Dnd 3.5 / Pathfinder Decision

[Handsome Goblin]

Here is the scoop. I have A LOT of dnd 3.5 books and stuff, and only the pathfinder core rule book. I heard that pathfinder is just the updated/ better version of 3.5, but I have a lot of 3.5 stuff. Which would you reccomend? Is the difference that big for me to change over?

[DeltaEmil]

In Pathfinder, practically every sourcebook is freely available (at least it seems so for me).
You'll have to look at the rules yourself to decide if they're better for your group or not. According to some people on this message board, there have been only a few improvements, while the rest is either untouched, or even worse than 3.5.

You'll really have to decide for yourself. If the problem is money, Pathfinder might be a nice alternative because of its free online rules. You might still be able to implement the things in your D&D 3.5 books into Pathfinder.

[Gavinfoxx]

Let's see....

I would consider Pathfinder 3.55 (mostly, it's just a set of mild houserules for 3.5e, really. Some good, some bad, doesn't really change anything dramatic about how the game is played), Trailblazer 3.60, True20 3.65, D&D with the Frank & K Tomes 3.65, Fantasycraft 3.70, 'Mutants and Dungeons' (both versions) also 3.70, and Legend 3.75, as far as the 'number of things fixed' goes... I obviously thus suggest Legend!

For Example:

Pathfinder:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

Legend:
http://www.ruleofcool.com/
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47651526/LCGb.html <-- an online character generator, a bit old though, doesn't contain everything or the current version.

Other good things to do is use mutants and masterminds 2e to write up D&D-esque characters, a la:
http://greywulf.net/2011/06/03/mutants-and-dragons-third-edition/

Also, someone is trying to make D&D stuff with mutants and masterminds *3e*:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279503
and
http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?p=706712#p706712

Fantasycraft is found here:
http://www.crafty-games.com/node/348

Trailblazer is found here:
http://badaxegames.com/

The Frank & K tomes are here:
https://sites.google.com/site/middendorfproject/frankpdf

True20 is here:
http://true20.com/

[Handsome Goblin]

The main thing for me was I already have a lot of 3.5 material, so I didn't know if it was worth it to switch over to pathfinder if I already have a lot of 3.5 resources.

[MeiLeTeng]

Realistically there's no reason that you should have to abandon your 3.5 sources just because you start using Pathfinder, they're highly compatible.

My recommendation would just be to see what each offers you that you like and cherry pick your favorite stuff from each, and then talk with your group and figure out what stuff from what source your group wants to use.

[AttilaTheGeek]

My personal recommendation is "Pathfinder, but with 3.5 base classes".

[Snowbluff]

The main thing for me was I already have a lot of 3.5 material, so I didn't know if it was worth it to switch over to pathfinder if I already have a lot of 3.5 resources.

Eh, probably not worth a whole conversion. Isecibd cherry picking. I suggest picking up the new paladin progression. I can't say I really encountered anything else that sticks out.

[Gavinfoxx]

My recommendation is just to read the rules at that link, and take things that you like for your 3.5e game. Really, 'The best of 3.5e and Pathfinder, using whichever rules work best for your group' is the best way to do this...

[Spuddles]

Realistically there's no reason that you should have to abandon your 3.5 sources just because you start using Pathfinder, they're highly compatible.

My recommendation would just be to see what each offers you that you like and cherry pick your favorite stuff from each, and then talk with your group and figure out what stuff from what source your group wants to use.

That's probably the best advice, and it's what my group is doing.

One of us really likes PF and has a Paizo subscription, so he's been getting a ton of books, likes PF fluff, etc.

[olentu]

I would recommend sticking with 3.5. You will not need to learn a new system. And if there is anything in pathfinder that you like it can probably be modified to work in 3.5 with varying degrees of difficulty.

[navar100]

Staying in 3E is fine, but I do recommend using the Pathfinder version for the base classes. The warriors and rogue get nice things. Barbarians can do interesting while raging. Fighters don't suck for wearing heavy armor. Paladin's Smite Evil and Lay On Hands are superb. Rogues get talents from level 1, not 10. As for the spellcasters, not that they needed more stuff, but now that they do get class features aside from casting spells going into a prestige class is no longer a no-brainer. Spellcasters have to give up nice things, so players would only go into a prestige class if they really, really want to instead for just more power. Decide for yourself if clerics use Pathfinder Channeling or keep 3E's Turn Undead. Decide for yourself to use Pathfinder Domains or 3E Domains. Decide for yourself to use Pathfinder's wildshape for druids (and the polymorphing spells) or use 3E's version.

[Handsome Goblin]

Thanks a lot for the advice, I do like certian things from each, and I will probably just cherrypick/ also look more into pathfinder.

[turkishproverb]

Here is the scoop. I have A LOT of dnd 3.5 books and stuff, and only the pathfinder core rule book. I heard that pathfinder is just the updated/ better version of 3.5, but I have a lot of 3.5 stuff. Which would you reccomend? Is the difference that big for me to change over?

Pathfinder is more 3.5 than 3.5. All the problems are even worse, but a lot of the good stuff has expanded as well.

They are easy to combine though.

[JusticeZero]

It isn't all that different. I found a lot of things greatly improved, and access to material is MUCH better. They made a few changes that had bad consequences and some design decisions are face slappers. Feats are more common, but you need a lot more of them - great for E6 but frustrating for standard builds. No more dead levels.
I switched wholeheartedly, because dang it, I'm not in a place in my life where the thought of prowling through used bookstores in search of arcane out of print tomes for my hobby time is at all appealing.

[turkishproverb]

I switched wholeheartedly, because dang it, I'm not in a place in my life where the thought of prowling through used bookstores in search of arcane out of print tomes for my hobby time is at all appealing.

...You poor thing. :smallfrown:

[Snowbluff]

...You poor thing. :smallfrown:

Yeah, not only a lit of the things he mentioned are pretty awful, but he is also missing out in a lot if the fun of d20. One if my buddies moved to Mexico, so I got a copy of the ECS from his collection.

[turkishproverb]

Yeah, not only a lit of the things he mentioned are pretty awful, but he is also missing out in a lot if the fun of d20. One if my buddies moved to Mexico, so I got a copy of the ECS from his collection.

Nice. For my part, I just thinks it's horrible when one can't enjoy searching used book stores.

[137beth]

Most of the rules changes are about as small as the differences between RAW 3.5 and common house-rules, so there isn't any reason not to use material from both publishers. You have a lot of 3.5 books, and because you are posting on an internet forum, you have access to the crunch of a lot of PF books. So if you like being able to use a lot of books in your games, then great, now you have even more books if you start using them together. Decide which versions of each of the core classes you want to use. After that, just throw all the 3.5 non-core classes together in the pot with the PF non-core classes. Same goes for core feats and spells, but most of those are unchanged (and the spells that are changed are mostly those that were broken in 3.5, such as polymorph, so you may already have your own house-ruled version of them.), so this isn't that hard.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I'll second those that are of the opinion that you can play pathfinder, converting your favorite things in from 3.5. If you have any setting-specific material that may be the most difficult (certain deities' domains, for instance), along with class features based of skill points or feats that don't exist. That said, I think it's worth it.

I try to get ToB in any game of PF I play. I've also fallen in love with the Golarion setting up to this point, so I'd recommend you at least check that out. Also, once nice thing about Paizo is that if you really want a book (artwork is pretty solid), almost anything you'd want is available on .pdf.

Also, Bestiary 4 will have Cthulhu (http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/PZO/PZO1127_500.jpeg).

[Snowbluff]

Squirrel, which skill do you guys use for diamond mind? Do you have six fingers on your left hand? Should I have asked a third question to satisfy the rule of three?

[137beth]

Squirrel, which skill do you guys use for diamond mind? Do you have six fingers on your left hand? Should I have asked a third question to satisfy the rule of three?

I suggest you take a look at what the other concentration-using classes do in PF...

[Snowbluff]

I suggest you take a look at what the other concentration-using classes do in PF... I suggest that this response is not satisfactory. Seriously, what makes you think that's a good idea?:smallconfused:

For starters, it's supposed to be based on a skill. The concentration scaling doesn't work at all, even before you consider it's supposed to be a nerf to casters. Not to mention it uses CL (or IL) in this case, which says shove off to the dip friendly system. Add in the fact it uses what eould be a tertiary stat for initiators rather than the secondary one...

[Cog]

I suggest you take a look at what the other concentration-using classes do in PF...
This would be a nerf for Diamond Mind; level checks don't get the +3 class skill bonus and are harder to boost. A common suggestion is to bring in the Autohypnosis skill; the 3.5 psionics guys rewrote psionics for Pathfinder as well, though it's officially considered third party.


My personal recommendation is "Pathfinder, but with 3.5 base classes".
I'd go with the opposite. Taken in isolation, I think the Pathfinder versions of the classes are a little more balanced, a little more fun; it's the underlying mechanics, such as the combat maneuver system and the weakening of feats, that got things muddled up again.

[Kudaku]

Is there a problem with adding Concentration as a separate skill that works with the Diamond Mind maneuvers, while still using PF's take on spellcasting and concentration?

It's fairly similar to Skill: Iaijutsu.

While 3.x and PF are very similar it's not a perfect translation, you do need to do some prep to make it work.

I'm fourthing(?) the people who say play Pathfinder, and use whatever material from the 3.5 books you want.

[Zombimode]

Look at your player base. Are they more likely to pick a class and stick with it?
If yes, Pathfinder could be a nice option, as the system seems to support this style.

If they are more likely to build characters out of several classes and PRCs, stick with 3.5

[Gemini476]

My personal opinion: 3.5 has more stuff, but PF is more accessible. Both systems have problems, of course.

Also, how on Earth did they manage to get the rights to use Cthulhu in a Bestiary? It didn't work out well for Deities and Demigods, I can tell you that.

[navar100]

Squirrel, which skill do you guys use for diamond mind? Do you have six fingers on your left hand? Should I have asked a third question to satisfy the rule of three?

Sense Motive or Knowledge (Martial Lore) or Autohypnosis

[Squirrel_Dude]

Squirrel, which skill do you guys use for diamond mind? Do you have six fingers on your left hand? Should I have asked a third question to satisfy the rule of three?I personally prefer autohypnosis, but between autohypnosis, perception, and sense motive, it's a matter of personal preference.

The other issue is slightly buffing the classes (especially the swordsage), and trying to work with the fact that acrobatics now encompases what seems to be half of the school's key skills.


Also, how on Earth did they manage to get the rights to use Cthulhu in a Bestiary? It didn't work out well for Deities and Demigods, I can tell you that.I don't know, but they've had multiple old gods as choices for your cleric or character to worship in Faiths of Corruption. (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8odc?Pathfinder-Player-Companion-Faiths-of-Corruption)

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by turkishproverb
For my part, I just thinks it's horrible when one can't enjoy searching used book stores.

True indeed. I've made some excellent finds just browsing through.

The notion of not wanting to visit a used bookstore...wow. One weeps, even as the mind is boggled.


Originally Posted by 137ben
Decide which versions of each of the core classes you want to use. After that, just throw all the 3.5 non-core classes together in the pot with the PF non-core classes.

Is there any practical reason why the 3.5 and PF versions of a core class couldn't coexist in the same game?

[Kudaku]

Is there any practical reason why the 3.5 and PF versions of a core class couldn't coexist in the same game?

Well, most of the PF classes got a big boost compared to the 3.5 versions - the only class I think got genuinely nerfed is the druid.

For instance I can't imagine anyone wanting to play the 3.5 paladin over the PF paladin, especially if they have equal access to 3.5 books.

[Snowbluff]

I personally prefer autohypnosis, but between autohypnosis, perception, and sense motive, it's a matter of personal preference. Well, autohypnosis would be fine if WB had Wis as a stat, and Sense Motive overlaps with Setting Sun. Perception doesn't need to be any stronger.



The other issue is slightly buffing the classes (especially the swordsage), and trying to work with the fact that acrobatics now encompases what seems to be half of the school's key skills.

Do the classes need to be improved? I don't think the PF changes actually made any meaningful improvement on the base classes beyond paladin.

[JusticeZero]

The notion of not wanting to visit a used bookstore...wow. One weeps, even as the mind is boggled.
My mean reading load for school hovers around 500 pages/week of arid heliotrope sesquipedalian loquaciousness unearthed from libraries and online, and I have to be able to move residences across large distances as needed. My gaming group is scattered around the world. Anything much more advanced than "core only" is going to be a pain, and I cannot stand generic core anymore. It's a bit like having a professional fisherman come dragging home covered in fish slime and saying "Yay, it's time for your vacation! Let's go rent a boat and go fishing!"

[BWR]

My personal opinion: 3.5 has more stuff, but PF is more accessible. Both systems have problems, of course.

Also, how on Earth did they manage to get the rights to use Cthulhu in a Bestiary? It didn't work out well for Deities and Demigods, I can tell you that.

Probably because the copyright has expired in the intervening years.
Or so they say... (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110531/02515814477/confusing-case-lovecrafts-copyrights.shtml)

Anyway, they don't have Cthulhu there. Shoggoths, yes, and a few other folks, but not the big C or A.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Well, autohypnosis would be fine if WB had Wis as a stat, and Sense Motive overlaps with Setting Sun. Perception doesn't need to be any stronger. Yeah, it's not a perfect solution, just the best available. Autohypnosis is at least a good skill to have as a class skill, and investment in that still is still better than what a Warblade's will save would be without it.

Do the classes need to be improved? I don't think the PF changes actually made any meaningful improvement on the base classes beyond paladin.[/QUOTE]Damage isn't so much the issue as it is getting past CMD for tumble checks, removing old feat taxes and fixing dead levels (if you view these as problems). It's more errata/cleaning up the classes than buffing them, IMO.

The buffs I would recommend giving them.

Swordsage is probably the trickiest, but not hardest. They're just the most adjusted to taste of the player and DM. I think I ended up settling on.
- Level 3: Adaptive Style free feat
- Level 6: Add 1/2 level as bonus to the key skill of one school
- Level 7: Evasion here instead of 9, remove sense magic
- Level 14: Add 1/2 level as bonus to the key skill of a second school

Warblade is easiest: Just move the bonus feats off the odd levels and onto even levels, and adjust the stance progression
- Stances at level 1, 5, 11, 17 (instead of level 1, 4, 10, 16)
- Bonus feats at level 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 (instead of level 5, 9, 13, 17)

Crusader is probably the hardest if you want to give it new abilities. I'm just not sure what to give it.
- Give a strong will save bonus (in line with every other divine(ish) character)
- Crusaders gain stances at 1st, 3rd, 9th, and 15th level
- Gain proficiency with tower shields.
- Level 11: Stalwart (as Inquisitor Ability) replaces Mettle
- Level 12: Smite 2/day Level 18: Smite 3/day
- level 13: Zealous Surge 2/day


Probably because the copyright has expired in the intervening years.
Or so they say... (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110531/02515814477/confusing-case-lovecrafts-copyrights.shtml)

Anyway, they don't have Cthulhu there. Shoggoths, yes, and a few other folks, but not the big C or A.Well, if the picture isn't evidence (and I see why it wouldn't be), can we take their word for it.


Paizo (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8yop/discuss?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Bestiary-4-Hardcover)
This collection of creatures shatters all past thresholds of danger and destructiveness with phenomenally powerful beings like demon lords, kaiju, juggernauts, and Great Old Ones—including invincible Cthulhu!

[Randomocity132]

Realistically there's no reason that you should have to abandon your 3.5 sources just because you start using Pathfinder, they're highly compatible.

My recommendation would just be to see what each offers you that you like and cherry pick your favorite stuff from each, and then talk with your group and figure out what stuff from what source your group wants to use.

Pretty much this

[137beth]

This would be a nerf for Diamond Mind; level checks don't get the +3 class skill bonus and are harder to boost. A common suggestion is to bring in the Autohypnosis skill; the 3.5 psionics guys rewrote psionics for Pathfinder as well, though it's officially considered third party.
Autohypnosis! That had not occured to me, but it is a nice idea, with the drawback (as snowbluff mentioned) of making the class somewhat more MAD. One method I considered was to introduce some of those methods to boost DM-concentration (but not Vancian concentration). It is a somewhat inelegant solution, though, because you are basically introducing a lot of new items and feats that do stuff that was already doable in 3.5.
A much simpler solution (that I use) is to introduce a new skill: Battle Focus. It does what concentration did before, but is not useful to Vancian casters (I liked the elimination of concentration as a skill for casters, because skills are easy to pump up really high. I'm much less worried about initiators getting high concentration than I am about casters).
Hmm, I suppose you could just use autohypnosis, but allow Warblades to supplement their CON bonus for their Wisdom bonus for autohypnosis checks...(which is basically the same effect as a new skill).

[navar100]

Do the classes need to be improved? I don't think the PF changes actually made any meaningful improvement on the base classes beyond paladin.

Barbarians can do interesting things while raging instead of just only "Hulk smash".

Fighters can swap obsolete feats for more useful ones and don't suck for wearing heavy armor.

Rogues get talents from level one.

Rangers care about terrain and optionally share their favored enemy trick.

Monk's flurry of blows now works and can get better stuff, in some people's opinions, via archetypes. Hungry Ghost and Qingong are the most popular.

Clerics can heal multiple people at a range putting less need on spells and wands. They are less of a heal-bot by virtue of easier healing.

Wizards and Sorcerers get class features they would have to give up if going into a prestige class. Going into a prestige class becomes a true choice instead of a no brainer.

Druid wildshape is now a buff instead of a replacement. Warrior-type druids need to care about their physical stats when not wildshaped.

Yes, Pathfinder made a lot of meaningful improvements to the base classes.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by JusticeZero
It's a bit like having a professional fisherman come dragging home covered in fish slime and saying "Yay, it's time for your vacation! Let's go rent a boat and go fishing!"

I can more or less grok where you're coming from...but still, there's something to be said for pressure-free browsing.


Originally Posted by JusticeZero
...and I have to be able to move residences across large distances as needed.

This is great for access to a broader selection of used bookstores.

:smalltongue:



Originally Posted by Kudaku
Well, most of the PF classes got a big boost compared to the 3.5 versions - the only class I think got genuinely nerfed is the druid.

For instance I can't imagine anyone wanting to play the 3.5 paladin over the PF paladin, especially if they have equal access to 3.5 books.


Originally Posted by Snowbluff
Do the classes need to be improved? I don't think the PF changes actually made any meaningful improvement on the base classes beyond paladin.

Well, clearly there's some difference of opinion here.

Can anyone point me towards a handy, side-by-side comparison of the 3.5 and PF base classes? I remember looking at the PF ranger and not being especially whelmed one way or the other.

.

[Squirrel_Dude]

PF Ranger changes from 3.5 ranger

- d8 to d10 hit dice
- Combat Style Feats at level 2:
3.5 Archery: You get Rapid Shot. You need not meet prereqs
PF Archery: You get Far Shot, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, or Rapid Shot. You need not meet prereqs.

3.5 TWF: You get TWF. You need not meet prereqs
PF TWF: You get Double Slice, Improved Shield Bash, Quick Draw, or TWF. You need not meet prereqs

Additional Combat Style Feats at level 6, 10, 14, 18, as opposed to 6 and 11.
- PF: The total list you can draw from for archery*: You get Far Shot, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Manyshot, Pinpoint Targeting, Shot on the Run You need not meet prereqs.
- 3.5 Archery gives you Manyshot and Improved Precise Shot.

*This list has expanded as more books have been published. The Ranger has also been given an increased number of fighting styles to choose from.

- Animal Companion: Ranger is treated as having Ranger Level-3 instead of 1/2 Ranger level for the purpose of Animal Companion


- PF Rangers gain new Favored Terrain ability
- PF Rangers gain new Quarry and Improved Quarry abilities
- PF Rangers gain Improved Evasion

- Camouflage now works in any of the Ranger's favored terrains (urban, for example)

- Hide in Plain Sight now works in any of the Ranger's favored terrains (urban, for example)

- PF Rangers gain Master Hunter Capstone ability.

[Palanan]

Cool, thanks for the rundown there.

Has anyone done this sort of point-by-point comparison for all the base classes? I'm mulling a switch to Pathfinder myself, and a detailed comparison would be really helpful right now. I'm sure it's out there somewhere....

[Squirrel_Dude]

Cool, thanks for the rundown there.

Has anyone done this sort of point-by-point comparison for all the base classes? I'm mulling a switch to Pathfinder myself, and a detailed comparison would be really helpful right now. I'm sure it's out there somewhere....Yes.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890

To agree with Kudako below me; the Paladin and Sorcerer are universally agreed upon to be superior to their 3.5 versions. The Druid is worse. The ones most debated are probably the cleric, rogue, and bard.

[Kudaku]

Well, clearly there's some difference of opinion here.

Not on the paladin!

Saph wrote a guide when PF first came out comparing the new and old classes. It's a little out of date at the moment since it was written in 2010 and PF has had a lot more content released since back then, but it gives you a decent idea:

Saph's 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7607321)

One thing you should keep in mind is that Saph are comparing the two classes based on the merits of their respective systems - speaking very generally PF classes tend to benefit more from accessing 3.5 content than 3.5 classes benefit from accessing PF content.

[pres_man]

Here is something I posted a couple years back on my personal view of why I choose 3.5 over PF.
==============================
*PF didn't fix any problems with the system, it just gave a different version.
*Cleric armor proficiency, reach on spiked chain, improved natural attack not working with monk's unarmed strike, monsters shouldn't be played as characters, etc. all show a design viewpoint that I don't agree with.
*Needless changes that just cause added confusion.
*Necessity to purchase table full of new books to be used in the group, can't mix 3.5 PHB with PF Core book.
*Core book is too large, too expensive, and has binding issues (not really a reason not to switch but just an area of concern).
*3.5 isn't "missing" anything that PF gave. Frankly 3.5 isn't leaving me feel missing anything anyway.
*Gimped many feats and combat options.
*3.5 SRD is free and irrevocable, so don't need official books in print to keep new players with the rules.

That's a few things off the top of my head. I don't have a problem with PF, and if anyone is totally new and wants to know what system they and their group should probably try, I'd recommend PF. For myself, I didn't give up 3.5 for WotC, and I have no interest in giving it up for Paizo.
=============================
A couple of things I would now add:

*I would add strange FAQ rulings and diagonals not working for reach weapon wielders.
*No "simple" classes. Each class has a bunch of fiddly little game choices which if you don't want to spend hours looking through, gets kind of annoying. (Sometimes I feel like Two-Face in Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth with the Tarot deck. Just give me my coin back.)

[Palanan]

Aha! Very interesting, and thanks to you both for the comments and links. I knew I'd seen Saph's thread from a while ago, just couldn't recall who had written it. (Or, you know, anything else.)


Originally Posted by Squirrel_Dude
To agree with Kudako below me; the Paladin and Sorcerer are universally agreed upon to be superior to their 3.5 versions.

This, right here, makes me want to start flipping through the CRB.


Originally Posted by Kudaku
...speaking very generally PF classes tend to benefit more from accessing 3.5 content than 3.5 classes benefit from accessing PF content.

That's a very useful insight for someone like me, who's not familiar with PF content at all. Can most of the 3.0/3.5 feats be ported in without any trouble?

I'm thinking in particular of the feats from all the Forgotten Realms supplements, since I have quite a few of those. (As well as a sappy soft spot for FR material....)

[Kudaku]

One of the things I personally love about Pathfinder is archetypes. I'm not sure if you're familiar with them, but they really allow you to customize and personalize your character right from the get-go instead of waiting for the right prestige class at level 5. Archetypes and the PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) (pretty much every single pathfinder book released has its rules uploaded here) are some of the reasons why I personally could never imagine going back to 3.5.

As for feats...
I'm not terribly familiar with the FR supplements, since I haven't played in FR in a good number of years. That said, I'd take a look at things being implemented instead of just throwing the doors open for my players, but most stuff can be transferred with a little work.

A different thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=294633) today asked if there was an "extra smite" feat in PF, and if you could use the 3.5 feat as a replacement if there was no such feat.

The 3.5 Paladin's smite evil counted for a single attack, gave charisma to +AB and level to damage. Extra Smite gave you an additional two uses, which wasn't really a big deal.

However the PF paladin's smite lasts for a full encounter, and gives him charisma to +AB and +dam vs target, as well as +AC vs the target. It is a very powerful class ability and most paladins consider carefully when to expend it, since they only get one use every three levels past lvl1.

Allowing Extra Smite to give a paladin an additional two uses of Smite Evil would dramatically affect the power level of paladins in combat, since he'd be much more free to use his iconic ability.

In this case I'd probably limit the feat to only give one additional use of the ability, or simply not allow it.

Finally, Squirrel-Dude hits the nail on the head when he brings up the sorcerer - the changes on the sorcerer really lets it come out from the shadow of the wizard and be an independent different class with its own flavor and abilities.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kudaku
One of the things I personally love about Pathfinder is archetypes. I'm not sure if you're familiar with them, but they really allow you to customize and personalize your character right from the get-go....

I've heard about archetypes from time to time, but no clear idea what they are. I'm used to customizing characters with feats, and archetypes sound like another layer of complexity...but even so, they do seem intriguing.


Originally Posted by Kudaku
However the PF paladin's smite lasts for a full encounter.... It is a very powerful class ability and most paladins consider carefully when to expend it, since they only get one use every three levels past lvl1.

I can see why everyone is impressed by the PF paladin. I'm really not used to giving smite a second thought.


Originally Posted by Kudaku
Finally, Squirrel-Dude hits the nail on the head when he brings up the sorcerer - the changes on the sorcerer really lets it come out from the shadow of the wizard and be an independent different class with its own flavor and abilities.

This more than anything makes me want to look into the CRB, even though I've never been especially drawn to the sorcerer. Or maybe because of that: the 3.5 sorcerer has always seemed like the wizard's pale shadow, and it's nice to think the Pathfinder version might offer something more.

[Snowbluff]

Swordsage is probably the trickiest, but not hardest. They're just the most adjusted to taste of the player and DM. I think I ended up settling on.
- Level 3: Adaptive Style free feat
- Level 6: Add 1/2 level as bonus to the key skill of one school
- Level 7: Evasion here instead of 9, remove sense magic
- Level 14: Add 1/2 level as bonus to the key skill of a second school
I would not remove Sense magic. It's useful for taking out traps.



- Gain proficiency with tower shields.
- Level 11: Stalwart (as Inquisitor Ability) replaces Mettle
They are proficient wit hall shields already.

Why change it to stalwart?! :smallconfused:



Barbarians can do interesting things while raging instead of just only "Hulk smash". Nope.


Fighters can swap obsolete feats for more useful ones and don't suck for wearing heavy armor. Numbers. They got numbers. It's so sad I should have ended my post here.


Rogues get talents from level one.
Just plain wrong. And they were nerfed.

Rangers care about terrain and optionally share their favored enemy trick.
Which is actually a nerf.


Monk's flurry of blows now works and can get better stuff, in some people's opinions, via archetypes. Hungry Ghost and Qingong are the most popular.
Monks? Cut that section out of the book, and burn it.

Clerics can heal multiple people at a range putting less need on spells and wands. They are less of a heal-bot by virtue of easier healing.
A buff to the worst role. *slow clap*

Wizards and Sorcerers get class features they would have to give up if going into a prestige class. Going into a prestige class becomes a true choice instead of a no brainer. They didn't need a buff. Backwards game design taken to 11. Additionally, they can get Paragon Surge.


Druid wildshape is now a buff instead of a replacement. Warrior-type druids need to care about their physical stats when not wildshaped.
A nerf, but ultimately makes the class less interesting. Have you read the wildshape rules? I guess a strong druid would also have a fairly high strength compared to a regular melee, allowing them to replace them entirely STILL.

[Kudaku]

I've heard about archetypes from time to time, but no clear idea what they are. I'm used to customizing characters with feats, and archetypes sound like another layer of complexity...but even so, they do seem intriguing.
I'm typing this on my ancient tablet, so I won't be able to provide hyperlinks like I normally do. A google search or a quick look on pfsrd should find whatever I am referring to fairly easily. That also means that I'm eoses to the timeless terror that is auto-correct. Please ignore any typos in the following text:

Archetypes are essentially heavily modified versions of the already existing classes, typically focusing or specializing in a specific aspect of that class. Each archetype replaces a class ability with a different one, or modifies a class feature already in place.

For instance, say you want to play a paladin (seriously, what's with the paladins today) that focuses on archery instead of swordplay. The Divine Hunter archetype allows you to trade away heavy armor proficiency for a bow feat, and gives you class features that focus on ranged attacks at the expense of your melee presence.

A bard who likes the gameplay mechanics of the bard. But isn't crazy about the class fluff could use the Detective Archetype, turning himself into a 1930s **** Tracey-esque private eye for hire.

A cleric who wants to focus on spreading the gospel of his deity might consider the Evangelist archetype, who liberally mixes hard and cleric to create a charismatic preacher of the faith.

There's quite literally dozens if not hundreds of archetypes, so you have options for pretty much any character idea you can imagine.

[Snowbluff]

Archetypes are ACFs.

[pres_man]

Something to keep in mind is that PF developers do not like (1) multi-classing and (2)prestige classing. The archtypes are a way for them to do those ideas by replacing the class features of a base class.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kudaku
Archetypes are essentially heavily modified versions of the already existing classes, typically focusing or specializing in a specific aspect of that class. Each archetype replaces a class ability with a different one, or modifies a class feature already in place.

Aha, thanks. This sounds really cool.

Divine Hunter, in fact, could breathe new life into a concept I've had languishing for a couple of years now. Definitely worth a look.


Originally Posted by Kudaku
That also means that I'm eoses to the timeless terror that is auto-correct.

I can only imagine what "eoses" was before the Elder Evil of Autocorrechthon warped it beyond the farthest bounds of madness.

:smalltongue:

[Squirrel_Dude]

I would not remove Sense magic. It's useful for taking out traps. I never liked it. It just seemed really weird to me.


They are proficient wit hall shields already. I thought they weren't for some reason.


Why change it to stalwart?! :smallconfused:Simply because I don't like having basically the same ability with two names. *notices problem* And I'd make it so the crusader could use it when wearing heavy armor. Or something. I just don't like the tanky class getting the same ability as a less tanky class two levels later

I've also considered giving the class a d12 hit dice, but never really committed to the idea.

[Snowbluff]

I never liked it. It just seemed really weird to me. Woops, its identify. Perhaps it would be more thematic to gibe them trapfinding or detect magic.


I thought they weren't for some reason.
Well, it says 'all shields'... which is really weird and spawned considerable debate. Apparently this would make them proficient with exotic shields as well. :s


Simply because I don't like having basically the same ability with two names. *notices problem* And I'd make it so the crusader could use it when wearing heavy armor. Or something. I just don't like the tanky class getting the same ability as a less tanky class two levels later
How about they can have Mettle 2 levels earlier? Or we just remove Inquisitor. I never liked it.


I've also considered giving the class a d12 hit dice, but never really committed to the idea. Could work. I'd think it makes sense.

[Gavinfoxx]

When D&D says proficient with all shields, they are lying. They mean 'all non exotic shields'.

[navar100]

I would not remove Sense magic. It's useful for taking out traps.

They are proficient wit hall shields already.

Why change it to stalwart?! :smallconfused:


Nope.
Numbers. They got numbers. It's so sad I should have ended my post here.

Just plain wrong. And they were nerfed.
Which is actually a nerf.
Monks? Cut that section out of the book, and burn it.
A buff to the worst role. *slow clap*
They didn't need a buff. Backwards game design taken to 11. Additionally, they can get Paragon Surge.

A nerf, but ultimately makes the class less interesting. Have you read the wildshape rules? I guess a strong druid would also have a fairly high strength compared to a regular melee, allowing them to replace them entirely STILL.

What part of rage powers do you not understand to give barbarians interesting things while raging?

What part of the rules saying fighters can swap feats and don't lose speed for wearing heavy armor do you not understand as more than just giving the fighter numbers?

What part of talent options do you not understand that give the rogue nice things? It's actually from level 2 (my main point was that they get them early instead of having to wait until level 10, but technically true it's not starting at level 1 as I said) so of course they're not as powerful as 3E's level 10+ talents, but they still get them and at level 10 Pathfinder rogues also get more powerful options.

The ranger is the one class I know least about in either edition. However, in Pathfinder they also get improved combat options based on archery or two-weapon fighting.

You not liking the monk does not change the fact Pathfinder offers improved options for it.

If you don't like healing that's your problem, not the cleric's. 3E's spontaneous healing freed the cleric to using his spells as he wishes, but he still needed to use spell slots for the occasional healing spell even if out of combat. Channel Energy means the cleric needs even less healing spells. That is an improvement of his spell-use efficiency.

No, wizards and sorcerers didn't need a buff, but they got them anyway. One complaint of the 3E sorcerer was that there was no need to remain in the class. Sorcerer X/Full Spell Progression Prestige Class Y was always the superior choice than Sorcerer 20. Wizards only gave up bonus metamagic/item creation feats and familiar progression. Giving spellcasters class features does exactly what I said. It's something to give up to go into a prestige class. It's a metagame improvement of the classes.

One complaint of the 3E druid is that it is too powerful. Not only because of wildshaping, but wildshaping is a big deal. Pathfinder nerfed the druid via nerfing wildshaping/polymorphing. The class is less powerful than 3E but still powerful. Pathfinder druid players can no longer dump Strength and Dexterity if they want to utilize wildshaping for combat. This is a metagame improvement.

[JusticeZero]

I've heard about archetypes from time to time, but no clear idea what they are. I'm used to customizing characters with feats, and archetypes sound like another layer of complexity...but even so, they do seem intriguing.They're like 2E kits; they replace certain class features with different ones. You can mix and match them, so long as none of the archetypes try to modify the same feature - an AT that changes "fast movement" can be paired with another that changes many things but leaves "fast movement" alone. The new features come online at the same time as the features replaced would have.

the 3.5 sorcerer has always seemed like the wizard's pale shadow, and it's nice to think the Pathfinder version might offer something more.The PF sorcerer has a lot of distinction from the wizard, and is definitely worth a look. All of this stuff is available at d20pfsrd.com to use. They get bloodline powers roughly every other level that unlocks more spells and abilities based on whatever they get their power from. Wizards get a perk from their specialty instead. Further, the archetypes are different.

[Snowbluff]

What part of rage powers do you not understand to give barbarians interesting things while raging? It's not a matter of understanding Navar-100. It's a problem of these rage powers are not interesting.


What part of the rules saying fighters can swap feats and don't lose speed for wearing heavy armor do you not understand as more than just giving the fighter numbers? Numbers. As in speed. Numbers. As in weapon focus. I don't see how swapping feats as you level isn't something handled better by Weapon Aptitude or proper level planning.



It's actually from level 2 (my main point was that they get them early instead of having to wait until level 10, but technically true it's not starting at level 1 as I said) Finally, the level of factual accuracy from someone we would hope knows something about this game.

At least one rogue power is a nerf to bluff, and the others just suck. Lots of bonus feats and a bunch of redundant abilities.


The ranger is the one class I know least about in either edition. However, in Pathfinder they also get improved combat options based on archery or two-weapon fighting. 'Improved.' Emphasis on the quotes. My actually issue lies with anything being terrain specific. It's bad enough the class has always been boring and stuck being good at fighting a few enemies.


You not liking the monk does not change the fact Pathfinder offers improved options for it.
The monk is a fiasco, and still mediocre. I would even say worse with the loss of 3.5 material.


If you don't like healing that's your problem, not the cleric's. 3E's spontaneous healing freed the cleric to using his spells as he wishes, but he still needed to use spell slots for the occasional healing spell even if out of combat. Channel Energy means the cleric needs even less healing spells. That is an improvement of his spell-use efficiency. Even then, it's not effective. Level 2 you have your wand of CLW and suddenly no one cares.


It's a metagame improvement of the classes. Now class, this is what we call a problem. This person claims the metagame is improved in PF. 'Improving' meaning gutting the value of it. Except that this is the opposite of what you want to do in a game whose sole value is the strong metagame. Giving a class class features would be alright, but let's examine for a moment this next statement.


One complaint of the 3E druid is that it is too powerful. Not only because of wildshaping, but wildshaping is a big deal. Pathfinder nerfed the druid via nerfing wildshaping/polymorphing. The class is less powerful than 3E but still powerful. Pathfinder druid players can no longer dump Strength and Dexterity if they want to utilize wildshaping for combat. This is a metagame improvement.

Now look, it is back. That word improvement. The use of this word represents a lack of understanding on the PF apologist's part. Little does he know that Wildshape is not what makes the Druid a strong class. Furthermore, he even goes as far as to support hypocrisy on his part. The improvement is strangely lacking on the Summoner ACF 'Fused Eidolon.'

There is nothing here. It's terribly insubstantial. Which is pretty why I asked SquirrelDude instead.

[navar100]

What we have here is not objective good/bad but subjective like/dislike. Clearly what Snowbluff hates about Pathfinder I like. He hates the rage powers. I like them. He dismisses fighters being able to change feats as poor planning where as I like that fighters get to be flexible to change feats that become obsolete at higher levels but are good at low levels, such as Cleave and sometimes players are not omniscient and do makes mistakes. Wizards, clerics, and druids get to change their spells prepared. Spontaneous casters get to change spells known, and now fighters get to change feats. Indeed, fighters not being able to change feats is one of the many complaints of 3E fighters. Granted barbarians don't get to change rage powers and rogues don't get to change talents as a class feature if those players make a mistake, but now Pathfinder does have official rules, albeit optional if DM permits, to retrain as 3E did in PHB II in their new Ultimate Campaign book.

[JusticeZero]

You don't like monks. That is fine. PF improves them a little , but not enough to make you like them. That is not a problem with the system, that is you not liking monks.
PF improves cleric healing , even though healing is not a good idea. It doesn't improve it enough to make it good. This is not a problem with PF. Isolated insufficient improvements are not a penalty.

[Perseus]

Here is the scoop. I have A LOT of dnd 3.5 books and stuff, and only the pathfinder core rule book. I heard that pathfinder is just the updated/ better version of 3.5, but I have a lot of 3.5 stuff. Which would you reccomend? Is the difference that big for me to change over?

Ok so I'm probably echoing a few people but...

Don't buy anything new unless you really want some new artwork, all the core rules are online.

Well except for the modules, there are some good ones made by Paizo.

Mix and match the classes as you want, Pathfinder did nothing to fix them so it isn't like you will be missing out on much by using the 3.5 Fighter over the PF Fighter. Do note though that when 2 feats match (3.5 to PF) you should probably allow the 3.5 feat since PF nerfed quite a few options.

I'm in a 3.5/PF game right now and outside of a few minor stuff you can't really tell the difference between the two. The same basic rule still applies, those with Tier 1 capabilities are king. The additional rules and changes still allow for your games to be broken in the same ways as before, some say even easier now.

EDIT: Do note that I'm not even talking about balance between casters and mundanes. But between certain classes and the game itself. If you make a class that has 20 levels then by god you better be able to take that class for 20 levels and be half-assed useful while taking them. The Wizard is king, at any level they can take out an appropriate challenge... The Fighter tops out at level 7 ish and after that... Well they are not even useful for meat shields. I would have less of a problem with this if the game/companies actually acknowledged this the way oh I don't know... 2e did when the Fighter had 10 levels.

[JusticeZero]

I disagree insofar as that I like the PF character classes more. But by and large, it's the same game as 3.5. It's easy to switch to because the material is mainly free online. You don't have to loan out your only copy of your yellowing out of print supplement to someone so they can finish their character. The changes are minor and generally even out to be the status quo, for better or worse.

[Kudaku]

I can only imagine what "eoses" was before the Elder Evil of Autocorrechthon warped it beyond the farthest bounds of madness.

:smalltongue:

I seem to recall that was meant to be "helpless", but the fascist oppression of the ios autospeller compels me to stop using such victim-focused language. Clearly "Eoses" was the superior choice:smalltongue:

It bears repeating that a lot (ie well above 90%) of the rules Paizo have published are also available on the internet, legally, free of charge, on websites like PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) and PRD (http://paizo.com/prd/). That does not mean that the books themselves are not worth buying since they're loaded up with excellent advice, good fluff, and a very very interesting campaign setting. However it means it's very easy to check it out and see if what they've done works for you or not. I'd strongly recommend just looking around for a bit - PRD is probably best for that since the website is organized by book so you can start with the Core Rule Book.
PFSRD compiles EVERYTHING from every book published by Paizo into categories like traits, feats, spells etc, which can be a little overwhelming at first but when you get used to it you really love the searching flexibility.
I simply can't imagine making a character without having access to PFSRD now despite owning PDF or hardcopy versions of a good range of Paizo literature.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kudaku
It bears repeating that a lot (ie well above 90%) of the rules Paizo have published are also available on the internet, legally, free of charge, on websites like PFSRD and PRD. ...I'd strongly recommend just looking around for a bit - PRD is probably best for that since the website is organized by book so you can start with the Core Rule Book.

Okay, excellent. I'm familiar with PFSRD, but I actually had no idea that PRD was out there. It does look far more organized, so I'll need to spend some quality time with that one. Thanks for the link, I really appreciate it.




Originally Posted by JusticeZero
You don't have to loan out your only copy of your yellowing out of print supplement to someone so they can finish their character.

You are a way better person than I am.

:smallamused:

[Darcand]

I switched over to PF for three major reasons.

A. New content. 3.5 is done and dealt with, what you have is what you get. Pathfinder is alive and kicking with new content being churned out constantly. That was a big motivator.

B. Old content. Almost all of my 3.5 swag works with PF with little or no modification. My favorite books are things like Tome of Magic, or Dungeon/ City Scape. These can translate over with almost no effort.

C. Digital content. WotC has long been paranoid about releasing books in .pdf format, Piazo not at all. Now I can pick up primary source material at half- quarter price and upload it to my kindle. Paired with character sheet and dice roller aps, what used to take a backpack now takes a pocket and means I'm ready to play any time, any place and I have my entire PF library with me. (And when you order a hardcover from them, it includes the .pdf download for free. Which is excellent if you really want to own the books, but enjoy the ease of access too.)

C2. Because they offer the .pdf downloads as either whole book, or by chapter you can better organize. I rename mine by subject (i.e. Feats, Core; Feats, UM; Feats, UC ect) for ease of use.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Darcand
...And when you order a hardcover from them, it includes the .pdf download for free.

Is this only with direct orders from Paizo, or does it hold true for an Amazon order as well?

[Kudaku]

Is this only with direct orders from Paizo, or does it hold true for an Amazon order as well?

This is only true for orders from Paizo's own website.