So my Group is Switching to Pathfinder...

[Nepenthe]

...And I'm more than a little disappointed. Not because I think Pathfinder is a bad game; it's just that I know almost nothing of the system, and I have so much invested in 3.5. Besides the book cost, I also have a huge backlog of 3.5 characters I'll probably never play. Thus I turn to the playground for advice on which of these concepts will translate best into 3.P (I know 3.5 material can be used in 3.P, and the DM said he would work with me for things essential to the concept, but I don't want to be "that guy" who rejects everything new and keeps doing it the old way).

The DM has been very tight-lipped about this campaign. All I know is that it will be "gritty" and takes place within a matrix-like simulation. We will know we're in a simulation and are encouraged to metagame. We were instructed to make a d20 Modern character as well, but assured that nearly all of the gameplay will be within the Pathfinder simulation. It was suggested that everyone play a caster, but that's not strictly necessary. Play begins at level 1.

tl;dr: Which of these 3.5 concepts can be best adapted to 3.P in terms of both flavor and effectiveness?

1) Sword of the Arcane Order Mystic Swifthunter. This is the only one I have a full build for. There is a thread around here somewhere I can dig up if anyone wants to see it.

2) Cloistered Cleric entry into Malconvoker. I know Focused Conjuror entry is better, but this way is just so flavorful.

3) Dwarf Barbarian/Fist of the Forest/Bear Warrior. I just love the idea of a little, wild dwarf who turns into a big bear when he gets angry.

4) Binder who pretends to be a Divine Caster. Even, and especially, with the party.

5) A Good, Old-Fashioned Combat Cleric. Probably melee, but I've always wanted to try to make a decent archer.

Those are my top five for the moment. I tried to pick ones that are good for a full campaign (vs. One-shots). I tend to prefer divine magic over arcane, and avoid blasting. And while I don't have to be a caster, I have to keep up with a party of casters (we've got a witch and some kind of weather-themed caster so far. Two other players haven't decided yet). Also, I've been on a sort of dwarf kick lately, so I'll probably try to play one this time. Any advice on builds, equipment, etc. would greatly appreciated. Also, feel free to offer general advice on making the switch.

Thanks everyone!

[BRC]

First of all, cheer up. basically anything you can do in 3.5 you can do in Pathfinder. Literally in some ways, since just about everything is compatible or easily adaptable.

[stack]

For the cleric/malconvoker, you could go summoner (master summoner archetype). You get a pile of summons of the highest level each day. Go wild using the evil summons (arcane, so no restriction on alignment spell use). Invest in bluff (you're CHA-based). Fluff yourself as a malconvoker from level 3 (SM2 gets your first evil summons, unless you get DM approval to summon fiendish creatures even with a non-evil alignment).

[WhatBigTeeth]

If you're building a character for PF, it would make a whole lot more sense to build a character you'd like in PF than to build a character you would have liked in one system and to port it to a new one. You'll probably have better results and the parts that would pale beside direct 3e analogs will be less grating.

I'd recommend checking out Oracle. It's a fun class to build, and it looks like it could have some tricks right up your alley.

[Zerter]

Just get rid of all your old stuff and go for something new. Don't be that guy!

[Hiro Protagonest]

Everything in Pathfinder books except the fluff for Golarion can be found here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/). Totally free. There's also an official PRD which is better organized and has everything not in the campaign setting books.

I'd actually recommend against buying the books, there's a general dislike that optimizers have towards Sean K. Reynolds, and I'm part of it.

Anyway, straight Pathfinder sucks. I mean really. It's like 3.5 if you only had access to core plus a few of the Completes. Which sucks. 3.P is the best way to do it, using Pathfinder changes and extra content with 3.5 for everything else. That way you get Archetypes, the better skill rules, interesting sorcerers, new Eldritch Knight, and also all the 3.5 splats.

[Xerxus]

Combat Cleric:

Very doable. Check out the crusader archetype. It's not as "good" as a straight cleric but I like it for flavor. As for the earlier issue with straight cleric giving nothing, now you have the fantastic channel energy. Negative energy is not to be underestimated - the feats selective channel, channel smite and guided hand make offense so much easier.

[Person_Man]

The most important thing you need to know about Pathfinder is that in most cases, unless you are playing a short term campaign, you want to pick a single base class and take all 20 levels of that class. Most of the prestige classes suck, and multi-classing (while useful at low levels) utterly screws you out of high level Spells/Talents/Powers/Abilities, which are a big deal now since every class gets high level abilities and a capstone.

The second most important thing you need to know is that Archetypes are very important, both in terms of what abilities a class has access to and how it plays. So take the time to read through all of them, and remember that on the Pathfinder SRD Archetypes are in a bunch of different places on the website, because they were published in various different supplements, and the PFSRD is organized by supplement.

Having said that, you could pretty much pull off any concept in PF that you did in 3.5, though you may need to change your class choices.

[stack]

1) Sword of the Arcane Order Mystic Swifthunter. - no swift hunter, no SotAO, so this one is probably a no go. Scout rogue/wizard/arcane trickster could get you movement based sneak attacks and arcane casting though.

2) Cloistered Cleric entry into Malconvoker. - summoner as I said above

3) Dwarf Barbarian/Fist of the Forest/Bear Warrior. Turning into a bear is tougher. barbarian (invunerable rager, heavy on beast totems) wold get you most of the way, finishing with bear shaman druid to get wild shape?

4) Binder who pretends to be a Divine Caster. Even, and especially, with the party. - there is a sorcerer archetype that pretends to be a cleric, Razmiran priest. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/archetypes/paizo---sorcerer-archetypes/razmiran-priest)

5) A Good, Old-Fashioned Combat Cleric. - melee as someone said above. For archer, either dip 3 levels of zen archer monk or take channel smite & guided hand with a deity that grants longbow prof (or get the guided enchantment if you are high enough).

[Saidoro]

1) Sword of the Arcane Order Mystic Swifthunter. This is the only one I have a full build for. There is a thread around here somewhere I can dig up if anyone wants to see it.
Magus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus) exists if you want to gish, but I don't know of any particularly good way of getting the skills you want together with both wizardish casting and good combat ability. You might be able to talk your GM into allowing a full-BaB version of Collegiate Arcanist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/c-d/magaambyan-arcanist) which can only advance Magus, but that's homebrew and therefore unreliable advice. Inquisitor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor) can be natury and also a caster, but they're divine. Scarred Witch Doctor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-orc/scarred-witch-doctor-witch-orc) into Eldritch Knight? This one doesn't really work too well...

2) Cloistered Cleric entry into Malconvoker. I know Focused Conjuror entry is better, but this way is just so flavorful.
Summoner (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner) is the go to summoning class and is actually quite good, consider it. The Demonic Apostle (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-drow/demonic-apostle-cleric-drow) cleric archetype doesn't actually require you to be evil, just a Drow. It isn't terribly good, but a "not terribly good" cleric is still pretty fantastic.

3) Dwarf Barbarian/Fist of the Forest/Bear Warrior. I just love the idea of a little, wild dwarf who turns into a big bear when he gets angry.
Beastmorph (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist/archetypes/paizo---alchemist-archetypes/beastmorph) Alchemist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist), Bear Shaman Druid (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/archetypes/paizo---druid-archetypes/bear-shaman), Barbarians can do this if they select the right rage powers.

4) Binder who pretends to be a Divine Caster. Even, and especially, with the party.
Witches (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/witch) are good at this, having easy access to healing spells and are reasonably viable. The False Priest (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/archetypes/paizo---sorcerer-archetypes/razmiran-priest) Sorcerer Archetype was specifically made for this, and isn't half bad.

5) A Good, Old-Fashioned Combat Cleric. Probably melee, but I've always wanted to try to make a decent archer.
Works as well in pathfinder as it did in 3.5. The oracle (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/oracle) class is also worth checking out. Archers actually got a lot better in pathfinder, but cleric really isn't the right class for them. You'd want something with full BaB and bonus feats like fighter, ranger or zen archer monk.

[Nepenthe]

Thanks for the advice everyone! I really appreciate it. I've been poking around the srd a bit and looking into Inquisitor (thanks Saidoro!). I'm thinking Dwarf Inquisitor with Deep Warrior, Minesight, Stonesinger and Caves Domain (stonesinger works on sub-domains, right?). I'd play him as a mentally unstable tunnel rat who has been trying to eradicate abberations from the very deepest mines for just a bit longer than is healthy. Any more advice toward that end?

I'm not set in stone on this either, so keep the suggestions coming. Thanks again everyone!

[Hendel]

I think you will enjoy Pathfinder.

Before you get too far though, you may need to look at why your group is making the change.

Are we changing because we think it is a better set of rules than 3.5 and that some of the silly aspects of min/max characters has been cleared up?

Then you could be right. I always say that PF rewards straight classes more than 3.5 ever did and the core classes are generally better. The downside to this thinking is that you might not want to just allow ALL 3.5 material in because it again clouds the water. That is what your group needs to decide.

Are we changing because there is nothing new coming from 3.5 with discontinuation of the line?

Then you may be in luck as your group will probably try and merge the two and make one game system.

Again, it is up to how the group looks at 3.5 material and all the new PF material.

I totally disagree with Jade Dragon and his opinion that "straight Pathfinder sucks" but then I don't play the game just to make the biggest, baddest character around that rock the very foundations of heaven when he is in action. I like a blend of power gaming/role playing/social interactions when I play. That is what has kept me in the hobby for 33 years.

Enjoy, have fun and just make a character that you think will be fun to play.

PS I know Sean Reynolds and like him or not, he is a great guy, a good friend, a loving husband, and one heck of a game designer going back over twenty years.

[Yahya]

Thanks for the advice everyone! I really appreciate it. I've been poking around the srd a bit and looking into Inquisitor (thanks Saidoro!). I'm thinking Dwarf Inquisitor with Deep Warrior, Minesight, Stonesinger and Caves Domain (stonesinger works on sub-domains, right?). I'd play him as a mentally unstable tunnel rat who has been trying to eradicate abberations from the very deepest mines for just a bit longer than is healthy. Any more advice toward that end?

I'm not set in stone on this either, so keep the suggestions coming. Thanks again everyone!

Will your campaign involve a lot of time spent in tunnels/dungeons? Because if so, you could also take the Ranger route, and pick underground as your favored terrain, or maybe just aberrations as you favored enemy.

Welcome to Pathfinder by the way :smallsmile:

[Saidoro]

I'm a big fan of the Heretic (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor/archetypes/paizo---inquisitor-archetypes/heretic) archetype for inquisitors, but it could make your character a bit more social than you were planning, and could cause complications if not refluffed.
Note that you can choose either inquisitions (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor/archetypes/paizo---inquisitor-archetypes/inquisitions) or Animal or Terrain Domains (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/archetypes/paizo---druid-archetypes/animal-and-terrain-domains) in addition to the regular list, I'd suggest the mountains domain or the anger inquisition but neither of them offer a big enough power boost to really be neccesary, just do whichever you think will be most fun.
Selecting feats and the like is a lot like it was in 3.5, there's a whole mess of terrible options that no one in their right minds would ever take, a fair number of useful but unimpressive ones that make up the majority of feat choices, a small number of good ones that are necessary for optimized builds and should be your first picks and a small handful of completely broken (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/bewildering-koan-general) ones that you should avoid because you (presumably) like your DM. Notably, you don't need to actually know spells to make magic items in Pathfinder, nor is there an experience cost. So investing in at least one crafting feat is probably a very good idea(coordinate with your partymates).
Most of the important ones for a melee character are the same as in early 3.5, but there'll still be a bit of a slog to fill all your slots. Remember that you get feats every odd level instead of every third. Inquisitor spell selection is fairly intuitive, grab buffs and utility because you don't have the DCs for offensive spells.
Also, by default you get two traits (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits), which are mostly useful for picking up new class skills. Check with your dm, some either modify the number you get, don't give any or just forget about them entirely.

Off Topic:

PS I know Sean Reynolds and like him or not, he is a great guy, a good friend, a loving husband, and one heck of a game designer going back over twenty years.
I have no grounds to comment on most of this, but that last bit is blatantly false. With options like Dazing Spell, Collegiate Arcanist, Haunted Gnome and Arc Slinger it's every bit as possible to build a brokenly powerful or insultingly weak character as it was in 3.5, and the game failed to fix...really almost everything it said it was going to. 3.5 had a devoted fanbase with a vast collective understanding of the game they played, which he completely failed to utilize in fixing the game's problems, producing something which was an improvement on 3.5 but only slightly so, certainly not enough to justify the decade they'd had to learn the game's faults. Really, its not a matter of liking him, if you say he's a good guy I'll believe you, but he isn't a good game designer and he went out of his way to alienate those who had both the ability and the inclination to help him on that score while asking for virtually nothing in return.

[Nepenthe]

Before you get too far though, you may need to look at why your group is making the change.
We're changing primarily because no one else in the group enjoys digging through years of splats and Dragon Mags to find just the right ACF to complete the character concept (Which I do. In fact, it's one my favorite aspects of D&D). So they usually end up playing one-dimensional core classes and get bored with their characters. Whereas with Pathfinder they are presented with a bunch of different options up front so they feel like their characters can do more.

I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with that, it's just a difference of perspective. They see a bunch of new stuff they can do, and I see a bunch of old stuff I can't (again, I know I can port in 3.5 stuff, and that's not the point). I think part of the problem is that I still see Pathfinder as D&D rather than a separate system. I don't mind the lack of options in, say, Mouse Guard. But that's my own mental hang-up and nothing against the system.

Anyway, I still like the Inquisitor idea (also looked at Ranger for the same concept and wasn't terribly impressed). I'm trying to decide between Torag (probably Caves for domain, Warhammer favored weapon) and Ragathiel (Rage, Bastard Sword) for my deity. Rage seems more useful but it comes on late and none of the Rage Powers I'd have access to seem all that impressive. If I choose a domain without a deity I don't get a favored weapon at all, right?

Thanks again everyone!

[Juntao112]

PS I know Sean Reynolds and like him or not, he is a great guy, a good friend, a loving husband, and one heck of a game designer going back over twenty years.

And that's great... but none of that makes him a good game designer. We can only judge his ability as a game designer by his works, and he seems... lacking in that department.

[Hendel]

And that's great... but none of that makes him a good game designer. We can only judge his ability as a game designer by his works, and he seems... lacking in that department.
Except for the part where I said he was one heck of a game designer. That is my opinion and you may have your opinion, but do not say none of that makes him a good game designer when that is exactly what I said in my opinion.

[Snowbluff]

And that's great... but none of that makes him a good game designer. We can only judge his ability as a game designer by his works, and he seems... lacking in that department.

1 vote for SKR not being good at game design. He's to game design what Wayne Reynolds is to RPG and Magic art.

That being said, I loathe Pathfinder's design choices, but it is better if you stick to straight classes. This strictly contradicts everything that make 3.5 great, so don't be surprised if people like me say they hate it.

I've pretty much done all of my 3.5 DragonMag free, so I don't see what the issue with digging in it is. I think you might find PF's archetypes more restricting versus PrC and ACF, though.

[Juntao112]

Except for the part where I said he was one heck of a game designer. That is my opinion and you may have your opinion, but do not say none of that makes him a good game designer when that is exactly what I said in my opinion.

I acknowledge that, in your opinion, being a great father, friend, and person makes you a great game designer, which to me, makes as much sense as saying a someone is a great doctor because she is open, friendly, and a great mother.

We seem to differ in our opinions of the man. And there is nothing wrong with that, although that does not answer the question of whether he is a good game designer or not. Again, to determine, objectively, whether he is good at his job, we should consider the quality of works that he produces. (Much like how, in order to graduate medical school, a doctor must be able to perform medicine.)

I'm sure he's a great parent, though, and I have no doubt that he is a loyal friend and true. I'm just saying that those aspects of his life have little to do with his competence at game design.

[Hendel]

I acknowledge that, in your opinion, being a great father, friend, and person makes you a great game designer, which to me, makes as much sense as saying a someone is a great doctor because she is open, friendly, and a great mother.

The specific design decisions that SKR has made, that I am aware of, make me think that his game designing skills are lacking.

I'm sure he's a great parent, and I have no doubt that he is a loyal friend and true.
Then maybe you misunderstood me (and I hate to hijack the poor thread this way but hopefully this will end it), but it was not because of those things that he is a great game designer, it is because I like his games going back to AD&D that I think he is a great designer. Those things just make him a good person in my opinion. It is his game design ability that makes him a great game desginer in my opinion. That is why I said you may differ from me on that issue.

Edit: Please don't lecture me.

[Juntao112]

And that's fine. Just be careful that you do not end up gathering grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles.

[navar100]

Main mechanical differences between Pathfinder and 3E:

1) All the core classes have changed. All the warrior classes and rogue got beefed up a bit in class abilities with paladin getting the most love in my opinion. Barbarians can do interesting things while raging, rogues get more talents, fighters don't suck for wearing heavy armor and can change feats, paladin's smite evil is worthy of the name and can have a bonded weapon instead of a mount. Sorcerers get class features, usually meaning you don't want to go into a prestige class. Cleric domains provide new abilities. Wizard specialization gives you some tricks based on school. Druid wild shape changed such that your starting physical ability scores matter. You get specific buffs at particular levels instead of whatever creature you can find in some published book.

2) Skills have been consolidated, but more importantly, no cross-class nonsense. You pay 1 point for 1 rank, max rank = character level. You do get class skills for a bonus +3, but a fighter can have +10 to Perception at 10th level easily.

3) Feats in 3E that are also in Pathfinder have been changed. Some definitely for the better such as Dodge giving +1 dodge bonus to AC against every one. However, there is controversy about other changes. Power Attack and Tripping are the go to examples. The changes neither objectively suck or rock on. Subjectively people loathe them or love them. You'll have to read them and decide for yourself. Personally I love Pathfinder's Power Attack and am indifferent to Tripping.

4) Spells have changed. Some were given saving throws. Save or die is almost not existent. Phantasmal Killer is still two saves or die but others are now for lots of damage save for less. There are very few outright immunities provided by spells. Spells that gave you immunity in 3E are now a +# to the saving throw, usually +4.

If you just like 3E in general you'll like Pathfinder. However, if there's one particular aspect of 3E that is absolutely essential to you, how Pathfinder handles it will affect your appreciation. This is where the feat change controversy comes in. Some 3E fans absolutely hate the changes to Power Attack and Tripping they say the game sucks because of it. Players who like the changes or at least indifferent enjoy the game. Decide for yourself if you have a sacred cow or not, and if you do look-up how Pathfinder handles it. Personally I can still enjoy a 3E game, but I much prefer Pathfinder. Paizo took a good game and made it better.

[magwaaf]

switching to pathfinder, its the first step in the right direction lol.

make sure to mix with 3.5 for all the fun

most things have been covered above so im not going into details. the prestiges classes are basically the same in the core book as they are in core pf book with some minor changes. some of the advanced player guide and prestige class book are either awesome or terrible, but how is that different from alot of 3.5? this game mixes very well with 3.5 rules just at the dm's discretion.