.5 also provides for epic levels, which progress beyond 20, whereas PF uses a parallel-level system called Mythic levels in case you like red mtg icons want to run a high-powered game.
That's probably getting more specific than you need atm.
Bottom line: Both systems have tons of mechanics and rulebooks and options and all sorts of shit to play with. 3.5, being older, probably has more. PF, being newer, attempts to fix some balance problems, but some balance problems are inherent to the system. Ultimately it's still up to you and your group to make either game come alive.
I can speak about 3.5e, but note that I think homebrewing a lot of stuff helps a lot, either for making things smoother or just more fun. Though that depends on the type of party you'd have.
I never played pathfinder, but on and off have been playing dnd 3.5e (and one 4.0 campaign) where we get a few good months in before getting busy/moving to some different campaign/etc. We have been starting at low level and only going up to ~level 5-7 or so
tl; dr: in my opinion, dnd 3.5e is so incredibly flexible that you can make it what you want--simple or complex, story driven or combat driven, anything with different races, etc. I like it a lot and recommend it
it's also much better to use some of the stuff as guidelines rather than follow rules to the letter (skills, grappling, challenge ratings, items)
all that said: First time DM 3.5e: I am currently DMing a homebrew 3.5e campaign as my very first DM experience. On the DM note, it really depends on what you want to incorporate, and I think just using the monster manuals and this dnd wiki (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page), you can do a pretty good job at making encounters if you get a little bit of a feel of your party's strength. You can fudge encounters a little bit here and there too if you don't feel bad about that (as in say a 40 HP opponenet, be willing to "actually" make it somewhere between 37-43 in the middle of the encounter if you want).
I found it really helpful to have a few smaller encounters early in the campaign that didn't really pose any real threat to the party (take a good chunk of HP out of them, but nothing near fatal) just to gauge their strengths and weaknesses. I am shocked that in the ~4 more "major" combats they've had, the balance has turned out more or less "just right" (party of 5 with 1 NPC escort; the very last fight was a plot point and they all got knocked unconcious except 1 guy who won the combat for them, and 1 person died. I tried to kill the NPC but he luckily survived).
Balance I think low level dnd 3.5e suffers some balance between the classes, and it especially is true if you do have min/max people in you're party (I've got ~3 people that do that heavily), as well as sometimes people just get insanely lucky rolls on stats and on HP gain per level. That screws things early level where one character is much stronger than another.
But, if you don't mind homebrew, dnd 3.5e you can easily give party members some items that suit the weaker people in the party, or what also works well is in combat go ahead and target the stronger people. My campaign they're fighting other intelligent creatures at the moment, so it works well to scatter in different CRs in the same combat (such that maybe the highest CR guy is fighting the parties strongest dude 1v1, while other people do other things).
Do not just follow CR since you're party probably won't actually fit that CR and also, if you can homebrew, feel free to make like "half" level monsters or characters particularly with feats or HP. I don't feel guilty playing the HP +/- 1 hit die (or like, if it's a 4d8 creature to a 4d8 and 1d6) or give it a feat to do something else. Such as the feats for attacks of opportunity, or with intelligent creatures go ahead and just give them weapon proficiency feats on their weapon, or maybe just give an enemy spellcaster the bonus spells per day slots corresponding to the level higher without letting them cast the highest level spells (i.e. just giving them an extra like lvl 1 or 2 lvl spell without letting them cast lvl 3 spell), etc.
Also give whatever XP you really want.
Which one gives the better experience for a group of persons who prefers roleplaying to fighting?
I think a good approach to the really vast skill system in dnd 3.5e is basically to use it as a guidline rather than follow by the book how it works. Things like sense motive I think has dc 20 for getting a "hunch" at someone's motives--well, basically just homebrew it on to whether you think the guy they person is trying to sense motive on would be stern and not give away hunches or not. A 26 on sense motive means jack shit to me if they're talking to some guy that really wouldn't be so amateur as to reveal his evil involvement to some random PCs that walk into town just the day before.
But, I think most roleplaying just needs a good story and the people need to be open to roleplay. People in dnd 3.5e may be tempted to just "sense motive" everything or something, and it's really DM job to just stop their bullshit and also hopefully make an interesting and engaging plot.
So I've been playing D&D for a very, very long time, and I converted exclusively to Pathfinder relatively recently. Here are my thoughts on why I did it.
Pathfinder and 3.5 are extremely similar. I still call Pathfinder D&D because, let's face it, it is. If you replaced the title on the books with "D&D", it would be 100% believable as another edition of D&D. Pathfinder really is 3.5 remix (with its own campaign setting), and 3.5 is easily the best edition of D&D. The earlier ones were two punishing to players/felt like a chore and had extremely complex rules while 4th and the new one feel like an MMO. Essentially, Pathfinder improves and streamlines many rules/classes, and the biggest change is to the classes. Base classes are more viable, meaning that prestige classes are no longer necessary, but merely something you become if you actually want a unique character. Skills are changed/removed/streamlined, and the system is slightly tweaked to make it less convoluted and more accessible. Various interactions with NPC's/terrain/etc. are slightly changed. It honestly is, in my opinion, a purely better system (balance/rule wise) than 3.5. That said, most of your points are entirely up to the players.
They are so similar that there's no difference in learning curve. Pathfinder is more balanced. How much you role play is 100% up to you, and neither system inhibits it. Both games offer options that are only limited by your imagination.
The thing that most people don't get is that a PnP RPG isn't about you vs. other players, and it isn't about you vs. the DM; it's a collaborative experience in story-telling and role playing. It's simply fun. There (generally) isn't a competitive element to it. Because of this, it's completely up to you guys as to what experience you get. Both systems have a basic core set of rules to allow you to do basically anything you want, including role playing-wise, and then you can go from there. Remember, home brewing rules is your friend, it's 100% OK, and it's a fantastically viable way to do things. Another important point to remember is that games like this are NOT meant to be totally balanced. The fact that a level 20 Wizard is significantly more powerful than a level 20 fighter is just logical; yea, the fighter may be a world-class martial warrior, but the Wizard can fucking KILL AN ENTIRE VILLAGE WITH ONE SPELL. He can teleport across vast distances, see into the future, call upon demigods to grant him wishes, summon creatures, fling fire, lightning, and ice, and more. That's just how it's going to be, and it's part of the role playing experience. Wizard in your party too powerful and steamrolling everything? There are ample anti-magic things out there that you can throw into an encounter to level the playing field and bring out the strengths of the non-magical classes. Hell, just home brew some stuff, or don't let him get absurdly awesome items to become nearly invincible.
It may sound like a cliche, but any limits to both the mechanical/fighting side of the game, as well as to the role playing side of the game, are purely artificial and entirely made by you. The game system (for both systems!) is set up to allow anything to happen, and I routinely tell new players this (I am a long-time exclusive DM); they ask me, "What can I do?" and I immediately respond, "What do you want to do?".
Having years of 3.5E and PF experience as well as being very close to putting together a campaign setting rulebook before 3.5E started schisming;
they're pretty much the same, man.
PF is a little more well rounded. Fun fact: there were some books after the wizards of the coast 3E, which my group considered "3.25" because they introduced a lot of mechanics/adjustments that found their way into 3.5. Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds are good examples - made for 3E, but the language was written 3.5E style.
3.5 differs by having mass amounts of extra content. The thing is though, they're all so close that once you know the ins and outs of the system you can convert the content yourself fairly easily. As others have said, fighter types are pretty good early and suck at late levels, full spellcasters the opposite.
You don't need to worry about this too much at the beginning, but remember by the end of your storyline that your "big bad" has to be wizard-proofed: He should probably fly, teleport, have support to dispel and counterspell, maybe have spell resistance or some antimagic component. But by the time your characters are level 15-20, you will be able to help your fighter types with magic items that round out their utility, at least a bit.
They are practically the same game. One great thing about pathfinder though is that they make all of their material available for free online at http://paizo.com/prd/
Even if you play around a table, if you have a laptop or tablet its really really useful for having various important pages bookmarked so you can quickly access certain rules without having to memorize page numbers or look through an index. It's also searchable so even if you aren't sure what section a certain thing would be under its pretty easy to find what you are looking for quickly.
I personally haven't played 3.5, but I always talk to a friend of mine who as never played Pathfinder, and we talk about our characters and the game mechanics and stuff and it always seems like we are talking about the exact same game.
Much/most of the difference in Pathfinder is that the lore is all different — terrain, gods, notable named creatures/items. Nothing prevents you from using D&D names/world if you want though, or obviously your own world.
Pathfinder uses the Open Gaming License which can be nice (edit: so does 3/3.5); you essentially have access to all the free resources you need to play pretty much any situation the rules cover — not to say that the books/PDFs don't have useful info themselves though.
Aside from that there's quite minor rules differences; I haven't done much 3.5e but I really like much of the changes I think Pathfinder made on 3.5e. I THINK that the balance is fixed better and that many technicalities, small details, or gray areas are fixed/clear. Pathfinder game/rules wiki or the official Pathfinder online reference contain updates to the rules, in particular the wiki (or forums) which includes developer commentary on intended rule meanings. I don't really know if 3.5 has the same sort of thing or not.
Overall the answer is probably more or less "neither/both" to all the questions, but at least personally I have a pretty big bias for Pathfinder — since it's mostly what I played, but also for reasons which are not part of those questions. As far as I understand, 4th edition is the simplest/easiest, but if you already have experience with 3.5 or PF then that probably doesn't apply.
Check out this page that lists some difference. Many of the differences I really like (combat maneuver system, more character-options/character-power) http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/1/differences-between-dd-3-5-and-pathfinder The 6 new core class options Are absolutely great too — they add a ton of really new and original powers/style — no need for a huge heap of homebrew or expansion books to get these new classes and items and feats for them. Dare I say it, that may be my favorite thing.
I'm not a big fan of 3.5's/PF's, nor 4th edition's alignment system nor the knowledge system for 3.5/Pathfinder (not sure what it is like in 4th) though.
Sorry it's taken a long time before I replied, I've been kinda busy. Thank you very much to all for your advices, we decided to try Pathfinder and right now I really like it, I find the rules to be clearer for some things then D&D 3.5.
Also 4th edition never really interested me. Well, I'm gonna be honnest, I never played or looked at it by myself, but what I've been told is it sacrifices a lot of the realism to have easier mechanics, which I think is bad for Dungeons and Dragons.
I also already started homebrewing a few rules, although I don't trust my capacity to do so too often, so most of the times I prefer sticking with the rules as written.
EPT
