Main Things from Pathfinder to note/carry over?

[Gwazi Magnum]

There's a chance a new d&d group may be starting soon with me and some friends.

Now none of the other players really bother looking outside the core books so anything outside of core they use is usually something I pointed out to them. But I also want to see if I can try to introduce some path finder to them because the mechanics look good but I haven't played it yet.

So my question is pretty much, what are your favourite things from Pathfinder to carry over to a D&D 3.5 campaign?

[Crake]

Infinite cantrips/orisons are typically a much enjoyed pathfinder mechanic that I'm sure your players would enjoy. The higher death threshold (con score in negatives, rather than straight up -10) might be welcome as well, perhaps also retroactive skillpoints when you get a permanent int increase?

Really though, if you want them to play pathfinder, just say "why don't we run this game in pathfinder to give it a shot?". That's what happened recently in one of my newer games, I was looking at pathfinder (never played it previously) and said to my friend who was planning on DMing "Look at all these interesting changes that pathfinder makes, do you wanna give it a shot?" and he said "Sure, why not?"

[Gwazi Magnum]

Infinite cantrips/orisons are typically a much enjoyed pathfinder mechanic that I'm sure your players would enjoy. The higher death threshold (con score in negatives, rather than straight up -10) might be welcome as well, perhaps also retroactive skillpoints when you get a permanent int increase?

Really though, if you want them to play pathfinder, just say "why don't we run this game in pathfinder to give it a shot?". That's what happened recently in one of my newer games, I was looking at pathfinder (never played it previously) and said to my friend who was planning on DMing "Look at all these interesting changes that pathfinder makes, do you wanna give it a shot?" and he said "Sure, why not?"

I might if the rest of the group is up for it.

But if that fails cause they usually want to stay with 3.5 is that I'm hoping on at least carrying over the most enjoyable things from path finders, best of both worlds sort of deal.

[Der_DWSage]

Well...in that case, I'd recommend the following.

1)Use the Pathfinder skill list, rather than the D&D skill list. Really, it's just a condensed version.

2)Try to sell them on the Pathfinder version of whatever class they pick, unless there is no Pathfinder version. This goes quadruple if one wants to play a Paladin, because there will be tears otherwise.

3)Infinite cantrips/orisons, as noted, are always lovely. Gives a guy something to do to feel more like a Real Wizard.

4)Outlying case, but see if they're willing to use CMB/CMD rather than the regular rules on Bull Rush, Trip, Etc. But this is more of an extra than a must-have.

[Keneth]

Just convince your group to play Pathfinder, it's basically the same system anyway. There are just too many good things in PF to carry them back into 3.5, it's easier to use 3.5 material in PF when needed.

[EyethatBinds]

Toughness should be +3 hp at first level and an extra hitpoint after third level for 3.5. Pathfinder really made that feat suck a whole lot less. The revised version of the Tarrasque is also much more fun.

[Snowbluff]

Well...in that case, I'd recommend the following.

1)Use the Pathfinder skill list, rather than the D&D skill list. Really, it's just a condensed version.
Do this, but make Concentration a skill again. Keep 3.5's CC skill rules, so the classes with good skill lists can still be useful.

2)Try to sell them on the Pathfinder version of whatever class they pick, unless there is no Pathfinder version. This goes quadruple if one wants to play a Paladin, because there will be tears otherwise.
Paladins are good, but don't bother with anything else. Teach your players ToB/ToM/MoI, if they want better melee.

3)Infinite cantrips/orisons, as noted, are always lovely. Gives a guy something to do to feel more like a Real Wizard.
Use PF cantrips. Infinite Cure Minor does the infinite out of combat healing thing.


4)Outlying case, but see if they're willing to use CMB/CMD rather than the regular rules on Bull Rush, Trip, Etc. But this is more of an extra than a must-have.
Nononono. Also, don't use the PF versions of the related feats.

What I like is the Variant Tiefling options and alternate Favored Class Bonuses.

[Psyren]

Use PF races. Humans are still excellent but you no longer feel like you're gimping yourself if you play a nonhuman.

Show them PF classes, particularly for 3.5 classes that get nothing at all like Sorcerer - that's how I got one of my groups to switch, when they said "look at all this cool stuff!"


Do this, but make Concentration a skill again.

I disagree with this, making it a skill just trivialized the check. Making it a CL check makes casting in melee a lot dicier (literally), as it should be.

[Snowbluff]

Show them PF classes, particularly for 3.5 classes that get nothing at all like Sorcerer - that's how I got one of my groups to switch, when they said "look at all this cool stuff!" Sorcerers do get something. Spells and Familiar progression. Sure, you can lie to them and net them small benefits to get them in like a used car salesmen, or you can find a better example of a good change.




I disagree with this, making it a skill just trivialized the check. Making it a CL check makes casting in melee a lot dicier (literally), as it should be.

Uh, there are other classes with no CL that use the skill, and they don't need their uses nerfed. Writing in "You do nothing" is a pretty poor mechanic in the first place.

[eggynack]

Sorcerers do get something. Spells and Familiar progression. Sure, you can lie to them and net them small benefits to get them in like a used car salesmen, or you can find a better example of a good change.

I think that the point is that just about any prestige class with full casting progression is basically trading familiar progression for the kinds of nifty abilities that PF sorcerers get natively. There's just about no incentive to go sorcerer 20, and it might be a good change for there to be that kind of incentive.

[StreamOfTheSky]

The skill system change neutered rogues, the concentration as CL check and infinite cantrips/orisons helped casters, and the CMB/CMD system was a huge nerf to martials, so I would strongly suggest *NOT* using any of these things. By all means, consolidate the skill list, but even then I wouldn't do it as PF did - Perception is crazy overpowered, other weak skills weren't combined w/ anything - so I can't really suggest porting that from PF.

What would be good to port over?

- The races and their variant options from APG/ARG. But I would strip out the additional +2 stat bonus races got over 3E (so Humans, Half-Elf, and Half-Orc have no stat mods; Elves lose the +2 Int, Dwarves the +2 Wis, and the little folk the +2 Cha). Have you noticed my pattern of "stop helping the casters!" yet? :smallamused: (You may want to ban the Human's Focused Study variant; it kinda makes Half-Elf seem pointless)

- The entire Paladin class. It's still not perfect, but it's much better than the 3E one. The changes to Smite should be Paladin-exclusive; though. Masses of pouncing summoned monsters shouldn't get to annihilate encounters with it, as they do in PF.

- The HD increases for Bard, Ranger, and Rogue. Do not port over the HD increases for Wiz and Sorcerer.

- Ranger's FE bonus applying to attack and damage; animal companion counting as level -3 instead of 1/2 level. DO NOT import favored terrains, they're a secret nerf (for Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight).

- The monk's expanded bonus feats/progression, variant uses for stunning fist, and ki pool and how his formerly 1/day stuff now uses ki points; also the Qinggong Monk archetype to swap out worthless class features for slightly less worthless spell-likes. NOTHING ELSE from PF Monk.

[Snowbluff]

I think that the point is that just about any prestige class with full casting progression is basically trading familiar progression for the kinds of nifty abilities that PF sorcerers get natively. There's just about no incentive to go sorcerer 20, and it might be a good change for there to be that kind of incentive.

Yeah, but the Sorcerer is already a T2 class. It doesn't need anything more than it has. A decent Prestige Class will still win outright anyway.

[Psyren]

Sorcerers do get something. Spells and Familiar progression.

Bloodlines are more interesting, and open up design space for archetypes by giving them something that can be replaced.



Uh, there are other classes with no CL that use the skill, and they don't need their uses nerfed.

None of those really need it though. The only noncaster use for it that actually matters is Diamond Mind maneuvers, and that can be easily switched to another skill like Autohypnosis.


Yeah, but the Sorcerer is already a T2 class. It doesn't need anything more than it has. A decent Prestige Class will still win outright anyway.

The point is to give them a reason not to PrC out, and your second statement proves that 3.5 failed in that regard. Now it's a meaningful choice.

The fact that they are T2 isn't relevant. Druids are T1 but they still get class features.

[eggynack]

Yeah, but the Sorcerer is already a T2 class. It doesn't need anything more than it has. A decent Prestige Class will still win outright anyway.
I'm very much in agreement with you on that point, and giving the sorcerer stuff isn't that great from a balance perspective, but there's a reason that people are always trying to give stuff to the sorcerer. It's just a big empty class. From an optimization perspective, you'd basically have to be crazy to stick with sorcerer, so no one does. It's a class with the words, "Take this as little as possible," written in stone next to it. It doesn't need anything more than it has, but it absolutely has more than it has, because options exist. If there were no prestige classes in the game, a sorcerer with no class features outside of casting would make complete sense. However, the fact that there are prestige classes makes it into a bad design decision. The only downside to jumping ship is prerequisites, but I don't think that makes that much of a difference. I mean, the wizard gets a pretty solid amount of class features from advancement, and druids get a crazy amount of gap filling features, so I don't see why the weaker sorcerer doesn't deserve some. I suppose that it all depends on what you're comparing the sorcerer to.

[Snowbluff]

Bloodlines are more interesting, and open up design space for archetypes by giving them something that can be replaced.

Subjective and then goes into something we were complaining about. Why should we use the base class if we're just going to be trading out. It's not like Sorcerer didn't have ACFs in 3.5



None of those really need it though. The only noncaster use for it that actually matters is Diamond Mind maneuvers, and that can be easily switched to another skill like Autohypnosis.
Easily. Or just not at all. It nothing versus something. I think the corresponding stat would be wrong for Warblades as well.



The point is to give them a reason not to PrC out, and your second statement proves that 3.5 failed in that regard. Now it's a meaningful choice. *ahem* It's not. How are these supposed to match up to Incantatrix without making the class even more broken than it is?


The fact that they are T2 isn't relevant. Druids are T1 but they still get class features.T1 and T2 are functionally identical. And Druid was nerfed in PF.

[Keneth]

I don't see what the issue with Concentration is, I've personally made a couple martial classes for Pathfinder, and they work just fine with Concentration being 1d20 + class level + relevant ability modifier. There is absolutely no need to make Concentration a skill again or switch to a different skill.

[Psyren]

Easily. Or just not at all. It nothing versus something. I think the corresponding stat would be wrong for Warblades as well.

They'd live; other than Warblades and Swordsages I can't think of any non-caster that needs Concentration. (And even those two barely use it, and are just as well off with Autohypnosis.)



*ahem* It's not. How are these supposed to match up to Incantatrix without making the class even more broken than it is?

Incantatrix is a corner case. There are less broken PrCs that become meaningful choices* instead of no-brainers with this, like Fatespinner, Wild Mage, Fiendblooded, Escalation Mage etc. Without this, it simply becomes a matter of "take the most powerful PrC you have access to given the allowed sources in your campaign - any of them is better than straight sorcerer." This is not interesting.

*inherently, rather than just in relation to one another



T1 and T2 are functionally identical. And Druid was nerfed in PF.

Nerfed but still T1. (And at least they can get domains now without waiting 10 levels for Contemplative.)

[Snowbluff]

They'd live; other than Warblades and Swordsages I can't think of any non-caster that needs Concentration. (And even those two barely use it, and are just as well off with Autohypnosis.)
But how will Gareth the Wobbly Warblade dump Wisdom. D:


Incantatrix is a corner case. There are less broken PrCs that become meaningful choices* instead of no-brainers with this, like Fatespinner, Wild Mage, Fiendblooded, Escalation Mage etc. Without this, it simply becomes a matter of "take the most powerful PrC you have access to given the allowed sources in your campaign - any of them is better than straight sorcerer." This is not interesting.

*inherently, rather than just in relation to one another

Also, Recaster, Rainbow Servant, and Anima Mage. Even then the best Sorc features are more easily found elsewhere. All of these PrCs straight up knock over the Sorcerer. I would have just given them periodic bonus feats like a wizard. At least Wizard can keep me interested for 5 levels waiting for a Domain power, Spontaneous Divination, or hand Wizard or Fighter bonus feat.

Meanwhile, PF Sorc has some really lackluster archetypes. Two of these being "Pick 2" and "We've tweaked your bloodline." Nothing of worth is really being lost, from what I can tell. So the archetype fodder idea isn't really panning out.

Then you said the word "interesting". :smallsigh:


Nerfed but still T1. (And at least they can get domains now without waiting 10 levels for Contemplative.)
I'll have to take a look at it again, but I am not sure there is a reason to play them over Clerics. Even then the "Cast good spell, produce gamebreaking effects" mechanic is shared by Tiers 1 and 2.

[Drelua]

But how will Gareth the Wobbly Warblade dump Wisdom. D:

I hate to jump in just for one little thing, but isn't WIS-based diamond mind just as much of a buff for a Swordsage as it is a nerf for a Warblade? Not to mention Wisdom being a much better fit for Diamond Mind fluff-wise. Besides, dumping Wisdom on a low Will character seems like a pretty bad idea anyway.

Sorry, that bit was bugging me. I'll just show myself out now.

[Snowbluff]

I hate to jump in just for one little thing, but isn't WIS-based diamond mind just as much of a buff for a Swordsage as it is a nerf for a Warblade? Not to mention Wisdom being a much better fit for Diamond Mind fluff-wise. Besides, dumping Wisdom on a low Will character seems like a pretty bad idea anyway.

Sorry, that bit was bugging me. I'll just show myself out now.

Nah, this is fine. Considering the widespread consequences is something we should be doing. It's actually what I pointed out when eggybro and others were talking about changing how Ability Penalties/Damage/Drain worked.

[Psyren]

"Dumping" Wis takes you all the way to a whopping -1 to AH checks. Ranks will easily overcome that. It would be only fair to make Autohypnosis a class skill for them in Concentration's place as well, but even if it that boon isn't granted, PF's 1:1 cross-class cost means they won't fall behind and can easily make the handful of checks before too long.

All three PrCs you mentioned have strong reasons not to take them, no matter how good they are in TO. Recaster has a racial requirement (a setting-specific race, at that.) Anima Mage either requires a progression-delaying binder dip or a favorable DM ruling to advance binding, and even with all of that allowed binding carries fluff stigma that may not be desirable. And Rainbow Servant is a pile of nothing for 9 levels even if your DM ignores the clearly-intended progression loss in the table. None of them are "no-brainers" for every single sorcerer.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I don't see what the issue with Concentration is, I've personally made a couple martial classes for Pathfinder, and they work just fine with Concentration being 1d20 + class level + relevant ability modifier. There is absolutely no need to make Concentration a skill again or switch to a different skill.

The issue is that it's free skill ranks for casters. And using Cl and casting stat lets them optimize the crap they would have already and benefit even more from it.

Meanwhile, your change means Concentration will be inferior for martials using the "skill." Unlike w/ CL, there are few if any ways to boost "class level" beyond your HD, and "relevant ability modifier", no matter what you choose, will be lower than the caster's casting stat due to priorities and MAD vs. SAD.

Or you can stick with 3E's set up where the casters get to eat a nice little skill tax and the stat tied to it is one important secondarily to everyone and can have the level-based part maximized equally by all (who get it as a class skill, at least).

[Snowbluff]

They need quite a bit more than that. -1? That's only if they had 10 constitution in the rules. -4 at least sounds about right, and consider the nature of the checks, that hurts.

A pretty good race, and awesome dip 1 level dip (if not sorcerer only), and becoming Tier 1. How are any of the blood line abilities supposed to compete with these? Your reasons are flimsy at best, aside from restricting rulebooks. I mean if we are doing that, why are PrCs a complaint? Why not just ban the other books, hmm?

Then you used the word "intended" after saying "clearly".

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm very much in agreement with you on that point, and giving the sorcerer stuff isn't that great from a balance perspective, but there's a reason that people are always trying to give stuff to the sorcerer. It's just a big empty class. From an optimization perspective, you'd basically have to be crazy to stick with sorcerer, so no one does. It's a class with the words, "Take this as little as possible," written in stone next to it. It doesn't need anything more than it has, but it absolutely has more than it has, because options exist. If there were no prestige classes in the game, a sorcerer with no class features outside of casting would make complete sense. However, the fact that there are prestige classes makes it into a bad design decision. The only downside to jumping ship is prerequisites, but I don't think that makes that much of a difference. I mean, the wizard gets a pretty solid amount of class features from advancement, and druids get a crazy amount of gap filling features, so I don't see why the weaker sorcerer doesn't deserve some. I suppose that it all depends on what you're comparing the sorcerer to.

I would just give sorcerer the bonus feats of wizard (perhaps eschew materials instead of scribe scroll at level 1, like in PF), and then ban or nerf into the ground every full casting prestige class.

Rather than hand out freebies to try and keep up with the caster power creep death spiral. But hey, the game's already imbalanced, right? Who cares if you imbalance it further? That was the unofficial PF motto, after all...

[Psyren]

They need quite a bit more than that. -1? That's only if they had 10 constitution in the rules.

...What? 10 in a stat is a 0 modifier, not -1. 8 is -1.

How are you getting to -4?



A pretty good race, and awesome dip 1 level dip (if not sorcerer only), and becoming Tier 1.

If it's allowed (not all games take place in Eberron, or even allow non-core races, never mind setting-specific PrCs) and if the player even wants to be one. Even from a pure power standpoint Changeling isn't the best racial choice.



Your reasons are flimsy at best, aside from restricting rulebooks.

You say that like it's somehow unreasonable to not want Eberron books in a non-Eberron game. It's puzzling.



Then you used the word "intended" after saying "clearly".

Indeed I did, what of it?

[Keneth]

Meanwhile, your change means Concentration will be inferior for martials using the "skill." Unlike w/ CL, there are few if any ways to boost "class level" beyond your HD, and "relevant ability modifier", no matter what you choose, will be lower than the caster's casting stat due to priorities and MAD vs. SAD.

While there are few ways of boosting character level (not that there are a great many ways of boosting caster level), there are plenty of ways of increasing Concentration checks in general. And the fact that the relevant ability modifier will be lower for MAD classes is an issue with the classes, not the Concentration mechanic. The classes I design have a far bigger focus on their primary stat and therefore it's easier to invest into that ability score without crippling yourself. Using Concentration as a skill was a mistake in the first place because it's far too easy to optimize, and while it is a small nerf for martial classes, it works fine without it being a skill. The only maneuvers where the difference is really notable, are the ones that deal damage via Concentration check, but you're better off houseruling those maneuvers by increasing their damage factor, than changing the whole mechanic back to something that always worked poorly.

[Snowbluff]

...What? 10 in a stat is a 0 modifier, not -1. 8 is -1.

How are you getting to -4?
Because most Warblades don't run bad constitution.



If it's allowed (not all games take place in Eberron, or even allow non-core races, never mind setting-specific PrCs) and if the player even wants to be one. Even from a pure power standpoint Changeling isn't the best racial choice.
"Best" doesn't mean they are bad. Someone mentioned that have access to at will cantrips made people feel more like a wizard, and this would make a Sorcerer who could change their look on a whim. It wouldn't have much impact, all round it's not a bad choice. Even more so, it pays for itself when you enter recaster.

Then again, that'd be making a decision, carefully weighing factors... wait. This is sounding exactly like what you wanted.



You say that like it's somehow unreasonable to not want Eberron books in a non-Eberron game. It's puzzling. I go onto say that you should ban PrCs if you are banning books. Besides, fluff is mutable, a phrase we should have (carefully) translated into Latin and hung on the wall.


Indeed I did, what of it?
Because it's wrong. If it was clearly intended why the typographical error and rules clearly stating text trumps table? :smallconfused:

[StreamOfTheSky]

You can optimize CL just as easily, but only casters benefit...

I don't get it. What is breaking concentration as a skill? The Tunic of Steady Concentration / buffing it up to a +15? Don't allow it. Simple. Not every skill necessarily gets to have a +1 to +15 bonus, the DMG chart is just a guideline. There's a Steady Concentration feat to take 10 on it....but there's also an Arcane Mastery feat to take 10 on CL checks.

[eggynack]

Can't we all just agree that both games are stupid about sorcerers? In 3.5's case, it's obviously stupid to give a class no class features, when a major component of the game gives them class features. That's just a basic poor design decision. They didn't have to give them the class features that are better than those of prestige classes, because the goal here isn't balance, but they should give them class features such that sorcerer isn't basically always a strictly worse option. Wizards pull it off fine, and they're sitting right there in the same book. It's not like people are raring to take wizard for 20 levels, but it's nice to sometimes have that option available.

In Pathfinder's case, it's obviously stupid to give one of the most powerful classes in the game a bunch of class features, without really doing anything to mitigate their power. That's just a basic poor balance decision. They didn't have to not give them class features, because the goal here isn't poor design, but they should give them class features balanced out against some fundamental changes to the balance of the game. Druids pull it off a little (they're still tier one, but at least they gave some nerfs), and they're sitting right there in the same book. It's not like people are raring to take monk for 20 levels (I guess they are, but there are symmetry considerations to take into account here), but it's nice to sometimes have that option available.

[Keneth]

Bloodlines don't do much in terms of power for a sorcerer, at least compared to what you could do in 3.5. It was just a nice way of giving flavor to the class. Pathfinder did just fine, giving sorcerers class features (wizards got more of those too now), it's the spells that make them a T2 class and that's the only thing that really matters. I also support the hit die change for both classes. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Because most Warblades don't run bad constitution.

As I said earlier though, it doesn't matter. Even with lower Wis than Con, the class won't be hurt. Whether Autohypnosis or Concentration, a skill check is going to be higher than, say, a reflex save (Action Before Thought) or a damage roll (Insightful Strike.)

And if it bothers you that much, just add a blurb that the Con modifier should be added to the AH roll instead of Wis if it is higher. Problem solved.


I go onto say that you should ban PrCs if you are banning books. Besides, fluff is mutable, a phrase we should have (carefully) translated into Latin and hung on the wall.

*I* have no problem allowing a variety of sources (and even out-of-setting classes/races) but you can't assume that all groups are so liberal.



Because it's wrong. If it was clearly intended why the typographical error and rules clearly stating text trumps table? :smallconfused:

What's more likely - that WotC sat down and drew up the table wrong, accidentally pairing each dead level of spellcasting progression with a new rainbow servant class feature including the capstone - or that they thoughtlessly copy-pasted boilerplate "when a {insert PrC} level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if she had gained a level in whatever spellcasting class..." without considering their own text vs. table rules?

I know which one I'd bet my gp on.

[Keneth]

You can optimize CL just as easily, but only casters benefit...

You cannot optimize CL nearly as easily as skill checks. And what exactly is stopping you from getting the same range of methods to optimize your initiator level? You're already houseruling an entire system. Not to mention that all methods that increase your CL would arguably also work for a martial class if they can treat their initiator level as caster level for the purposes of Concentration.


I don't get it. What is breaking concentration as a skill?

I've been playing 3rd edition rules since their release and I have never (and I do mean never) failed a Concentration check before Pathfinder was released. And if you're gonna start banning methods of increasing skill checks, then you might as well make it so it isn't a skill in the first place.

[Douglas]

...What? 10 in a stat is a 0 modifier, not -1. 8 is -1.

How are you getting to -4?
He's comparing dumped wisdom to typical constitution-for-a-melee. Every melee character is going to want high con, and even if they don't have the ability scores to spare a 16 at generation they're going to boost it with magic items in fairly short order. So, 16 is a reasonable value to expect a melee character's constitution to meet or exceed. A dump stat, meanwhile, will remain at 8. The difference between those modifiers is 4.

[StreamOfTheSky]

You cannot optimize CL nearly as easily as skill checks. And what exactly is stopping you from getting the same range of methods to optimize your initiator level? You're already houseruling an entire system. Not to mention that all methods that increase your CL would arguably also work for a martial class if they can treat their initiator level as caster level for the purposes of Concentration.

"As easily" was a simplification. Not as easily, but you can also inflate CL stupidly high with bs like Circle Magic, to higher amounts than most can optimize their skill checks.

What is stopping you from boosting IL like you can CL? Uh...a complete and utter dearth of such options in any printed rules source, perhaps? Even if you can grotesquely pump up skill bonuses...at least EVERYONE can do that, RAW legally.

Even if CL boosters could boost IL, which is a complete houserule, no. That's still garbage. A CL boost is way way waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more useful than an IL boost, and affects far more things (most maneuvers and stances don't even USE it for anything!). The answer is to divorce it from CL entirely.


I've been playing 3rd edition rules since their release and I have never (and I do mean never) failed a Concentration check before Pathfinder was released. And if you're gonna start banning methods of increasing skill checks, then you might as well make it so it isn't a skill in the first place.

Really? Even at 1st level, where you would have a +8 concentration w/ 18 con and need a DC 16 to pass, you never ever failed? And you also never got hit by a readied attack/archer shot and had to roll based on damage dealt? Never? What a privileged life your 3E casters have lead... And speaking of hyperbole, that last sentence... cripes... "If I can't have my +15 tunic of steady spellcasting, why is it even a skill at all?!" WTF?

[Squirrel_Dude]

Things to bring:
- The new Paladin
- If you can manage it: Quiggong Monk
- The new Fighter (it's just bigger numbers, but it's still better)
- The new Ranger (d10 hit dice)
- The Inquisitor (I love this class, it's a divine Bard)
- Consolidation of some skills (Linguisitics, Disable Device definitely, stealth and perception maybe)
- If you're doing Cantrips/Orisons, then you'll want to use Pathfinder's version of them (Stabilize instead of cure minor wounds)

Things not to bring back
- Gun rules (Except the fire lance :smalltongue:)
- Monk Flurry as TWF
- Acrobatics/Tumble going against CMD
- Summoner
- New rules for finding traps (anyone can do it).

Things I'm unsure about:
- CMB/CMD is something I really like in terms of simplifying the system, but the math behind it has made it much harder for combat maneuvers to land at higher levels.
- New form of concentration checks. Didn't play a caster often enough in 3.5 (Only 2, and neither campaign lasted beyond 3rd level) to really experience the mechanic.
- New rules for Bardic music

[Psyren]

He's comparing dumped wisdom to typical constitution-for-a-melee. Every melee character is going to want high con, and even if they don't have the ability scores to spare a 16 at generation they're going to boost it with magic items in fairly short order. So, 16 is a reasonable value to expect a melee character's constitution to meet or exceed. A dump stat, meanwhile, will remain at 8. The difference between those modifiers is 4.

Very well - if the attribute truly makes that much of a difference to the success of the roll (looking at the DM maneuvers that call for a Concentration check, I don't think it does, but anyway), then it's a simple matter to allow the Constitution modifier to be used on DM Autohypnosis checks if it is higher. Problem solved.

[Keneth]

What is stopping you from boosting IL like you can CL? Uh...a complete and utter dearth of such options in any printed rules source, perhaps? Even if you can grotesquely pump up skill bonuses...at least EVERYONE can do that, RAW legally.

The lack of methods is resulting from the lack of material released for ToB (blame it on 4th edition). But like I said, if you're gonna be houseruling everything anyway, you might as well fabricate some ways of increasing IL if you absolutely have to.


Even if CL boosters could boost IL, which is a complete houserule, no.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion on how to houserule two systems into one. Silly me, I should have stuck to RAW. And what difference does it make if CL is more useful than IL? If you need to boost IL, and you're given an option to do so, what does CL have to do with it? It's like wanting to use a greatsword on your binder, and the DM tells you you can take Weapon Proficiency and buy yourself a greatsword, and then you go "yeah, but the warblade can do way more stuff with it."


Really? Even at 1st level, where you would have a +8 concentration w/ 18 con and need a DC 16 to pass, you never ever failed? And you also never got hit by a readied attack/archer shot and had to roll based on damage dealt? Never?

I've always taken Combat Casting and seeing how I never play a caster with less than 14 Con, that check was more like +10 at 1st level for casting defensively. I honestly don't recall ever failing a single Concentration check, though admittedly my memory isn't what it used to be, and I have a tendency of playing mostly non-casters (or rather the DMs preferred that I didn't). I've failed quite a few in Pathfinder though.


And speaking of hyperbole, that last sentence... cripes... "If I can't have my +15 tunic of steady spellcasting, why is it even a skill at all?!" WTF?

Actually, it was more like "if I can't boost my Concentration as a skill, why have it as a skill at all?" Because even though a tunic of steady casting is large boost, it's by far not the only one. Where do you draw the line?

My point is, not having Concentration as a skill, hurts spellcasters a lot more than it hurts martial adepts. We've ran quite a few of those in Pathfinder and they did absolutely fine. We've changed insightful strike to deal x2 damage and greater insightful strike to x3, but other than that, everything worked just fine. So the saves and attacks weren't automatically successful anymore, but they were never intended to be in the first place, and you get to pick another skill with the skill points saved.

[Snowbluff]

As I said earlier though, it doesn't matter. Even with lower Wis than Con, the class won't be hurt. Whether Autohypnosis or Concentration, a skill check is going to be higher than, say, a reflex save (Action Before Thought) or a damage roll (Insightful Strike.)
[quote] +4 is a lot on an attack roll or save. It would hurt the Eternal Blade.
[quote]
And if it bothers you that much, just add a blurb that the Con modifier should be added to the AH roll instead of Wis if it is higher. Problem solved.
Then we're just making more changes. What bothers me is that I would have to do this at all. Additionally, the more of these changes we make, the less common ground we have to discuss with.



*I* have no problem allowing a variety of sources (and even out-of-setting classes/races) but you can't assume that all groups are so liberal.
*hearty shrug* Agreed.



What's more likely - that WotC sat down and drew up the table wrong, accidentally pairing each dead level of spellcasting progression with a new rainbow servant class feature including the capstone - or that they thoughtlessly copy-pasted boilerplate "when a {insert PrC} level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if she had gained a level in whatever spellcasting class..." without considering their own text vs. table rules?

I know which one I'd bet my gp on.
It wasn't in the errata either. "Clearly" implies it can't be determined otherwise. The table is wrong, the rules say it is wrong, and they did not fix it so they clearly intended for it to be full-casting.

[Mithril Leaf]

Things to bring:
- The new Paladin
- If you can manage it: Quiggong Monk
- The new Fighter (it's just bigger numbers, but it's still better)
- The new Ranger (d10 hit dice)
- The Inquisitor (I love this class, it's a divine Bard)
- Consolidation of some skills (Linguisitics, Disable Device definitely, stealth and perception maybe)
- If you're doing Cantrips/Orisons, then you'll want to use Pathfinder's version of them (Stabilize instead of cure minor wounds)

Things not to bring back
- Gun rules (Except the fire lance :smalltongue:)
- Monk Flurry as TWF
- Acrobatics/Tumble going against CMD
- Summoner
- New rules for finding traps (anyone can do it).

Things I'm unsure about:
- CMB/CMD is something I really like in terms of simplifying the system, but the math behind it has made it much harder for combat maneuvers to land at higher levels.
- New form of concentration checks. Didn't play a caster often enough in 3.5 (Only 2, and neither campaign lasted beyond 3rd level) to really experience the mechanic.
- New rules for Bardic music

This guy right here knows his stuff. I'd personally recommend against CMB/CMD, concentration, and bardic music though. The first because it is a poor system, the second because there's a fair deal of concentration stuff that isn't caster based in 3.5, and the third because I happen to really love 3.5's bardic music.

[Psyren]

+4 is a lot on an attack roll or save. It would hurt the Eternal Blade.

Not when compared to 1d20+20 skill ranks. You're already ahead of the save progression by 8, and ahead of most damage rolls by even more.



Then we're just making more changes. What bothers me is that I would have to do this at all. Additionally, the more of these changes we make, the less common ground we have to discuss with.

It seems to me we have little enough common ground as it is :smalltongue:




It wasn't in the errata either. "Clearly" implies it can't be determined otherwise. The table is wrong, the rules say it is wrong, and they did not fix it so they clearly intended for it to be full-casting.

"They didn't errata it!" has to be the worst possible justification for intent in 3.5. I'm sure they intended the ToB errata to fade into Complete Mage's too...

[Squirrel_Dude]

Note on concentration as a skill or how it's done in Pathfinder: If you keep it as a skill, do not bring back the changes to the Skill Focus and +2/+2 feats. I get that many people already recommend Skill Focus(concentration) over combat casting, but with pathfinder increasing bonus, it wouldn't be a contest anymore.

I might recommend bringing back the Druid and the Cleric if you can handle all the changes, but there are so many it might not be worth it.

[Snowbluff]

Not when compared to 1d20+20 skill ranks. You're already ahead of the save progression by 8, and ahead of most damage rolls by even more. Well, people complain about flurry of misses monk, but the attack bonus isn't much worse than -4. Granted, the monk has more problems than that.

You should be able to optimize it if you want to, and the baseline already works in the favor of the class.


It seems to me we have little enough common ground as it is :smalltongue:
Well, it's why we are here. I don't like having to make houserules to fix things for this reason. I prefer the gentleman's agreement for these things. I really don't like it when changes are made so nothing works.



"They didn't errata it!" has to be the worst possible justification for intent in 3.5. I'm sure they intended the ToB errata to fade into Complete Mage's too...
Not really. The worst argument for intent is "I know what this person what thinking! Me! Not you!" Arguing for an unknowable intent in the first place means you have your head in a place it shouldn't be. I tend to wokr in RAW so I don't force my own thoughts on how it's supposed to work on others. :smalltongue:

[Waker]

I would bring over
Paladins- So much better, from having Charisma-based casting, a better Smite and a few other odds and ends. Some Archetypes are very nice.
Rogue- Specifically having talents available at lower levels, rather than waiting until +10. It is a rare thing to see a single classed rogue.
Alchemist, Oracle, Magus- Fun little classes. Quite an improvement over some of the existing 3.5 classes like Favored Soul.
Updated PrCs- Specifically stuff like Arcane Archer and Dragon Disciple.

Some other things, but I'm getting distracted/lazy.

[Drelua]

One thing I don't think I've seen mentioned that I really like is increasing the AC bonus for Medium and Heavy armour. I know it's only a +1, but I always hated that a breastplate is only 1 point better than a chainshirt (which should not be light armour. I own an aluminum chain shirt that weighs like 40 pounds) and comes with heavier penalties.

I know this one has been mentioned, but I really love the consolidated skill list. I mean, in 3.5 Rogues really feel like they should have balance, jump, tumble, listen, search, spot, disable device, open lock, bluff, diplomacy, UMD and maybe climb and gather information. That's 11 to 13 skills! With Pathfinder's skill list that becomes 6 or 7, making it actually possible for Rogues to get all the skills they need. Some people might not agree with how exactly they did it, but I don't think anyone would say that change doesn't help Rogues an Abyss of a lot.

[StreamOfTheSky]

One thing I don't think I've seen mentioned that I really like is increasing the AC bonus for Medium and Heavy armour. I know it's only a +1, but I always hated that a breastplate is only 1 point better than a chainshirt (which should not be light armour. I own an aluminum chain shirt that weighs like 40 pounds) and comes with heavier penalties.

Just seemed trivial to me. In 3E, you either wanted a no max dex light armor, (mithral) shirt, (mithral) breastplate, or (mithral) full plate. In PF, you either want a no max dex light armor, (mithral) shirt, (mithral) breastplate, or (mithral) full plate. It's a slight boost to fighters, paladins, and clerics, though largely dwarfed by the nerf to AC caused by animated shields no longer being useful (that's 3-7 points of AC gone from your bog standard 2H fighter). It would've been nicer if they gave the other armors a reason to exist.


I know this one has been mentioned, but I really love the consolidated skill list. I mean, in 3.5 Rogues really feel like they should have balance, jump, tumble, listen, search, spot, disable device, open lock, bluff, diplomacy, UMD and maybe climb and gather information. That's 11 to 13 skills! With Pathfinder's skill list that becomes 6 or 7, making it actually possible for Rogues to get all the skills they need. Some people might not agree with how exactly they did it, but I don't think anyone would say that change doesn't help Rogues an Abyss of a lot.

Consolidating is fine, but yes the way PF did it was very poor. And no, I don't think rogues specifically benefitted the most. The reason? Like I said, PF made certain skill combos plainly better than others, so the guy with like 3 skill points per level, who now focuses on those best bangs for his buck, sees the biggest gain compared to what he could do in 3E. In general, casters made out the best, since concentration was now free and Perception, Diplomacy, and Acrobatics alone would give them 6 great skills and two (jump, balance) mediocre skills, plus the free concentration, all for their measly 3 skill points per level. Rogue already had the skill points to pick up the heavy hitter skills before, now he can just get a few more of the less useful ones. Not nearly as helpful as low skill classes being able to nab a cornucopia of goodness.
And the class skill change utterly destroyed rogue's niche, if you wanted to bring the entire skill changes over. Just the consolidation would be ok, just...do it better than paizo did.

[Drelua]

Consolidating is fine, but yes the way PF did it was very poor. And no, I don't think rogues specifically benefitted the most. The reason? Like I said, PF made certain skill combos plainly better than others, so the guy with like 3 skill points per level, who now focuses on those best bangs for his buck, sees the biggest gain compared to what he could do in 3E. In general, casters made out the best, since concentration was now free and Perception, Diplomacy, and Acrobatics alone would give them 6 great skills and two (jump, balance) mediocre skills, plus the free concentration, all for their measly 3 skill points per level. Rogue already had the skill points to pick up the heavy hitter skills before, now he can just get a few more of the less useful ones. Not nearly as helpful as low skill classes being able to nab a cornucopia of goodness.
And the class skill change utterly destroyed rogue's niche, if you wanted to bring the entire skill changes over. Just the consolidation would be ok, just...do it better than paizo did.

Well, maybe they didn't benefit the most, but it's certainly helpful when they can effectively have half a dozen more skills. I know some of the skills I listed aren't that good, but they just feel like things rogues should be good at, but they can't afford to be in 3.5. Besides, I like the class skill change; making a high-level multiclass character was a huge headache trying to figure out which skills can go where when. I just don't thing a rogue multiclassing into Ranger should have such a hard time keeping disable up, for example; it just doesn't make sense.

I think one class that really benefited from the new skill list was monks. With 10 INT in 3.5, they were basically stuck with listen, spot, tumble, hide and move silently if they're human. And this on a class that's suppose to be a part time skill monkey. :smalleek:

[StreamOfTheSky]

You said, "I don't think anyone would say that change doesn't help Rogues an Abyss of a lot." I replied that rogues probably got the least help out of the consolidation of any class. Of course, it helped everyone, it was a straight across the board power boost. But rogue most certainly didn't benefit the greatest from it, so I do in fact dispute your statement.

No doubt the PF system is simpler. But it crushed the skill monkey classes. The only difference now is a +3 bonus. For cripes sakes, in 4E, where ALL skills advance at half level and your options to specialize in them are very limited, the difference between a trained class skill and an untrained one is plus FIVE. 3E's system may have been inconvenient when building high level multiclassed characters, but it protected niches important to the assumed class balance.
And it does make sense. Advancing rogue levels means advancing training in a certain set of skills and abilities; ranger a different set. If you advance as a ranger, you supposedly spent more time doing ranger stuff than rogue stuff the past level, so advancing a rogue skill is harder. The entire leveling mechanic is tremendously abstracted, so I'm sorry if that sounded too generic an explanation. But if the level up system was vastly more detailed to account for exactly how you allocated % of your time, a certain class-based multiplier applied to each skill (rogue would have the highest multiplier for disable device, for instance), etc... your complaint about headaches would be much greater.

Monk benefitted a bit; just like most people. I also dispute he benefitted the most. And I've never heard anyone claim monk "to be a part time skill monkey." Do they say the same of Barbarians? Barbarians have the same base skill points and are less MAD and thus can likely afford an extra +2 int over the monk. Monk has a ton of problems in 3E and PF, it is the weakest class in both. Changing the skill system did little to alter their suckiness, doing that requires much more drastic and monk-specific changes.

[Drelua]

Hm, I really need to choose my words better. I guess I didn't really mean that it makes Rogues more powerful, since they could already afford all the really good skills, but that it lets them take all the weaker skills that fit thematically without feeling like they're gimping themselves by missing out on listen or something.

As for monk, Jiriku's Monk Remixed has being a skill monkey listed as one of the main goals, and several other monk fixes I've seen give them a sizable boost in that area. Maybe the monk as written isn't a skill monkey in any way, just because they suck at it so badly, but it seems to have been intended to be good at far more skills than they can afford without significant investment, and apparently I'm not the only one that saw it that way. How I picture a Monk, they should have good balance, be able to jump and tumble, be perceptive, stealthy and hard to fool at the very least. That's 8 skills right there, far more than they can afford.

I've really got nothing to say about casters since people in my group rarely play them, so I've got next to no experience with them. I've never seen them being broken in play just because no one really plays them much above their optimization floor. Well, except when I played a Warmage into epic levels and made the THW fighter feel completely superfluous. I should probably make it clear that casters being overpowered isn't really a thing in the games I've played. Even druids don't make monks look bad.

Edit: Oh, I forgot to mention that I never said which class benefited the most, just which ones I think got a good boost.

[Elricaltovilla]

I'd actually recommend you NOT mix Pathfinder and 3.5 or at least not ask anyone on these forums how to do it, because as you can see, all it does is create incessant arguing over insignificant details.:smallamused:

To try and be helpful though, the differences between Pathfinder and 3.5 (especially core) are small enough that it doesn't make much difference. There are a lot of things that Pathfinder did that I'm really a fan of, like giving most classes new options (except the poor fighter) and nerfing the Druid, which now has to choose between being a melee monster or a T1 spellcaster instead of getting to be both (gasp! It's now completely unplayable despite hardcore 3.5 fans complaining about it being overpowered as hell on these very forums!). Did Pathfinder fix everything? Not even close. But at least I don't have to look at those stupid empty spaces on my class progression table anymore.

BTW, I especially love the Barbarian's rage powers. They're delicious.

[Waker]

BTW, I especially love the Barbarian's rage powers. They're delicious.

I like them too. Mechanically they aren't all great, but some of them are nice. Plus when a friend made a PF Barbarian, he joked about taking stuff like Raging Climber and Swim, saying that he would do those activities somewhat better while screaming.

[Elricaltovilla]

I like them too. Mechanically they aren't all great, but some of them are nice. Plus when a friend made a PF Barbarian, he joked about taking stuff like Raging Climber and Swim, saying that he would do those activities somewhat better while screaming.

I'm a fan of the totem powers personally, and not just because of the pouncing.

I also really like the rage prophet PRC. Hated the first time I read about it, but it does sound like a lot of fun.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Ok, I kind of had to skip over most of the posts when people started debating concentration, but for those who gave advice on what to bring over or not thank you.

If the people this is being planned for do end up creating a new group there actually seems to be a good chance they'd just switch to pathfinder altogether. If not I'll still see about carrying some classes over like fighter, paladin and ranger and also bring over path finders skill system.

[Starbuck_II]

The skill system change neutered rogues, the concentration as CL check and infinite cantrips/orisons helped casters, and the CMB/CMD system was a huge nerf to martials, so I would strongly suggest *NOT* using any of these things. By all means, consolidate the skill list, but even then I wouldn't do it as PF did - Perception is crazy overpowered, other weak skills weren't combined w/ anything - so I can't really suggest porting that from PF.


Wait what if you used CMB/CMD system but unnerfed the feats (double their bonus like 3.5).
What would happen?

Just seemed trivial to me. In 3E, you either wanted a no max dex light armor, (mithral) shirt, (mithral) breastplate, or (mithral) full plate. In PF, you either want a no max dex light armor, (mithral) shirt, (mithral) breastplate, or (mithral) full plate. It's a slight boost to fighters, paladins, and clerics, though largely dwarfed by the nerf to AC caused by animated shields no longer being useful (that's 3-7 points of AC gone from your bog standard 2H fighter). It would've been nicer if they gave the other armors a reason to exist.

Actually, Mithral Kiko has same stats as Mithral Shirt but +6 AC.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I also love Jiriku's monk. The monk as written is nothing like that, though, and has no right at all to be considered a skill monkey.


Edit: Oh, I forgot to mention that I never said which class benefited the most, just which ones I think got a good boost.

But when every class benefits from the change, and in fact many benefit more heavily from it than the two classes you named, claiming those two in particular got a good boost from it is an incredibly misleading statement.


Wait what if you used CMB/CMD system but unnerfed the feats (double their bonus like 3.5).
What would happen?

The nerfing of the feats is only one tiny part of the problem with the CMB system. Doubling their bonuses wouldn't change too much, converging them into one feat for the Greater [maneuver feat] benefits aside from the numerical part is more important, if anything.

The two main issues w/ PF's combat maneuvers, summarized as briefly as I can:

1. "You know how in 3E after a few levels all the big dumb monsters have impossible to beat grapple modifiers?"
"Sure do!"
"We thought bringing those impossible modifiers to EVERY combat maneuver would make the game more fun!"
"My Wizard PC who never uses combat maneuvers is laughing giddily already!"

2. Just plain nerfing how they're used. Like grapple taking a standard (and with feats, a move and swift), grappled condition being far less restrictive, and pinning no longer letting you silence the victim. Or how you can no longer trip flying creatures at all, ever. Or how you can't make foes you bull rush provoke w/o completing the feat chain now.

If you want more detail, I wrote a lot about it in the problems with PF type threads from a few weeks ago.