PF meets TOB

[Mari01]

Hello everyone. In our group, the opinions on ye olde Tome of Battle vary wildly, from an improvement to melee types to OMFG SO OP BROKEN. Now, our group has recently moved to pathfinder. I was wondering how well the martial adepts would fit in with just about everything. How would a warblade match up to a PF Fighter, etc. etc.? I'm aware of losing concentration as a skill would hurt diamond mind. Perhaps a different skill can be used in place of it?

[LikeAD6]

From my limited experience a warblade is still more versatile than the PF fighter, though both classes have ups and downs (fighter has fewer skill points and lower HD, warblade does not have heavy armour or ranged weapon proficiency). I allow Perception as a warblade class skill and use that for Diamond Mind, though the two warblades in my game use Iron Heart and Tiger Claw, so it has not been an issue, but it is there if needed.

Also because PF rangers and barbarians are increased in abilities, they seem to be not far below ToB classes, but none of my players have stuck with those classes in PF so I cannot really compare them in practice.

[Karoht]

Well, I just had the first session where I am playing a Paladin and Multiclassing into Crusader.
The two together are going to be exceptionally good, but I actually am secretly of the mind that going with just Paladin would be just fine, power wise.
I'm mostly taking Crusader levels for some fun abilities. Oh you hit me? Thats nice, I don't feel it for a round, and I hit you harder now. Grats. Here's your bucket of damage. And then I get fun stuff like the Combat Manouvers on top.

[Person_Man]

With a few exceptions (I think the Paladin may have moved up a Tier). Pathfinder did not change the Tiers of any classes. Fighters, Monks, Barbarians, and Rangers are all still Tier 4, with limited resources that can accomplish limited goals. They no longer have dead levels. But the dead levels are filled in with minor (and often situational) bonuses. They have more selection of abilities, but those abilities are generally quite weak and limited when compared to maneuvers, spells, psionic powers, soulmelds, or vestiges. And once chosen, most class abilities are permanently locked in forever, and can't be changed through rest/meditation, which limits their versatility. And if you restrict a class to PF only material, in a few specific cases PF classes are arguably weaker then their 3.5 alternative (Dungeoncrasher Fighter and Lion Totem Barbarian no longer exist).

So the ToB classes are all uniformly better then the melee PF classes. PF adds options, but it in no way addressed the mechanical imbalances within the system.

[strider24seven]

So the ToB classes are all uniformly better then the melee PF classes. PF adds options, but it in no way addressed the mechanical imbalances within the system.

Well, they did make tripping, bullrushing, grappling, overrunning, etc. unavailable for practical use for PC's.

[Larkas]

Indeed, PF's Paladin apparently moved up a tier and is solidly in Tier 3 now. The martial adepts will not be unbalanced in a Pathfinder game at all.

[The-Mage-King]

Hello everyone. In our group, the opinions on ye olde Tome of Battle vary wildly, from an improvement to melee types to OMFG SO OP BROKEN. Now, our group has recently moved to pathfinder. I was wondering how well the martial adepts would fit in with just about everything. How would a warblade match up to a PF Fighter, etc. etc.? I'm aware of losing concentration as a skill would hurt diamond mind. Perhaps a different skill can be used in place of it?

Well, Warblade is still better than the fighter, but the right selection fo archetypes can make up for some of it, IMO.

Crusader and Paladin are closer, with the PF adjustments.

Monk is WAY better with the right archetypes, and I'd actually consider playing it instead of Swordsage.


Personally, I prefer using Autohypnosis (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/skills/autohypnosis-wis-trained-only) for Diamond Mind. Fits fluff, is useful (ish) otherwise, and, well, I like Psionics. :smalltongue:

[Keneth]

I've made a Pathfinder (base) class that replaced the assassin PrC and uses a nice set maneuvers from the ToB (mostly Shadow Hand but not exclusively). It's comparable to a swordsage with a smaller selection but somewhat makes up for it with better damage output. I've playtested it up to level 8 (so far) and it fits into the system very nicely, so I imagine ToB classes shouldn't be any different.

[navar100]

TOB warriors are more flexible than Pathfinder warriors. It's the nature of the maneuvers. Pathfinder warriors can do more stuff than 3E warriors, but they're still acquired at static intervals. TOB warriors get a new maneuver every level (save Crusader 2), can switch around maneuvers to use, and many of the maneuvers themselves do more interesting and/or powerful abilities than a feat or class feature.

They can play nice with each other in the same game, but TOB warriors get to use swift, move, and immediate actions a lot more causing them to appear more fun to play. They get to do more interesting things in a round. A Pathfinder Paladin's smite is awesome. It's fun for him to swift action lay on hands on himself and full attack with power attack against a dragon or devil for mulah of damage and have saving throws up the whazoo while immune to fear and compulsion. A crusader grants everyone a free move, one other player another turn in the same round, and still make one attack for +6d6 damage and stun his opponent for a round with no save. Maybe it's apples & oranges at varying mileage.

Do note I think Pathfinder is awesome and its warriors are good to play to level 20.

[Lateral]

With a few exceptions (I think the Paladin may have moved up a Tier). Pathfinder did not change the Tiers of any classes. Fighters, Monks, Barbarians, and Rangers are all still Tier 4, with limited resources that can accomplish limited goals.

The Fighter has never been a tier 4, and the Monk even less so. I'd be inclined to call PF Barbarians high tier 5, mostly due to the lack of Spirit Lion Totem and Whirling Frenzy and because their Rage Powers are pretty mediocre.

[ThiagoMartell]

Just comparing the classes to their previous incarnations and just comparing feats to their previous incarnations is not a very good way to evaluate balance.

Barbarians can rage all the time it's needed in Pathfinder. Some rage powers are quite good (beastial leaper (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo---rage-powers/bestial-leaper-ex) is what Spring Attack should have been, good for what ails you (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo---rage-powers/good-for-what-ails-you-ex) is hilarious, the list goes on), despite what Lateral thinks. Not as good as Spiritual Lion Totem, but then again nothing in Pathfinder gets you pounce so soon (you can get it at level 10, with the greater beast totem power (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo---rage-powers/beast-totem-greater-su), which is still earlier than most other examples of pounce-like effects in PF).

The "Improved Combat Maneuver" feats give a smaller bonus and had it's benefit spread over two feats but you get more feats in Pathfinder and the size bonus is smaller.

The whole concept that Pathfinder "screwed melee" is outdated and wrong.

The Pathfinder Monk gets a lot of extra options and performs a lot better than the 3.5 Monk. All in all, melee classes in Pathfinder are all tier 4. And that's where they should be.

[deuxhero]

I'm not sure the core monk is tier 4 n PF.

Some of the archetypes (Sensei and Zen Archer, which not coincidentally allow you to use Wisdom for attack rolls) are very much, but the base class is only slightly better than before, and if you use the flurry of blows retcon, possibly worse.

Paladin very much moved to high tier 4 from tier 5 though. The 3 2/3 BAB 6th level spells classes (Magus, Summoner and Alchemist) are all pretty much even with a ToB classes.

[Man on Fire]

How about we simply start duels of PF and 3.5 versions of the same classes?

[deuxhero]

Because that doesn't messure versatility and just raw power.

Oh, one neat thing about converting ToB to PF is that because PF reworked afflications and made curses, poisons, diseases ect. all subsets of one "affliction" category, Iron Heart Surge can be fixed easily.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well, they did make tripping, bullrushing, grappling, overrunning, etc. unavailable for practical use for PC's.
...What? Okay, bullrushing I'll give, since they took out all the fun options like Shock Trooper, Combat Brute, and... I know I had another one just a moment ago. But grappling and tripping are about as useful as they were in 3.5 (no spiked chain? Just grab a guisarme and armor spikes. Hell, grab a greatsword and use Combat Patrol), due to the fact that the size bonuses for the big monsters are reduced. Don't get me wrong, PF flat-out nerfed tripping, but a straight-classed fighter, a monk, or another class with a fighter dip easily has enough feats. Even without a fighter dip, you can still be good at it if it's your focus.

Indeed, PF's Paladin apparently moved up a tier and is solidly in Tier 3 now. The martial adepts will not be unbalanced in a Pathfinder game at all.
Again, what? PF paladin is high tier 4 at best. Actually dealing good damage and having 4+int skill points does not make a tier 3.

The Fighter has never been a tier 4, and the Monk even less so. I'd be inclined to call PF Barbarians high tier 5, mostly due to the lack of Spirit Lion Totem and Whirling Frenzy and because their Rage Powers are pretty mediocre.


I'm not sure the core monk is tier 4 n PF.

Some of the archetypes (Sensei and Zen Archer, which not coincidentally allow you to use Wisdom for attack rolls) are very much, but the base class is only slightly better than before, and if you use the flurry of blows retcon, possibly worse.

Paladin very much moved to high tier 4 from tier 5 though. The 3 2/3 BAB 6th level spells classes (Magus, Summoner and Alchemist) are all pretty much even with a ToB classes.

Yeah. With the right archetypes, PF monk is tier 4. Hell, with a certain combination (Hungry Ghost and Quinggong played right), it's tier 3. Fighter might be able to get to tier 4, but he can definitely get to high tier 5 with options like Tactical Fighter.

As for barbarian? Barbarians can get pounce at level 11. Late, but not too late. I'd say a barbarian is tier 4 so long as he picks good Rage Powers.

[deuxhero]

Why not Hungry Ghost Quinggong Sensei?

[Andreaz]

Blah blah tiers blah blah blah.
On how well ToB adapts itself to PF: Pretty damn fine. Their place of power is the same in both systems. Consolidate skills and class features as necessary, no other change is needed.
For example: concentration becomes something else (I vouch for autohypnosis), balance folds into acrobatics. Smite works as a paladin's.

[Man on Fire]

Because that doesn't messure versatility and just raw power.

I didn't mean duels only in power but duels in all they can do - throw 3.5 and PF party at the same dungeon ans see which one can fare better and has more options.

[deuxhero]

Then that's putting them in a gameshow.

It's also the theory tiers are decided on anyways.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Then that's putting them in a gameshow.

Aren't campaigns just one big gameshow?

"Make it through the dungeon of doom and gloom, and you can win fabulous prizes!"

[Larkas]

Again, what? PF paladin is high tier 4 at best. Actually dealing good damage and having 4+int skill points does not make a tier 3.

Oops, I meant to say 4. My bad.

[navar100]

It's easy to convert TOB to Pathfinder.

1) Change references of Concentration skill to something else. I favor Sense Motive, but Knowledge (Martial Lore) has logic.

2) Use Pathfinder skill consolidation - Jump and Balance are Acrobatics, for example.

3) Crusader's Smite works like Paladin's Smite.

4) Use the opportunity to fix TOB errors, such as stance progression (or allow adepts to swap stances like they can maneuvers) , Iron Heart Surge clarification, and clarify reference to "ally" in White Raven.

[ThiagoMartell]

It's easy to convert TOB to Pathfinder.

1) Change references of Concentration skill to something else. I favor Sense Motive, but Knowledge (Martial Lore) has logic.

I prefer Autohypnosis myself.

[Ashtagon]

Aren't campaigns just one big gameshow?

"Make it through the dungeon of doom and gloom, and you can win fabulous prizes!"

Deathtrap Dungeon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathtrap_Dungeon)

This plot device has already been done.

[Lans]

The Fighter has never been a tier 4, and the Monk even less so. I'd be inclined to call PF Barbarians high tier 5, mostly due to the lack of Spirit Lion Totem and Whirling Frenzy and because their Rage Powers are pretty mediocre.

I would say that the stock no ACF barbarian is tier 4, which would mean that pathfinders is about the same. With the right ACFs both monk and fighter are tier 4

[Keneth]

There's a lot of this "with the right archetype(s)" going around it seems, which is basically like saying "if I change half the class features, it can actually get better". I don't think it needs to be pointed out explicitly. A Hungry Ghost Qinggong Monk is pretty cool but it's a monk only as a technicality, it's the same as taking prestige classes into account when determining tiers.

Either way, even with all the right archetypes, none of the melee classes get beyond tier 4. They can generally do one thing well and that's about that.

[ThiagoMartell]

There's a lot of this "with the right archetype(s)" going around it seems, which is basically like saying "if I change half the class features, it can actually get better". I don't think it needs to be pointed out explicitly. A Hungry Ghost Qinggong Monk is pretty cool but it's a monk only as a technicality, it's the same as taking prestige classes into account when determining tiers.


It's the same as ACFs, which the tier system does take into account. Specific ACFs bump a character up a tier (Spell to Power Erudite, Dungeoncrasher Fighter) while plenty others are just taken as a given (Lion Totem Barbarian).

[Man on Fire]

There's a lot of this "with the right archetype(s)" going around it seems, which is basically like saying "if I change half the class features, it can actually get better". I don't think it needs to be pointed out explicitly. A Hungry Ghost Qinggong Monk is pretty cool but it's a monk only as a technicality, it's the same as taking prestige classes into account when determining tiers.

Original Tier-System takes into account different kinds of variants too - Fighter is Tier 5, but Dungeoncrasher is Tier 4, Samurai is tier 6 but one variant whose name I forgot is tier 5, Ranger is tier 5, Wildshape Ranger is tier 4.

[Keneth]

They're taken into account separately, yes. Archetypes are sets of ACFs and they're actually closer to class variants just not as extensive, so in most cases they should be considered individually and not as part of the base class.

Like I said, just because you can change half of the monk's class features to make it barely decent, doesn't mean that the monk is suddenly tier 4, it's the archetype (or combination thereof) that's tier 4, the monk is still tier 5.

[ThiagoMartell]

They're taken into account separately, yes. Archetypes are sets of ACFs and they're actually closer to class variants just not as extensive, so in most cases they should be considered individually and not as part of the base class.

Spirit Lion Totem is what keeps Barbarians in t4. Penetrating Strike is what keeps Rogues in t4.
Some ACFs are tier changers. Some are not. The tier system considers them anyway.

[Keneth]

The key point is: Those are single-ability ACFs that everyone is expected to take. That's not what (most) archetypes are. They greatly change the workings of a class and not everyone takes the same ones, hence they can't be treated as part of the original class.

[ThiagoMartell]

The key point is: Those are single-ability ACFs that everyone is expected to take. That's not what (most) archetypes are. They greatly change the workings of a class and not everyone takes the same ones, hence they can't be treated as part of the original class.

You are objectively wrong here. Most archetypes change very little. You're considering archetypes like Zen Archer to be the rule when they are the exception. The classes with the most archetypes (Rogue, Fighter, Ranger) have them change relatively little.
I'm sorry, this simply smells of Pathfinder bias.

[Keneth]

I'm sorry, I should have said "they can greatly change", though the smaller ones are often combined which results in a greater change. Still it doesn't change my point at all, there are in fact very few archetypes that change only one class feature—most change at least two—and to my knowledge none of them are considered de facto which every character is expected to take. If there are any, then sure, they can be considered as part of the base class with regards to its tier, but otherwise they need to be separate on the list.

[cZak]

Pathfinder's change to concentration for spell casters is based on their level and primary stat.

Why not do the same for the ToB classes.

[Waddacku]

Because Diamond Mind is designed with a skill in mind. While weakening spellcasters' ability to cast while being stabbed is generally considered an improvement to the system, weakening the Diamond Mind discipline might not be as desirable.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Pathfinder's change to concentration for spell casters is based on their level and primary stat.

Why not do the same for the ToB classes.


Because Diamond Mind is designed with a skill in mind. While weakening spellcasters' ability to cast while being stabbed is generally considered an improvement to the system, weakening the Diamond Mind discipline might not be as desirable.

Diamond mind is already considered one of the strongest disciplines (if not THE strongest one) so some people might want to rein it a bit; for the record I don't think that should be the case.

[Hiro Protagonest]

There's a lot of this "with the right archetype(s)" going around it seems, which is basically like saying "if I change half the class features, it can actually get better". I don't think it needs to be pointed out explicitly. A Hungry Ghost Qinggong Monk is pretty cool but it's a monk only as a technicality, it's the same as taking prestige classes into account when determining tiers.

They aren't homebrew fixes. They're official material that everyone can access for free.

Plus, I never said that PF monk is tier 4. I said with the right archetypes it's tier 4. Master of Many Forms, Zen Archer, Quinggong, Hungry Ghost Quinggong, all of those boost its tier. Same with fighter. Mobile Fighter, Dawnflower Dervish, Tactician, perhaps Unbreakable. Paladin is straight up tier 4, and except for a couple of Oaths and the one that can use Planar Ally 1/week, the archetypes make it worse. I'm pretty sure vanilla ranger is also tier 4, and archetypes can make it better.

The tier system does take these variables into account. If a PF one that manages to stick around is ever made, it will list monk as tier 5, Master of Many Forms, Zen Archer, and Quinggong as tier 4, and Hungry Ghost Quinggong as tier 3.