D&D 3.5 vs PFRPG

Well, I'm the better part of twenty years too late to write this, but what the heck, amirite? I'm re-reading a lot of 3.5 and PFRPG products right now, and I still prefer it to D&D 5e, which I don't really like because it feels like running 3.5 except without most of the character customization options, and to 4e and PFRPG2, which I have no interest in at all. As far as I'm concerned, "d20" is still D&D, and by far the version of D&D that I prefer. But it's a "family" of games. Just like B/X. BECMI, AD&D and even OD&D were all broadly compatible, used the same system with a bunch of customization unique to each, and you could easily hybridize (and almost everyone actually did) amongst them because if their high compatibility, I see D&D 3.5 and PFRPG as being in the exact same situation. Some things I like better in one system, and some in another, and I've been saying that all along, but it's still true. But I never really systematically described what I liked better in one system vs the other; I just made a few handwavy comparisons back in the late 00s when Pathfinder was new.

So, I found an old reddit post (although not that old. It's nice to see that the two systems still have their fans). While it doesn't pretend to be comprehensive, it kinda sorta mostly is, so I thought I'd use it as a springboard from which to make my own analysis. So, this will kind of be a "fisking" post, where I talk about what I think about what he says.

I both DM and play mainly a mix of Pathfinder 1e with 3.5 included. If there is a Pathfinder version we tend to use that. There are some obvious differences that make Pathfinder seem like a better thought out system, but it still has its base in the 3.5 materials.

CMB and CMD streamline the entire grapple system of 3.5 and make it easier to use. It is still a bit complex, but you dont need a page-sized flow chart for grappling like you do in 3.5. Just an index card lol.

This is one of the things that I've always agreed with; the combat maneuvers procedure from PFRPG is simply better all around than whatever 3.5 did. There was a reason while playing 3.5 that I almost never attempted any of those maneuvers. Not only were they too complicated to remember how to pull off, the rules-as-written were honestly too punitive. It never felt like it was worth it to make the attempt, because it was never as good as just attacking. 

Skills - Class skills and trained skills are easier to understand. 3.5 had it to where you get 4x the normal skill point per level amount of your class at first level where PF1e just makes it a +3 misc. in class skills you have at least a skill point. This ends up making you have the same effective possible bonuses without more math, and lets you just limit max points in a skill your current character level instead of that + 3. Yet because of this numbers being the same, you can still easily convert over feats and prestige classes from 3.5 and just count the misc. +3 as skill points for prerequisites.

They also changed Concentration to being a flat Caster level +casting stat modifier instead of a skill relying on CON which many casters are bad at.

Because I rarely play casters, I don't have a strong opinion on Concentration, but I think the "it's less math" idea is kind of dumb. I don't know that I think one system is better than the other between the two skill points at 1st level schemes, but 3.5 certainly allows for a marginal bit of more customization, and I never once thought of it as difficult to do. That change strikes me as a pointless one, and the main reason I oppose it is because it doesn't actually offer an improvement, and it's difficult to remember that it's different for people who (like me) made tons of characters in 3.5. Why change things if it's just a change for change's sake? I'm sure that they thought it was an improvement, but I fail to see how.

Listen and Spot were combined into Perception.

Hide and Move Silently were combined into Stealth.

Balance, Jump, and Tumble were combined into Acrobatics.

Decipher Script, Forgery, and Speak Language were combined into Linguistics.

Search was dropped, but I add it back in for my homebrew character sheets.

Use Rope I don't think has a direct translation, but I have seen most DMs use Sleight of Hand or a simple CMB check for most of its applications.

Gather Information was folded into both Diplomacy and Knowledge Local depending on how its done.

Open Lock was combined into Disable Device.

Listen/Spot combined is a no-brainer. Hide/Move Silently too. Balance and Tumble too, I think, but I guess I don't mind putting Jump in there too. Although at some point; why not swim too? Why not Climb too? Why not every physical skill? I'm not going to complain about Jump being in there, but I think that it isn't as obvious.

 I always thought Decipher Script and Speak Language were kind of silly skills, honestly, but I have no idea why Forgery is now Linguistics. I'd honestly prefer some other method of adding extra languages than spending skill points, which was always kind of wonky in d20. Decipher script was another one that never made much sense to me. You either can read a language or you can't; you can't make a "skill check" to read a language you don't know. I think that there's room for a reworked linguistics that uses some elements of decipher script and speak language, but which made both make more sense. Forgery, on the other hand, has no relation to either.

I presume that we're meant to use Perception in place of Search, and that's fine, I suppose. I hardly ever used Use Rope, but as someone else pointed out in a comment to this post, the most common usage of it was to tie someone up, so CMB/CMD applied, I guess. The other combinations either made sense or at least I have absolutely no problem with. I, in general, don't mind thrifting of the skill list, and of course, my own homebrew has an even more radical thrifting, down to merely six skills. But my own homebrew is meant to be specifically rules lite, so that's not really apples to apples. The whole reason to play a system like these d20s instead of a rules lite alternative is to have more character definition, and the skill list is a big part of giving us that... as long as the skills don't step on each others toes. Come to think of it, that's part of the reason I like the 3.5 way of doing skill assignment rather than PFRPG. It gives you just a bit more fine-tuned control and granularity.

One thing that I thought of years ago but which I've never really heard anyone say anything about, is that high skill characters like rogues end up having so many skill points to spend, however, that with an abbreviated skill list, they can basically take almost anything that they want. Their effective "wealth" in terms of skill points to spend is increased when there are fewer skills to spend them on, but they still have just as many points to spend. I'm not sure if that's good or bad; there's still room to customize what a rogue is and does, but it's worth pointing out, at least. 

The Class System - While some classes in 3.5 had a racial alternative feature or options leveling up, there were not many options when you took a class for customization aside from multiclassing or going into prestige classes. This is the main part of how the system came to "bloat" as some put it as instead of having archetypes or subclasses there were just entire classes and prestige classes created for varying versions of the same play style.

Pathfinder, to my knowledge, introduced archetypes that exchange class features of the base class instead of making entirely new versions of the class. On top of that, the classes themselves have many more features than the base classes. Looking at any of the original classes, they all have more choices and features just in the base versions over the 3.5 versions of the same class, let alone the ability to switch some of them out. PF1e classes have between 10 and 80 archetypes, many of which stack, and some of which exchange nearly all the main features of the class to play entirely different.

Actually, the idea debuted in a modern d20 context in the Player's Handbook 2 for 3.5, although I'll give Paizo credit for actually seeing and unlocking the potential in the idea through archetypes. Archetypes are a great idea, and as far as I'm concerned, should be seen as making prestige classes (and many alternate classes in general) completely obsolete and pointless. Although arguably there is some bloat in terms of archetypes by now. I mean, 80 archetypes for a single class? C'mon. 

The power scale of classes have increased in Pathfinder 1e from 3.5.

I'd argue that that's the biggest con of PFRPG vs. 3.5. That was completely and totally unnecessary.

The lowest hit die of a class is now a d6 instead of a d4.

Some classes probably need a bump (rogue's d6 to d8 makes some sense, for example) but wizards et al were not one of them.

You gain a feat every odd level instead of every 3rd. So by level 20, ignoring extra from races or classes, you now have 10 feats instead of 6.

Too many feats as it is. Not a fan. 

Level 0 spells can be cast infinitely.

Not a fan. D&D is already too high fantasy magical. 

The end cap of classes have been buffed and there exist a group of choices available outside class restrictions.

I don't even know for sure what he's trying to say with this one, but if it's (as I think) related to high level, I don't really care. I never want to play another high level game ever again, honestly

Crafting PCs, namely wizards, are no longer behind the party since magic items and spells no longer require xp to make or use.

This is probably good on paper, but I never actually played with a group who had crafting PCs. We were always too busy adventuring to sit around crafting. We'd find loot and if it wasn't what we wanted, we sold it and bought magic items, not crafted them.

Most classes get an much larger amount of features. Rogues have talents, monks have ki powers, Magus' have arcanas...

This is by and large a welcome change. I don't care quite as much about the "scourge" of dead levels, but having more options to choose from rather than simply... not having them, is certainly better. Really bland classes like the fighter are considerably more interesting in PFRPG compared to D&D 3.5. 

Rules are more systemized in Pathfinder

Polymorph rules are the biggest in this group. 3.5 had a lot of trouble limiting the power of certain builds and druids because of how PCs could gain the stats of creatures. But the rules of polymorphing in Pathfinder codified wild shape and other morphing abilities to match spells which have specific limitations and buffs to the PCs' stats instead.

I guess I've heard that polymorph and wild shape were OP, but I never really experienced it myself. Then again, I didn't play with powergamers, or even very many druid players, for that matter, so maybe I just never experienced the problems that other people talked about a lot.

Races are built using race points (RP) that allow the DM to know exactly how powerful it might be instead of level adjustment. Though I use both and consider 15 RP to be equivalent to +0 LA, 16-30 as +1, and 31+ as +2 and allow templates after I approve them.

The LA+x system was one that I never liked, but I'm also not a fan of the power bump in racial design, honestly. Then again, I haven't really looked at the Advanced Race Guide in some time, and I don't remember how it works very well. I like lots of races so that I can have lots of options in world-building, but in actual play, I definitely prefer a more limited palette of races anyway. I just am, honesty, a little bored with the 3.5 and PFRPG core rule races and want to see different ones. Not necessarily more races, but also not necessary the "Tolkien group + gnomes" racial mix.