Changing to Pathfinder

[Evandar]

I'm DMing a campaign soon with a bunch of friends from America/England/Scotland. I'm running it from Australia so we'll be using Skype.

The thing is, I've recently decided to look into the Pathfinder material because it kept being brought up on these forums. Has anyone here found their game significantly improved since switching to Pathfinder?

We've been using standard 3.5 for about three years now, and two of our players are going to be completely new to D&D. We'll have three experienced players + myself to walk them through it, but if we use Pathfinder we're all going to have to get used to the new material and explain it to the new guys.

In addition to this, the player from Scotland is blind and playing a wizard, and walking him through the spell list was a painful, painful experience for all involved parties. He won't be able to go through the books on his own either.

In short:

1) Is Pathfinder a significant improvement over vanilla 3.5e?

2) Is it similar enough that we won't have to make massive adjustments to our knowledge of the game?

3) Has anyone had any bad experiences with Pathfinder?

Pstscrpt: If it's relevant, the party will be Barbarian, Rogue, Druid, Wizard, <insert whatever the American player chooses>. Our campaigns are minimally combat intensive, no one except the druid min-maxes (he's that guy) but the group is hugely creative with terrain, teamwork and won't abuse anything in PF to wreck the story because I have been blessed with players that understand everything DMs are scared of and avoid them.

[Alaris]

I'm DMing a campaign soon with a bunch of friends from America/England/Scotland. I'm running it from Australia so we'll be using Skype.

The thing is, I've recently decided to look into the Pathfinder material because it kept being brought up on these forums. Has anyone here found their game significantly improved since switching to Pathfinder?

We've been using standard 3.5 for about three years now, and two of our players are going to be completely new to D&D. We'll have three experienced players + myself to walk them through it, but if we use Pathfinder we're all going to have to get used to the new material and explain it to the new guys.

In addition to this, the player from Scotland is blind and playing a wizard, and walking him through the spell list was a painful, painful experience for all involved parties. He won't be able to go through the books on his own either.

In short:

1) Is Pathfinder a significant improvement over vanilla 3.5e?

2) Is it similar enough that we won't have to make massive adjustments to our knowledge of the game?

3) Has anyone had any bad experiences with Pathfinder?

Pstscrpt: If it's relevant, the party will be Barbarian, Rogue, Druid, Wizard, <insert whatever the American player chooses>. Our campaigns are minimally combat intensive, no one except the druid min-maxes (he's that guy) but the group is hugely creative with terrain, teamwork and won't abuse anything in PF to wreck the story because I have been blessed with players that understand everything DMs are scared of and avoid them.

1) Improvement is debatable. The general power level is higher... they taped up a lot of the exploits (while adding a few). Overall, I enjoy it about on par with the 3.5 games I've played.

2) It is extremely similar to 3.5. Same ability scores, same skills (Well, almost all of them), similar feats, etc. Some things are tightened up, some things are changed (Grapple/Sunder/Disarm/Etc got rolled into one bonus, as opposed to 5 different kinds). You shouldn't have any trouble changing over.

3) None that can't be explained away by poor DMing or poor Players.

Class make-up shouldn't be any issue. The classes are essentially the same (as in, there is an equivalent class, called the same, for all those listed), with some differences here and there for balancing (or IMO, unbalancing for some things).

End of the day, I do recommend the system. It's pretty fun, and similar enough to 3.5 that people can move to it without issue.

[Pluto!]

1. Eh. Some things are better some things are worse. For the most part, the changes favor marginally faster play (unifying combat maneuver rules, standardizing power attack) simpler character builds. Balance doesn't get any better.

2. The overall rules don't change much, so it's pretty easy to grab PF materials and drag them into 3.5 or vis versa, but individual rules do frequently undergo minor shifts. The DM definitely needs to sit down and read everything and be familiar identifying the tweaks that happened in basically every section of the rules, and the players definitely need to be ready to reread and refamiliarize themselves with basic 3.5 carryovers before assuming they work the same way they used to.

A 3.5 group whose rulebooks were mysteriously replaced with PF rulebooks probably wouldn't have any trouble sitting down and playing a game without prior reading. But they probably would be missing dozens of changes in the rules and would probably eventually stumble on some of those incongruities.

3. Nothing that we didn't run into with 3.5. Some races/classes/spells/feats are just better than others, system mastery is very heavily rewarded and the rules are still pretty heavy and cumbersome. It's pretty much the same game with the occasional tweaked formula or shifted detail.

EDIT:
I do slightly prefer PF to 3.5, but I still don't think it's really worth switching systems if you already know and feel comfortable with 3e on the merits of the rule changes themselves. The only reasons I'd switch in that situation would be to take advantage of PF's continuing adventure support or to join a group that already knows and plays PF over 3e.

[Psyren]

1) That depends entirely on what you liked/didn't like about 3.5. In a nutshell, they are very similar, warts and all - the same imbalances exist, the same ability for casters to dominate at most levels, monsters and spells work mostly the same way, etc. For your specific example, Pathfinder will be easier for your player simply because all of the material is freely available on the d20PFSRD, so he can use a browser accessibility plugin to read the rules aloud to him instead of dealing with PDFs or texts.

2) I wouldn't say you have to make big changes (unless you were a fan of polymorph effects in 3.5), no. But there are definitely more subtle changes beneath the surface than there appear to be at first glance.

3) Both of the groups I've converted have loved it and now play it almost exclusively, bringing in 3.5 material on an as-needed basis and defaulting to the PF wording when there is a conflict. Having said that, this again depends on what you liked about 3.5 and didn't like. If you're looking for a balance fix for instance, PF is no better in that regard than 3.5 was.

I recommend you read Saph's Differences guide in my extended sig to start with, as well as the free conversion guide (http://paizo.com/products/btpy89m6?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Conversion-Guide) on Paizo's site. Or just dive into the d20pfsrd (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/home), especially the core class section, and determine if you like what you see there.

[Evandar]

It's not necessarily a balance fix I'm aiming for so much as more interesting abilities and fewer dead levels to all of the classes. It sounds a little bit like Pathfinder is so close to 3.5 that there might be no point making the switch over (or I might just start a regular 3.5e game and gradually slip in the elements from Pathfinder revolving around grappling as I read through them).

My biggest gripe with 3.5 is dead levels on classes, hands down. Totally gross. I always felt like wizards were favored hugely here since they could gain new spells through scribing instead of crying when they got more boring '+ X to Y' bonuses'.

Thanks, Alaris and Pluto. Those were some pretty honest appraisals. :smallsmile: It sounds like it's no quite as amazing as a few people I've been talking to have been hyping it up to be. (I've been going through the books too and largely agree.)

Psyren, that guide was incredibly, incredibly helpful. I think I'm definitely taking the skill system from PF if nothing else. I always thought the fact Fighters got absolutely shafted on skill points was terrible, since there's something special about being part of a complicated plan where the entire party has to contribute their skills. My players really bond over that kind of thing and get the team spirit going.

Making up my mind on this was a lot quicker than I imagined it would be. Thanks very much guys. If anyone else wants to chime in with their experiences with mechanisms or the system as a whole that'd still be cool, since I want to work out what's worth incorporating. Here is a song I really like in thanks. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY1V0Y7hscw)

[Coidzor]

If you're familiar with 3.5, like it, and have any real book access it's probably better to look more at 3.P than to just out and out jump ship.

[olentu]

Since you have players that are familiar with 3.5 I would suggest just sticking with 3.5 and stealing any of the elements you desire from the other system. It saves the trouble of having to learn a bunch of fiddly changes between systems, gives any parts of the new system you feel are good changes, and keeps out any parts of the new system that you feel are bad changes.

[Squirrel_Dude]

About 2 years ago now, my friends and I switched from playing 3.5 to Pathfinder. The decision was partly because I had come into possession of the Core Rulebook and Advanced Player's guide, the readily available content online, and partly some frustration with 3.5. I'll lay out our problems with 3.5 and then explain whether they were addressed when they switched.

1. The regular DM felt that 3.5 too greatly encouraged min-maxing behavior.
Addressed?: Not really. Well, maybe to some degree. I ran the first campaign, and it was obvious that game mastery still had and obvious and potent reward for players who sought it.

2. We wanted martial characters to be better, without having to resort to heaving cross-classing/learning new system. (I did recommend ToB, but the DM didn't have time to learn it).
Addressed?: Kind of. It did, but has done so to diminishing returns over the course of multiple games. There was a game where I joked that a monk was basically the party wizard's summoned creature, waiting on his command to attack the enemy at the right time.

3. Less content that the DM could need to read.
Addressed?: At that time? Good lord yes. We had 3 books, counting the bestiary. There were 4 rules books published at that time. Four. I have to admit, it was a really nice feeling, thinking we had all the rules to the game. There are times where I feel overwhelmed by the great breadth of rules in 3.X games. This coming from a squirrel who likes to maticulously track his character's carried currency's weight.

This is no longer the case, and the girth of the material on the d20pfsrd can sometimes drives me crazy.

4. Rule Simplification was desired.
Addressed?: Yes. Still yes. I like concentration not being a skill. I like CMB/CMD and the new maneuver rules. I like the new skill system. I like that swift and immediate actions were part of the core rulebook. I like the new favored class rules. Do all of these things necessarily have positive impacts on the game? Nope, especially not for martial characters IMO. I don't care because it has made the game far easier for me to mentally process it.

[avr]

Regarding game knowledge, if you do make mistakes based on 3.x rules - and there are enough little changes scattered thru the rules that not even the developers remember all of them - it shouldn't cause any horrible consequences.

[Spore]

It flavors up basic choices and simplyfies the skill and talent system but cuts you off from most 3.5 exclusive feats (which you can port easily). I find it a vast improvement, the only thing definetely hurting it is the poor synergy of casting and non casting classes as well as penalizing people for switching out of their favored class.

[Ansem]

My personal experience is and main argument that I hear for it is that PF is simpler than 3.5.
Combining multiple skills in one some call a god-blessing, I've had plenty of scenarios where it didnt make any sense at all.
But overall PF is perfect for lazy people who feel little for planning characters and getting into prestige or just don't like making such choices.
The fact multiclassing is so heavily penalized by the capstones pretty much forces you go to straight 20 or 10/10 if the prestige has a capstone of equal worth.
Also the power level is much higher, so if you dislike your players going ape**** on the world too soon it might not be the best for you, if you however do like them being superhumans sooner than normal PF is a good change.

[Evandar]

My experienced players have no trouble with Achaea's combat rules and don't argue when something in dispute until after the session unless it's really important. The argument from simplicity would have made a lot more sense a few years ago when we were starting up, but it's really not a concern anymore. I'll have to keep that in mind for running a campaign exclusively with new players.

Also it took me like five minutes to realize what being a 'squirrel' was referring to.

[Feint's End]

One of the biggest improvemenst from 3.5 to PF is that the classes have far more flavourful classfeatures and that's the mainreason I'd choose PF over 3.5 any time of the week (just port the 3.5 stuff you liked over). There are bloodlines for Sorcerors, Specializations for Wizards, Rage Powers for Barbarians, Magi, the amazing improvements in Psionics, etc etc etc .... I could go on for hours but the thing I really dig about PF is that the classes have much more customization in and of themselves.

If you want the standard group (melee, skillmonkey, divine, arcane) the divine and arcane member will probably still be the most useful members but the other two can entirely hold their own and even without dipping around they will at least be decent at all levels of play and good in the role they have.

PF made other great changes too like simplifying the skillsystem (something I like because I'm a big fan of skills and if there are less you get more for your points) also the removal of crossclass.
One thing that gets not enough credit is how they solved multiclassing ... In general it's a bad idea to force players into doing something (as 3.5 did with the multiclassing penalty). Pathfinder solved it in a very intelligent and effective way. They gave players a reason to stay in one class and rewarded them for doing it. Sure ... you could always dip around but you will loose some stuff for doing it and it won't make you a much stronger combatant. Maybe if you have a certain build in mind it will help you but it's overall quite well balanced.
Also the good classfeatures are not so frontloaded in PF *hustel* Spirit Lion Totem *hustle* what makes dipping somewhat of pointless (except for when you need a specific build).

Overall I can just fully recommend PF to everybody and I'd take it over 3.5 anytime .... just add the stuff you loved from 3.5 on top of it and you got yourself a game.

[Prime32]

If you want the standard group (melee, skillmonkey, divine, arcane) the divine and arcane member will probably still be the most useful members but the other two can entirely hold their own and even without dipping around they will at least be decent at all levels of play and good in the role they have.Just note that combat maneuvers are less effective than in 3.5 (PF gives you 50% more feats but you have to take two feats to use them properly rather than one; flying creatures are immune to trip instead of being knocked from the sky), and while sneak attack works on more creatures it's also harder to set up (Tumble DCs are much higher, you can't sneak attack with splash weapons, grease and [ring of] blink don't enable it).


Also the good classfeatures are not so frontloaded in PF *hustel* Spirit Lion Totem *hustle* what makes dipping somewhat of pointless (except for when you need a specific build).Y'know, except for Synthesist Summoner. :smalltongue:
(weaker than a regular summoner, but that 1 level can be a godsend)

[Feint's End]

Y'know, except for Synthesist Summoner. :smalltongue:
(weaker than a regular summoner, but that 1 level can be a godsend)

eidolon suck without additional levels -,-

as for combat maneuvers and sneak attack. I agree that combat maneuvers make some things harder (like tripping) but it wasn't really that realistic in 3.5 to start with so yes .... it is worse in PF.
And about sneak attack .... I never said the skillmonkey should be a rogue (Which do suck in PF but mainly because of the trapfinding skills) ... should be a Cryptic

[Coidzor]

I agree that combat maneuvers make some things harder (like tripping) but it wasn't really that realistic in 3.5 to start with so yes .... it is worse in PF.

And about sneak attack .... I never said the skillmonkey should be a rogue (Which do suck in PF but mainly because of the trapfinding skills) ... should be a Cryptic

What are you saying here? :smallconfused: Do you think Tripping is too easy and OP in 3.5 or something? Or are you bringing up the difficulties with tripping in 3.5 as justification that it somehow mitigates at least partially what they did in PF?

No, they just suck in that case. It's a pretty **** poor argument to say that they wouldn't suck if one were forced to take one along in order to deal with traps at all.

[Psyren]

It's not necessarily a balance fix I'm aiming for so much as more interesting abilities and fewer dead levels to all of the classes.

If that's what you want then PF definitely wins. Almost no class has dead levels at all - even the casters like sorcerers that have gaps on their table are still getting new spells.

[Coidzor]

There's some changes which are rather hit and miss, the Bard especially has things given to it and things taken away at the same time.

There's a couple of guides/compendiums people have put together about the changes. Saph did one earlier on, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890) and this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=284344)is a bit more recent.

[Psyren]

Ah, I remember that second one - it was like pulling teeth to get them to include positive changes. Sigh.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Ah, I remember that second one - it was like pulling teeth to get them to include positive changes. Sigh.Ah... that was fun. In a way. Looking back, I dislike that new rules were discussed in the thread, as they don't really have to much to do with the shift to Pathfinder. Especially traits, which are technically an alternate set of rules (that everyone uses).

On and On-topic tangent from that point: There are quite a few interesting alternate rules in Pathfinder. Wounds and Vigor/Traits/Hero Points, etc. Some are basically ubiquitous with Pathfinder tables (traits). I would seriously recommend avoiding some of them (Armor as DR). However, it would probably serve you well to at least look through a few of them, and see if they can add anything to your games, either in 3.5 or Pathfinder.

[genericwit]

Here's what I like about pathfinder: although there's less massive variety of source material (compared to 3.5), you need to do a lot less to make your character powerful. That is, it's much simpler to build a fun, effective character.

Sure, you can still comb over every source looking for exploits and make a game-breaking character, but instead of spending hours trying to build the ultimate uber-charger, for example, you can just slap on power attack and have fun with the rest of your feats (because there *is* no uber-charger, but melee classes get lots more fun stuff).

Plus, streamlined skills are awesome. No more do you have to spend skill points on hide AND move silently, or god forbid, search AND spot AND listen.

[Coidzor]

Ah... that was fun. In a way. Looking back, I dislike that new rules were discussed in the thread, as they don't really have to much to do with the shift to Pathfinder. Especially traits, which are technically an alternate set of rules (that everyone uses).

Traits seem like they've just been adopted into being part of the baseline rules in a way very similar to the way that no one uses multiclass experience penalties in 3.5. Perhaps more so.

I'd forgotten they were an alternate set of rules, actually. Especially given the language used in the adventure paths, at least for Kingmaker and Skull and Shackles, they used fairly definitive language that assumed traits were default set to on.

[Snowbluff]

Ah, I remember that second one - it was like pulling teeth to get them to include positive changes. Sigh.

What? There was quite a few things marked positively. How blind do you have to b-

You know what? Forget it.

Here are my thoughts concerning PF. Summarized for the sake of sanity, as I could fill a splatbook with everything.

In general: Most of my issues are with mechanics rather than the classes.

Skills: Consolidated skills (Hide + Move Silently = Stealth) are good. However, we still have a ton of knowledge skills that could have been consolidated.

How Cross-class skills work is really bad. Having a good skill list is never worth choosing one class over another. Wizards, with their large Int modifiers, are now the best skill uses. They get to roll twice, thanks to their familiars.

CMB/CMD: Meh. I liked 3/4 maneuver users in 3.5. Those are dead bow. Additionally, classes that are expected to frontline (Magus, for example) are more vulnerable to being tripped for no reason other than lack of foresight.

Also, most of the feat chains for these were expanded for no additional bonuses. This is bad.

Monks: Monks are in the game. Also, they counts as having full BaB for everything but having BaB.

Fighter: At least I was okay with fighter in 3.5, but the "changes" are pretty offensive. The important thing you need to know is that they got flat, numeric bonuses. They can swap out feats now, but "Combat" feats are not as good as they used to be.

Gunslinger: Lousy Gun Rules, for a lousy class, that can deal absurd damage, but is finicky. Grit points suck. I like the idea, but at level 11 you take a feat, and you'll never spend a grit point again.

Polymorph: Give flat bonuses.

Druid: Boring now. Wildhsape now gives a few boring bonuses, and is incredibly boring.

Summoner: PF's Druid. Only so much fun for how much it conflicts with the PF design philosophy. Be a powerful conjurer, and you get a minion capable of making your fighter look bad. Synthesist is cool, because you make your bad physical stats go away, which is the opposite of how all of the polymorph style effects happen in game.

Rogue: Play a bard. Seriously.

Classes in general: The bases are stronger (higher HP, more stuff), but I prefer later 3.5 design over old, rehashed 3.5 classes. Fortunately, Dreamscarred Press (They hate you less than Paizo does, and are far more competent) is making these classes for PF. Backport them to 3.5.

Casters are way stronger than mundane types in this system, even more so that later 3.5. It's kind of like core 3rd edition in this respect.

Archetypes: These are ACFs, despite Paizo's insistent terminology. Since multiclassing/PrCs are less supported, you have to play Paizo's versions of class, rather than your franken-characters who have the class features you want them to have.

[Psyren]

What? There was quite a few things marked positively. How blind do you have to b-

You know what? Forget it.

You do realize the initial incarnation of that thread had no blue ratings at all, right? I was there on page 2, you weren't, so your insulting cut off quips are not appr-

[peacenlove]

3) Has anyone had any bad experiences with Pathfinder?

Not bad per se but the hunt for the small changes if you are an 6 year 3rd edition DM can be taxing to a table. Especially since every week a new ruling gets changed.

Monsters set the bar higher in optimization and are "harder" but atrocities like elemental weirds/adamantine horrors do not exist.
Dragons are more lethal in general for example.


If you're familiar with 3.5, like it, and have any real book access it's probably better to look more at 3.P than to just out and out jump ship.

+1. You can't just give up upon tons of options and years of development.

[HylianKnight]

1) Is Pathfinder a significant improvement over vanilla 3.5e?

2) Is it similar enough that we won't have to make massive adjustments to our knowledge of the game?

3) Has anyone had any bad experiences with Pathfinder?


1) If by Vanilla 3.5, do you mean Player's Handbook only? Cause if so, then oh god yes. If anyone tries to tell you otherwise, than they must not play PhB only, or else only ever play Druids, Clerics, or Wizards. If you like the thought of the Fighter being an actual class, Paladins not being a laughable atrocious design, and Sorcerers not just being lesser Wizards, than you want to try this out. Every single class, besides the Cleric and Wizard, have a MUCH better design. Every single class actually get options. In 3.5 classes, if you wanted to customize your specific character through his class abilities, you had to be caster. Now Rogues get talents, Sorcerers get bloodlines, Fighters get to choose weapon and armor training, every single class with an Animal Companion or a Familiar gets at least one non-animal option.

It's not about the classes being stronger, it's that they're much. better. designed. End of story.

The second part of that is that the feat list is soooo much better than PhB. All the good stuff is still there, the terribad stuff is boosted (Toughness now gives you a +2 to Con for determining HP every level), and there are enough feats to support every class and build without having to turn to Source Books like you do in 3.5.

2) Yes! This is key, the language, the rules, the mechanics, it's all the same. Your knowledge of the relative strengths of the characters stay the same (for better or worse, thanks Tiers). The things that did get changed (skill system, combat maneuvers) were done to simplify them. Just download the conversion PDF and it should be easy enough to see.

3). No. This is obviously subjective, but there's no reason why you should have any bad experiences going from strictly-Core 3.5 to strictly-Core Pathfinder.

[Snowbluff]

You do realize the initial incarnation of that thread had no blue ratings at all, right? I was there on page 2, you weren't, so your insulting cut off quips are not appr- I was lurking most of the time. I show up at page 3. A whole page later. Woo~! I even point out some of the good in the system then, with the nifty addition of Aasimar options. Stream points out that feint wasn't nerfed, (www.giantitp.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=16390003) which is a good thing on page one. The only thing your comment would accomplish would be to attack the people criticizing PF, while they were acting reasonably.

[Prime32]

It's not about the classes being stronger, it's that they're much. better. designed. End of story.Even the monk's BAB mechanics?

[Quorothorn]

Ah... that was fun. In a way. Looking back, I dislike that new rules were discussed in the thread, as they don't really have to much to do with the shift to Pathfinder. Especially traits, which are technically an alternate set of rules (that everyone uses).

On and On-topic tangent from that point: There are quite a few interesting alternate rules in Pathfinder. Wounds and Vigor/Traits/Hero Points, etc. Some are basically ubiquitous with Pathfinder tables (traits). I would seriously recommend avoiding some of them (Armor as DR). However, it would probably serve you well to at least look through a few of them, and see if they can add anything to your games, either in 3.5 or Pathfinder.

Out of personal curiosity, why do you view Armor as DR as one to avoid--I should note I am not disagreeing, just curious about your reasons, if you don't mind sharing?

[Coidzor]

If you like the thought of the Fighter being an actual class

Fighter is still not an actual class, it's just much better at faking it as a trap since they plugged some mostly useless things into the dead levels between feats.


Paladins not being a laughable atrocious design, and Sorcerers not just being lesser Wizards, than you want to try this out.

Sorcerers and Paladins are pretty much the winners in Core PF.


Every single class, besides the Cleric and Wizard, have a MUCH better design.

Bard's a mixed bag, Wizard's a mixed bag, Clerics are almost completely identical except for the channel energy feature which is, again, a mixed bag, and Druids are just flat-out worse and weirder if you actually stop and look into the animal companion and how it's changed to become even more magic but not really and how they both explicitly allow for its intelligence to be increased and yet this does a fat lot of nothing.

The only real design improvement for Druid is that you can't just dump your strength and dex as a Druid and still be a primary melee due to Wild Shape, so while that might be better that's not "MUCH better design."

The less said about Monks the better, since it's hard to really discuss how they went from being one person's redheaded stepchild to being someone else's redheaded stepchild.


The second part of that is that the feat list is soooo much better than PhB. All the good stuff is still there, the terribad stuff is boosted (Toughness now gives you a +2 to Con for determining HP every level), and there are enough feats to support every class and build without having to turn to Source Books like you do in 3.5.

Someone's already covered it, sure, but you're forgetting about what they did to the combat maneuver feats, especially Improved Trip.

And it's better than the PhB alone, sure, they'd have to be trying actively to mess up there, but it's still not enough.


2) Yes! This is key, the language, the rules, the mechanics, it's all the same. Your knowledge of the relative strengths of the characters stay the same (for better or worse, thanks Tiers).

What? :smallconfused: Seriously? :smallannoyed:

You're blaming the wrong people there, bub. JaronK isn't responsible for how PF is balanced. If you want to blame someone, pick SKR or Jason Buhlman or both.


3). No. This is obviously subjective, but there's no reason why you should have any bad experiences going from strictly-Core 3.5 to strictly-Core Pathfinder.

Not quite that simple, unfortunately, though most of the pain comes from trying to go from playing with the full body of 3.5 at one's disposal to trying to make do with PF.

[Snowbluff]

Even the monk's BAB mechanics?



The less said about Monks the better, since it's hard to really discuss how they went from being one person's redheaded stepchild to being someone else's redheaded stepchild.



I think the issue with Monk is that it's still in the game. :smalltongue:

I do have serious answer for number three, though. Our rogue keeps complaining he sucks in my level 4 group. I am having a blast with my huge KD ratio as a synthesist, but our switch hitter ranger keeps getting downed. Our bard is doing alright.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Out of personal curiosity, why do you view Armor as DR as one to avoid--I should note I am not disagreeing, just curious about your reasons, if you don't mind sharing?There are a couple obvious pitfalls in the rules.

1. Mundane armor is bypassed by every magic weapon and large creature in the game. In other words, Magic Weapon and enlarge person make all armor pointless. Yay for a level 1 buffs with min./level duration making that 1,500 gp plate armor dead weight. :smallmad:

2. That creatures of a certain size bypass the DR/Armor, and not that creatures of a certain size greater than the wearer of the armor bypasses the DR/Armor. This means that a large creature can bypass the DR of mundane armor on any creature of any size.

3. You know how rolling critical confirmation can be kind of tedious, but at least it's simple? The Armor as DR writers decided it would be brilliant to make that something the enemy rolls a check for, with their DR, Dex, Shield, and Deflection bonus as modifiers. The check is against a DC based on 1/2 your BAB, to hit roll, your character's size, and the number of critical feats that you have.

So critical threats are basically opposed rolls where both sides use different modifiers. Because.

[Quorothorn]

There are a couple obvious pitfalls in the rules.

1. Mundane armor is bypassed by every magic weapon and large creature in the game. In other words, Magic Weapon and enlarge person make all armor pointless. Yay for a level 1 buffs with min./level duration making that 1,500 gp plate armor dead weight. :smallmad:

2. That creatures of a certain size bypass the DR/Armor, and not that creatures of a certain size greater than the wearer of the armor bypasses the DR/Armor. This means that a large creature can bypass the DR of mundane armor on any creature of any size.

3. You know how rolling critical confirmation can be kind of tedious, but at least it's simple? The Armor as DR writers decided it would be brilliant to make that something the enemy rolls a check, with your DR, Dex, Shield, and Deflection bonus as modifiers. The check is againstagainst a DC based on 1/2 your BAB, to hit roll, your character's size, and the number of critical feats that you have.

So critical threats are basically opposed rolls where both sides use different modifiers. Because.

First of all, thanks for the reply.

Second of all...wow. :smalleek: That, uh...that seems much worse than the 3.5 version of an Armor as DR alternate rule, which if nothing else is rather straightforward.


Fighter is still not an actual class, it's just much better at faking it as a trap since they plugged some mostly useless things into the dead levels between feats.

Bravery kind of gets on my nerves. It reminds me of the Swashbucklers "Grace" 'class feature' from 3.5, in that it's handily outdone by just having the decency to posses a good save progression. Its only 'decent' point is how it functions as ACF trade-bait for some actually-interesting options.


Sorcerers and Paladins are pretty much the winners in Core PF.

I agree enough to have essentially ported them into my 3.5 campaign (though I also gave the Paladin better casting, which I think may have been going too far...)

[Psyren]

I was lurking most of the time. I show up at page 3. A whole page later. Woo~! I even point out some of the good in the system then, with the nifty addition of Aasimar options. Stream points out that feint wasn't nerfed, (www.giantitp.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=16390003) which is a good thing on page one. The only thing your comment would accomplish would be to attack the people criticizing PF, while they were acting reasonably.

Stream was not the OP. The guide is in the OP. Before I posted, the "guide" was purely negative. So I stand by what I said.

[Snowbluff]

Stream was not the OP. The guide is in the OP. Before I posted, the "guide" was purely negative. So I stand by what I said.

You are right about the guide sounding negative originally (I'll admit when I am wrong), but you didn't have to pull teeth anywhere. Larkas went to great lengths to facilitate you are the other people in that thread who took issue with the guide. I think he deserves better. :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

You are right about the guide sounding negative originally (I'll admit when I am wrong), but you didn't have to pull teeth anywhere. Larkas went to great lengths to facilitate you are the other people in that thread who took issue with the guide. I think he deserves better. :smallsmile:

...fine, maybe I was a bit hyperbolic.

[TuggyNE]

...fine, maybe I was a bit hyperbolic.

As long as you're not hypergolic everything's good. :smallwink: