You clearly haven’t tried 3.5e, IMHO best edition. Class for every occasion. 362 to be exact, however I might be missing some (ex. savage species monster class progression). And you can obviously mix and match classes as long as you meet the requirements.
PF1.0 fixed fatal flaws in 3.5e. There is a reason it’s often called 3.5+, 3.5.5, or 3.75. PF1.0 does in fact have more classes, archetypes, and prestige classes than base 3.5e. 3.5e is, IMHO, the best version of DND for people who like crunchiness and are willing to deal with major feat and balance issues. PF1.0 is the best version of DND for people who like crunchiness and don’t mind feat bloat and mandatory feat paths for specific builds; it remains my favorite TTRPG.
I don’t really count “instead of x you get y & instead of A you get B” as a new class. Some archetypes does change the class a lot but in majority of cases you are still playing the X class.
Meanwhile 3.5e has a class that just focuses on masks or another that does well if the campaign is done in a Goblin accounting, or another who just focuses on mind effects. There is truly more variance.
But yes. It does have balance issues but most can be balanced in a game, if you are playing with friends instead of randos. And it does also suffer from feat bloat and feat paths for builds.
But in the end best thing is you can kinda mix and match from pathfinder with surprisingly minor tweaking.
This was more meant for people comparing 5e & PF2e
That’s fair, neither does Pathfinder 1.0, those are archetypes.
I simply reject this statement wholesale.
It makes sense in this context.
Can you point me to a list of pf1e classes, since you claim it has more classes… at least d20pfsrd.com or nethys doesn’t list them all(?). I just assumed you were counting archetypes.
I found 44 base classes & 119 prestige classes in Pathfinder.
3.5 has 84 base classes & rest of 362 are prestige (also, tbh, epic classes can be argued that they don’t count, which is fair).
I think they’re making the claim that if we’re looking at “varience”, variety, etc. then pf1e has more overall variability. Pathfinder does it with a combination of classes and archetypes, where 3.5e does it with just classes. I don’t think they made the explicit claim of there being more classes in pf1e by overall number.
I find that instead of pathfinder having more “classes” by number, it feels more honest about what is a class and what is a subclass/archetype. Imo, many 3.5e classes would be archetypes in pathfinder, as they fit your definition of “instead of x, you get y” without much substantial difference. And likewise, in my experience playing different archetypes in pf can produce vastly different player experiences (some archetypes and classes more than others, for sure).
All of this is pretty subjective, though… and I personally haven’t heard anyone making fun of 3.5e for lacking classes, compared to either pf1e or 2e, but it could happen!
3rd sentence, first message.
True, there are few, I wouldn’t say “many” tho.
Absolutely they do and I mean, I do like PF1 as well.
I only have a problem with “PF1 has more classes than 3.5”, which I would classify as “debatable”. I wouldn’t say wrong, since some archetypes do change the class enough, to be in my view as well, another class.
Ah yes, the always productive “by this metric, this other option that will totally dissatisfy you is best” type of “checkmate, atheists” interjection that people are always wishing they’d see more of.