As far as I'm aware, we're reading the same posts. Are you defining "enthusiast" the same way I am? Because it seems like you're defining it in a way that coincides with "zealot", which is not the definition I'm going with. When someone can easily quote spells, feats, and other such specific information from sourcebooks and splatbooks, and admits to having a deeper understanding of the system, then, yes, they're likely someone who is enthusiastic about the system, and therefore an enthusiast.

The point that this thread was hijacked for a purpose it originally was not intended for is unchanged. My other point, that most of the arguments against Pathfinder seem to simply state a dislike of it, and aren't actually productive (in that they don't state a manner that said problem can be fixed without simply ignoring Pathfinder and going back to 3.5), also sits unchanged. I'm honestly surprised this thread hasn't been mod-locked yet... IMHO, it's been an "edition war" thread for a while now.

Yes, Pathfinder isn't perfect. Nothing is. The more complex a system, the more problems that can arise. That's what DMs are for... to make imperfect roleplaying systems work for their particular group so that everyone has fun. Critiquing it without offering solutions to how you would make it work (without simply stating it's inferior to 3.5) does no one any good, and just creates a negative feedback loop.

Thank-you for the discussion.

Like I implied when I started my first post today, there is little point in this in terms of anyone convincing any of the true believers on either side (myself included) so I'm going to break from fighting pointlessly on the internet to share my experience:

From an old GM's point of view, and one that understands game mechanics well, Pathfinder got a lot of things right.

In the core PF world, Fighters are killers for the first half of the game. They hit a lot, hit hard, and are tough to hit. Of the base classes, they fight the best in all situations and there are lots of functional builds that are fun to play. Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians are likewise fun and are slightly less effective than fighters at general fighting but are stronger situationally and come with more fluff, as they should. All of these 4 classes out-damage a blaster-wizard, except situationally (when the wizard can wipe out crowds of weak enemies where the fighter types are reduced to killing 1 or 2 a round).

Monks and rogues are both a tier below in combat and for that, I'm not sure that PF is perfect. There are decent combat builds for both classes but they are both glass cannons that trade strength in battle for other talents. The rogue in particular suffers from some strange (but easily house-ruled) wording in the stealth/concealment/sneak attack language, and he suffers from the false appearance of doing a lot of damage when he really needs to be dual-wielding or something to be ideally effective. Similarly, decent monk builds need to be done with a focus on actually hitting (STR) and doing damage (STR) and bypassing DR (magic weapons).

Just as in the 3.0 to 3.5 migration, many but not all of the spells were reduced in power, which relatively boosts the effectiveness of the preceding classes. That doesn't mean that there aren't great ways to manipulate the battlefield or win the fight as a spell-caster. It is possible to build optimized SoS or SoD casters but they are tougher because a lot of the SoS spells now come with re-rolls on the save or are preventable. It is a mistake to read expanded powers lists for the Clerics and Wizards and think that any of those powers is better than their respective top tier spells. For the most part, those abilities are something to keep the caster contributing longer but at a lower level.

Sorcerers especially were made more interesting and Druids can be optimally built one of two ways: to fight with their animal companions while beast shaped (High STR) or as primary casters. In-between builds suffer from Multiple Attribute Dependency. Cleric domains were cooled a bit so killer melee builds are a little tougher to make, as they should be.

I like the changes to the skill system (most of them anyway) and the combat manoeuvre system, those being the two most used of the core simulation rules that were significantly changed.

The first level wizard is still strongest popping Sleep 2 or 3 times, the fifth can rule the battlefield with stinking cloud, 7th with tentacles or confusion and so on. Still, other than sleep (which is good for a level and a half), none of these actually kills very much. This leaves lots of room for all the players to contribute and focus on their best area of expertise - fighters on fighting, rogues on sneaking and making hurt stuff bleed fast and so on.

Frankly, the core-only PF characters from our current campaign feel more like D&D characters than do the off-core classes, multiple PrC, and strange races builds we ended up with at the end of our 3.5 D&D days.

In my campaign, the 15 minute work day doesn't fly as I use dynamic, reactive enemies who listen and react according to their intelligence. This means that casters who nova their top spells in the first fight might be setting themselves up for trouble in later fights in the day if they are entering a wizard's domain who might just scry and fry them later. If that makes mine a grinding campaign, so be it, but it also teaches temperance among the spellcasters (especially when assaulting a dungeon or fortress or whatever), which helps balance them against the lesser classes.

As a standalone rule set that is supported by excellent modules and accessories, it is a great deal and overall is an improvement. The best thing you can say for Pathfinder is that the people who play it like it and they are supporting that decision by giving it plurality of the market share. The inverse can be said for 3.5 (those who play it like it too) but just as I wouldn't have chosen to go back to 3.0 in my 3.5 days, I wouldn't choose to go back to 3.5 now.

I would agree, I think the problem being that it seams like many of the 3.5 "enthusiast" come across as saying that pathfinder is in no way a improvement over 3.5, when I think it is clear that is not normally there stand point.

And I think that this thread got out of hand because of a trend between myself and others to keep saying. "It's because you don't know how to do X" At this point I don't know that I did or did not start the trend, but it dose not matter And I apologize to anyone that I may have offended.

And I think some of them problem comes from the median of typing. It is hard to tell some times when some one is refuting A point or every point in a discussion.

The majority of these arguments are circular.

PF enthusiast says "Core pathfinder seems to have fixed some particular 3.5 problems"
3.5 enthusiast says "3.5 problems were fixed by such and such a build and PF has this problem still"
PF enthusiast says "Core PF guys can do X, core 3.5 can't"
...and rinse and repeat with both sides cross-talking.

We all know that there are perfectly decent games being enjoyed with just about any system there is. We all also know that not everyone in a gaming group understands these mechanics in such minute detail so the difference between classes is much more theoretical than the real world difference between Larry's almost useless concept bard versus Jane's God controller wizard versus Mike who just bought the rulebook and fired off his first sword and board fighter.

I see. So you were just mentioning that this was someone who particularly enjoyed their hobby. No harm, no foul, right?

Hmm, let's see... Ahh, here it is (pesky internet, saving people's words for future reference)

So you weren't suggesting that Pathfinder was somehow under "assault" and "attack" by "anti-Pathfinder" people who don't have the capacity to change their minds based on careful analysis?

Turns out I was defining the term in the same exact, dismissive context with which you intended it.

Some of them, from how they've represented themselves so far, would fall under that definition, yes. They might have the capacity, as all humans do without psychological defects, but they have yet to show the desire to.

Again, note I used no all-encompassing wording, for good reason. Not everyone who has commented against Pathfinder is a 3.5 enthusiast, and not all the 3.5 enthusiasts have shown an unwillingness to change their minds on the matter. Though, once again, this all has nothing to do with my original points, which still stand, and I'm not exactly sure why you keep bringing up your negative interpretation of my personal character when it has nothing to do with my actual points stated. *shrugs*

I would consider Pathfinder 3.55, Trailblazer 3.60, and Legend 3.75. Who else has similar views? I mean in the amount of things they fixed.

All I've done is repeat your own words back to you, so if there's a negative reflection, well...

And I'll briefly explain to you why: Because I am bothered by the "with me or against me" mentality that is all too common these days, and by the ease with which people tend to dismiss opposing points of view as if they are not equally valid to their own.

To be clear, offering counterpoints in a debate is not a sign of closed mindedness, but dismissing those with opposing points of view as either not having the capacity or the desire to think clearly, is.

Ya Gavinfoxx I have always called Pathfinder 3.75, but 3.55 is just as good I guess. But in my opinion of "Amount they fixed" I would still give it more then .05 but that's just me.

Well, you should compare it to Trailblazer and Legend... I mean specifically. These are relative numbers, you know? Pathfinder didn't, for example, beat the Druid to near death with the Nerf Stick -- a glaring error. Trailblazer did. And Legend went even further...