"3.P" What PF elements are worth backporting into 3.5?

[Firechanter]

Greetings, Good Fellows

Let me be brief: I don't want to switch my gaming entirely to Pathfinder. Actually I've joined a couple of existing PF games and that's enough; the more I deal with PF the more it annoys me. So for now and in future, I will continue to prefer 3.5 as basis and offer to DM only 3.5 games.

However, PF may have _some_ elements that are worth using in a 3.5 game. I'd like to hear your opinions about what's recommendable.

What we've used for years is the PF feat progression, i.e. 1 character feat every odd level, but of course not chosen from the useless castrated PF variants, but the proper 3.5 stuff.
[Note that I don't allow Flaws.]

Other elements that I'm _considering_, but haven't made a call:

* PF Races, i.e. floating +2 bonus for Hoomins and HElves, an extra +2 fixed stat for most other races. (Half-Orcs I'd set at a fixed +2 Str)

* Skill Subsystem:
-- consolidated skill list
-- 1:1 purchase rate regardless of class list, +3 Trained bonus for class skills

* Traits: I think these are a nice touch; great way to get some important skills Trained.

* certain Classes, particularly Fighter, Paladin, Ranger.
Note that I do not only allow but encourage use of ToB.

* the few feats that are worth it, such as Deadly Aim.

What I'm definitely NOT adopting is the Combat Maneuver system. I find that just lame and boring, because regardless of what you do, everything feels the same. So I'm sticking to the good old Special Attacks here.

So now I'd like to hear your opinions and experiences -- which of these would you like to use (or do use) in 3.5, and which would you rather stay away from?
Any other elements that I missed? Go ahead, expand my knowledge!

[questionmark693]

The consolidated skills, such as stealth, perception, etc.

[TheIronGolem]

You may not like Pathfinder's manuevers in general, but I'd still recommend you import the Dirty Trick maneuver (even if you call it something else). It's a good general catch-all for unconventional things like "I try to pin the guy to the floor by driving my sword through his boot" or "I yank the cultist's hood down over his face to blind him".

Also, Dodge. Pathfinder didn't buff it enough (I think it should scale with BAB or maybe Ref save), but it's still better than 3.x's "only against one target" version.

[eggynack]

You may not like Pathfinder's manuevers in general, but I'd still recommend you import the Dirty Trick maneuver (even if you call it something else). It's a good general catch-all for unconventional things like "I try to pin the guy to the floor by driving my sword through his boot" or "I yank the cultist's hood down over his face to blind him".

The feat chain should probably be consolidated a bit, or the base maneuver should have its action lowered. The way it is now, the whole maneuver just puts you on the wrong end of the action economy as is. It's a cool idea though.

[Asteron]

Greetings, Good Fellows

Let me be brief: I don't want to switch my gaming entirely to Pathfinder. Actually I've joined a couple of existing PF games and that's enough; the more I deal with PF the more it annoys me. So for now and in future, I will continue to prefer 3.5 as basis and offer to DM only 3.5 games.

However, PF may have _some_ elements that are worth using in a 3.5 game. I'd like to hear your opinions about what's recommendable.

What we've used for years is the PF feat progression, i.e. 1 character feat every odd level, but of course not chosen from the useless castrated PF variants, but the proper 3.5 stuff.
[Note that I don't allow Flaws.]

Other elements that I'm _considering_, but haven't made a call:

* PF Races, i.e. floating +2 bonus for Hoomins and HElves, an extra +2 fixed stat for most other races. (Half-Orcs I'd set at a fixed +2 Str)

* Skill Subsystem:
-- consolidated skill list
-- 1:1 purchase rate regardless of class list, +3 Trained bonus for class skills

* Traits: I think these are a nice touch; great way to get some important skills Trained.

* certain Classes, particularly Fighter, Paladin, Ranger.
Note that I do not only allow but encourage use of ToB.

* the few feats that are worth it, such as Deadly Aim.

What I'm definitely NOT adopting is the Combat Maneuver system. I find that just lame and boring, because regardless of what you do, everything feels the same. So I'm sticking to the good old Special Attacks here.

So now I'd like to hear your opinions and experiences -- which of these would you like to use (or do use) in 3.5, and which would you rather stay away from?
Any other elements that I missed? Go ahead, expand my knowledge!

I did all of this for the campaign we just started. We did keep the 3.5 class skills part, with the houserule that once it's on your class list it's always on your list. Makes Factotum great for the first level, but so far no one has done that.

It's working out great so far.

[Firechanter]

Yeah, we've played with the Dodge = flat +1AC practically ever since 3.0 came out so that's a given anyway.

Dirty Trick: so I guess I'd roll Improved and Greater Dirty Trick into one feat. I'm not quite sure what kind of check it should require, maybe an opposed Dex roll?

Improved Dirty Trick [General]
Prereq: Int 13, Combat Expertise
You can pull off a Dirty Trick as a Move Action, and it does not cause an Attack of Opportunity. In addition, you get a +4 bonus to your check. An affected target needs to spend a Standard Action to get rid of the effect.

[Ravens_cry]

The Ninja can be atrociously fun. I played it in a Shattered City, a 3.5 Adventue path, and I tended to kill things very well.

[Karoht]

Changes from Pathfinder to bring over to 3.5?
The CMB/CMD system for maneuvers (Trip, Grapple, Bullrush, etc) is either something you love or hate.
Paladin Smite works better in Pathfinder.
Paladin Lay on Hands works better in Pathfinder.
I'm more of a fan of Pathfinder Channelling than I am of 3.5 Turn/Rebuke. But that is just personal preference.
Domain powers are better in Pathfinder IMO.
Bloodlines on Sorcerers is a nice quality of life boost and adds a lot of flavor.
Spell School Disciplines are something you either love or hate in Pathfinder.
Archetypes VS PrCs, I'm personally more of a fan of Archetypes and staying single class really.
Rage Powers on Barbarians provides a lot of customization options, I greatly prefer Pathfinder Barb VS 3.5 Barb.
I'm not entirely sure what is different about Monks from PF to 3.5 but I hear that Monks got a bit better in PF.

That's about all that is coming to mind right now, aside from a few specific spells here and there.

[eggynack]

Archetypes VS PrCs, I'm personally more of a fan of Archetypes and staying single class really.
Why not both? I mean, PF does offer both options, but the power of 3.5's higher power PrC's is quite a bit higher than that of PF's higher power PrC's, so combining the two might create something like an actual choice between them.

[Tad30s]

There is a bunch of teamwork feats in Pathfinder that i usually port.
A mini-robilar's Gambit that allows your allies to AoO when you are struck, to name one.

[Hunter Noventa]

Some of the PF classes and Archetypes could be backported with little effort I imagine.

The PF fighter, for example, is in every way superior to the 3.5 fighter. Sure they still suck compared to wizards, but they are a lot better, what with having class features besides feats.

Rangers too, especially with the alternate combat styles that PF made available.

When it comes to Dirty Trick the disadvantage of having a unified system for unusual combat abilities kind of rears it's head. It wouldn't be fair to make it into a skill check, but maybe an ability check against a flat DC, with the ability used determined by the kind of trick you want to pull? There are examples in the PF version that would work off of both strength and dexterity for example. I'd say either have the player use whichever is higher, or the DM chooses the ability applicable to the trick.

For the DC I'm tempted to say try something unusual, and have the target be the opponent's save bonus. You want to throw sand into someone's eyes? Dex check with a DC equal tot he targets Reflex save bonus. Kidney punch them to make them sickened? Strength check against their Fortitude save bonus.

[Firechanter]

Well, there's no way in hell I'm handing out any new boons to full casters. No, not even to the sorcerer. I've also nerfed the Druid's pet and scrubbed Wildshape, btw.

Also, I won't implement those heavy-bookkeeping micromanaging tweedledees like Rage-rounds or Performance-rounds.

[Karoht]

Well, there's no way in hell I'm handing out any new boons to full casters. No, not even to the sorcerer. I've also nerfed the Druid's pet and scrubbed Wildshape, btw.

Also, I won't implement those heavy-bookkeeping micromanaging tweedledees like Rage-rounds or Performance-rounds.That's your business. Still, you can import the rage powers without importing the rounds mechanics. Same for performances/masterpieces. Again, that's your business.

[Drachasor]

There is a bunch of teamwork feats in Pathfinder that i usually port.
A mini-robilar's Gambit that allows your allies to AoO when you are struck, to name one.

You really need to be more specific about such feats to add, because most of them are awful (as are most PF feats in general).

I like some of the Wizard's Arcane Discovery feats. Feral Speech (let's you talk to animals), Fast Study (more quickly prepare spells), and Forest's Blessing (+1 Level/DC bonus on spells that are also Druid spells). None of them are all that powerful. Staff-like Wand is nice (use your stats and level for wands), but its requirements are silly.

Though I agree that Casters are too powerful. Also, I'm not a huge fan of how PF handled giving casters flavor overall -- and it is horribly imbalanced (some specialists get much, much better things than others, generalists get screwed) -- if I were going to do something similar in 3.5 I'd just give bonus feats that could be spent on Reserve feats or more flavor stuff like Feral Speech (and I'd probably make some more reserve feats since there are so few). Wouldn't really change casters -- and fixing them properly requires completely rewriting the system given their low optimization floor and crazy high ceiling.

[Slipperychicken]

I agree with the classes (fighter, paladin, ranger) and skills.

Consider using PF firearm rules too, if you want guns in your game.
PF's removal of XP costs. The solution itself is rather simple and elegant (5 gold worth of materials per 1 XP), taken from implicit 3.5 mechanics. It also nixes a lot of gameplay and setting problems in 3.5 crafting.
A handful of weapons like the wooden stake, brass knuckles, hook hand, and cestus.
All the "special" arrows, which can make ranged combat more interesting.
Polymorph fixes, so it isn't ludicrously OP.
Some spell-nerfs like those for Web (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/web), Glitterdust (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/g/glitterdust), Solid Fog (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/solid-fog), and Hold Person (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/h/hold-person). The nerfed versions are still worthwhile, but not totally broken anymore.
Differently-flavored versions of the same spell, like Miserable Pity (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/miserable-pity) and Oppressive Boredom (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/o/oppressive-boredom). It can help mix things up a little.




* the few feats that are worth it, such as Deadly Aim.


I'd add PF's power attack (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/power-attack-combat---final) to this, as a replacement for 3.5's version. It's much less prone to exploits, balances with Deadly Aim, and cuts down on decision paralysis. It certainly looks nerfed and useless at first glance, but actually gives a better attack/damage ratio than the 3.5 version.

[Scow2]

Well, there's no way in hell I'm handing out any new boons to full casters. No, not even to the sorcerer. I've also nerfed the Druid's pet and scrubbed Wildshape, btw.

Also, I won't implement those heavy-bookkeeping micromanaging tweedledees like Rage-rounds or Performance-rounds.

Alas, the sorcerer continues to languish in the clutches of being decried as "Tier 2", when it more often than not functions as a Tier 4 or 5 class because of a lack of versatility :smallfrown:

[Drachasor]

[LIST] Some spell-nerfs like those for Web (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/web), Glitterdust (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/g/glitterdust), Solid Fog (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/solid-fog), and Hold Person (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/h/hold-person). The nerfed versions are still worthwhile, but not totally broken anymore.

Nerfed Web is still worthwhile. Nerfed Solid Fog is not. Glitterdust is so-so, but gets some points for being anti-invisibility. Hold Person has not changed as far as I can tell -- and honestly those sorts of spells (binary win/lose basically) are the worst kind -- adding a save every round doesn't really fix it.


Alas, the sorcerer continues to languish in the clutches of being decried as "Tier 2", when it more often than not functions as a Tier 4 or 5 class because of a lack of versatility :smallfrown:

Even most Wizards at most tables aren't Tier 1 or 2, because few people can play them at that level, imho. One of the biggest problems with a number of caster classes is that they have really, really low floors and very high ceilings. This makes it so that quick fixes don't really change anything (nor do minor buffs).

Seems weird that he'd remove Wildshape and nerf the animal companion from the Druid when it has the worst spell list -- while the Wizard and Cleric are left alone I guess? Odd (guess it bothers me the most because Wildshape is a really fun ability, even if you nerf it PF style it is fun). Net change seems to really lean on Druidic summoning.

An odd change PF did is buff Monster Summoning so it is better than 3.5 Summon Nature's Ally, and then nerfed SNA so it is pretty darn awful.

[Ravens_cry]

Going the other way, some feats are worth using in Pathfinder.
Wild Cohort (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a) is nice if you want a mount that can take a hit without being bound to certain classes.

[Talderas]

I'd add PF's power attack (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/power-attack-combat---final) to this, as a replacement for 3.5's version. It's much less prone to exploits, balances with Deadly Aim, and cuts down on decision paralysis. It certainly looks nerfed and useless at first glance, but actually gives a better attack/damage ratio than the 3.5 version.

PF's power attack is a nerf because power attack was the principle method non-tob characters were able to keep up. Attack bonus is cheap to boost and a better ratio doesn't matter when you can easily handle higher penalties for better returns.

[Lord Vukodlak]

PF's power attack is a nerf because power attack was the principle method non-tob characters were able to keep up. Attack bonus is cheap to boost and a better ratio doesn't matter when you can easily handle higher penalties for better returns.
I don't know where you get the idea that attack bonus is cheap to boost, PF power attack is quite superior because the returns are higher and it can also be used with light weapons.

Getting a big boost of damage because you took ten off all your attack rolls is meaningless if it causes you to miss two or three times.

[Ravens_cry]

PF's power attack is a nerf because power attack was the principle method non-tob characters were able to keep up. Attack bonus is cheap to boost and a better ratio doesn't matter when you can easily handle higher penalties for better returns.
By default, it gives better bang for your buck, and it's a lot simpler to use. Instead of a spreadsheet, you just do or do not. There is no Excel.

[Firechanter]

Re Rage Powers: you're right, those might be implemented without the round/day mechanics. I guess I might offer that, then.

Concerning Casters, maybe I should point out that I currently have a revamp in the works there, which needs more playtesting however. One of the implications is that classes like Sorc and Favoured Souls become kinda redundant, so I'm probably kicking them out altogether. Again, not directly the scope of this thread but maybe worth mentioning.
In a standard game, well, maybe the Sorc Bloodlines might be an option. Just not really relevant for me atm. =)

[The Insanity]

I'd rather do the reverse.

[eggynack]

Why not just use both? Neither power attack nor PF power attack is strictly better than the other, and melee guys could always use a buff. Call PF power attack something like mega attack, or flower power attack, or smash face, and allow it to qualify for all things that normal power attack would let you qualify for, and make the relevant alterations to stuff like shock trooper such that it changes based on which version you use. Seems basic enough.

[Slipperychicken]

those sorts of spells (binary win/lose basically) are the worst kind -- adding a save every round doesn't really fix it.

It's far from perfect, but still an improvement over the 3.5 version. If the target gets a save each round, that adds some degree of uncertainty. Unless the target is already adjacent to someone who can CDG him, he still has a chance to get out.

I do agree that save/lose shouldn't be a thing, however.


By default, it gives better bang for your buck, and it's a lot simpler to use. Instead of a spreadsheet, you just do or do not. There is no Excel.

This is what sold me on PF power attack.

With 3.5's version, I found myself using college-level statistics for Power Attack decisions (i.e. maximize expected damage output=E(d) across multiple trials against armor class=Y by changing variable "PowerAttackPenalty"), and then I realized there was something wrong when it took 2-3 minutes to declare a sword swing. It takes a lot less time and effort to eyeball PF power-attack, and that adds value.

[Firechanter]

Little sidetrack:

Concerning melee attacks and damage, there's a paradigm shift between 3.5 and PF.
In 3.5, it's relatively hard to boost Attack, but easy to boost Damage. Power Attack is an excellent way to convert Attack to Damage, and you can stack multipliers on PA and total damage.
In PF, you get lots and lots of Attack bonuses, more than you can shake a stick at, but there's virtually no way to convert the excess Attack to Damage.

[Jeff the Green]

In a standard game, well, maybe the Sorc Bloodlines might be an option. Just not really relevant for me atm. =)

I really like bloodlines, since otherwise sorcerers tend to be rather one-note. I like introducing them as feats, possibly tied to the bloodline feats in DrC.

[Bigbeefie]

Other then skills like you listed I'm a fan of Pathfinder Feat Progression

It will give your players more feats to pick from which also is why I don't have a problem with the combat maneuvers but I do remember them being stronger in 3.5

I recommend using the New Pathfinder Polymorph rules as the 3.5 versions are all OP as ****. Now if you don't care about OP abuses in your game leave them the same but I distinctly remember Taking a GMs scenario he worked on for months and I curb stomped it in 20 minutes flat as a Level 7 Wizard Using Poly-morphs on myself and 2 bags of Holding. (the goal was to travel about town and collect pearls of Evil powers located at certain points. Each time touched would summon something to guard it. I flew about with Alter self looking like a gargoyle. I scooped them up with a bag of Holding not activating the Triggered summons.....After collecting them in 1 bag I threw the other bag inside itself creating the effect of utter chaos destruction summoning the creature who created it. I then Polymorhed into a 7 headed Hydra and In 1 round ate his face. the rest of the group sat there as I collected them and Rolled initiatives on the fight but didn't even get to act as a proper wizard goes first.) Technically we where suppose to cleanse the pearls but I said f-it and destroyed them all out of existence. After the fight the GM was a little peeved and ended the campaign cause I destroyed his plot items.

If you don't want the same kind of Abuse I would use the PF version of Poly morph school spells.


I'm a fan of Pathfinders upgraded Hit Dice to Caster classes like Wizard. And D8 hit dice of Rogues.


I'm also a fan of Favored Class Even if you only use +1 HP or +1 Skill point. It will help those D4 Caster classes if you make them use the old 3.5 class Hit Dice.

Last thing I would Back port would be the new enchantments and magical items. Pathfinder opened up a few new enchants for weapons and a few cool new Wondrous items that players might really enjoy.

[Drachasor]

There are some problems with PF's polymorphing rules.

It can be unclear what abilities things lose, since natural abilities aren't well defined. Can you heal a construct that's been polymorphed into a person? An undead?

You can't turn into Constructs or Outsiders for some reason (alter self no longer is type-based and instead is just humanoids too).

Polymorph Any Object is incredibly incoherent now. It is really hard to tell how it works unless you are just duplicating Greater Polymorph or another spell. Maybe you can use it to polymorph something into a Construct or Outsider...I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. Can you use it to turn people into things smaller than those other spells allow? Bigger? They kept text that indicates you can. Honestly, PF has a lot of problems like this with changed spells that they didn't think through (grease is another example).

[Alent]

Other elements that I'm _considering_, but haven't made a call:

* PF Races, i.e. floating +2 bonus for Hoomins and HElves, an extra +2 fixed stat for most other races. (Half-Orcs I'd set at a fixed +2 Str)

I like most of the race changes, just be advised if you import them you'll have to check each race and remove small size monster advancement traits from some of them, as the team incorrectly assigned monster size alterations to a few of them which... their own rules say you don't do to player characters. :smallconfused:


* Skill Subsystem:
-- consolidated skill list
-- 1:1 purchase rate regardless of class list, +3 Trained bonus for class skills

I'm going to vote against this. I like the complexity of synergy bonuses and first level skill selection. That said, I do like the "once it's on your class list it's always on your class list" change, as I think able learner is a stupid feat tax.


* Traits: I think these are a nice touch; great way to get some important skills Trained.

Traits are nice, I think they're in 3.5, too... at least when my friends made me play NWN2, it had something similar, and I assume it got them from one of the splats. Just make sure to check the traits and make sure they're not a feat in disguise, like the +2 caster level trait. (There's also an ancestral weapon feat in there too, but I'd be more inclined to let that one pass.)


* certain Classes, particularly Fighter, Paladin, Ranger.
Note that I do not only allow but encourage use of ToB.

Then I wouldn't bother with Fighter, Paladin is a coin toss as it has some neat new features, and Ranger has a few good changes. (D10 HD.)


* the few feats that are worth it, such as Deadly Aim.

If you import a couple of feats on the basis that they're good, keep a house copy as PF FAQ update insurance.


So now I'd like to hear your opinions and experiences -- which of these would you like to use (or do use) in 3.5, and which would you rather stay away from?
Any other elements that I missed? Go ahead, expand my knowledge!

I've been told the DSP Psionics update is really good. Someone who's actually had a chance to read and use their stuff in a game should probably say more.

As far as just stuff I like to use, I really like what PF tried to do with making general polymorph subschool rules. I think they threw the baby out with the bathwater in a few ways when it comes to polymorph nerfs in general, but my group was able to come to a few good rulings on things like size bonuses as a result of having a polymorph rule section to reference back to. They don't fix everything, and most of the individual spell nerfs are unnecessary with some of the general rules in place. (Alter self was fine, it was the way creature abilities were marked in the splats that was the problem.)

One thing I'm not sure about, but am considering for my own campaign, PF has a common class feature on most of its classes that lets them apply a temporary enhancement bonus to their weapons just for being level blah. I like the way it makes them stingy DM proof, but with a DM handing out regular WBL it can noticeably end encounters sooner.


An odd change PF did is buff Monster Summoning so it is better than 3.5 Summon Nature's Ally, and then nerfed SNA so it is pretty darn awful.

They wanted people to play Summoner, which is really Druid 2.0.

[Bigbeefie]

Even without being As clear and leaving open to group interpretation it is not nearly as broken as poly morph was in 3.5

Does Pathfinder fix it no....does it at least take a step towards a direction to bring it under control YES.

[BWR]

Personal favorites are:
- the skills
- paladin (we have two paladins in my game - the buggers just won't go down and evil things die so hard)
- fighter (we've ported this one in our 3.5 game already)
- channeling
- fixed races (especially the half-elf)
- favored class options (bonus hp or bonus skill point - the rest isn't that important)
- Combat maneuvers. If you dislike them fine, but they aren't really more same-y than their 3.5 predecessors. The biggest issue is how CMD quickly outsrips CMB.

[Coidzor]

^: And how Tumbling is basically impossible due to the way CMD scales, no?

The ability to use power attack with light weapons. Maybe include a choice between specifying your power attack value or defaulting to the baseline for PF power attack.

Backporting and adapting the power attack equivalent for ranged attacks, Deadly Aim, unless you've already done so by making Power Shot into a feat rather than a function of Hank's Energy Bow.

[KorbeltheReader]

I implemented PF's skill consolidation in my current game, and it's been a smashing success, aside from a few hilarious side effects like the discovery that it makes crocodiles expert jumpers and climbers. I've never once regretted the decision, as it allows the PCs to max the skills they should definitely have and still pick up a couple that round out the character.

Besides, some of the divisions in 3.5 never made much sense. What sense does it make to separate open lock and disable device?

[Coidzor]

I implemented PF's skill consolidation in my current game, and it's been a smashing success, aside from a few hilarious side effects like the discovery that it makes crocodiles expert jumpers and climbers. I've never once regretted the decision, as it allows the PCs to max the skills they should definitely have and still pick up a couple that round out the character.

Besides, some of the divisions in 3.5 never made much sense. What sense does it make to separate open lock and disable device?

Funny (http://youtu.be/0NpsXS8bnHE) Thing About that... (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/02/crocodiles-can-climb-trees/) :smallamused:

Indeed, that is/was a fairly commonly championed houserule, combining those two, IIRC.


Going the other way, some feats are worth using in Pathfinder.
Wild Cohort (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a) is nice if you want a mount that can take a hit without being bound to certain classes.

Definitely requires some adjudication though, even in a 3.5 environment.

[Firechanter]

Note btw that PF consolidates Balance, Jump and Tumble into Acrobatics, but leaves Climb and Swim as separate skills.
We once played with the houserule the Balance plus Tumble was Acrobatics, and Climb, Jump, Swim was rolled into Athletics.

[Ravens_cry]

Definitely requires some adjudication though, even in a 3.5 environment.
How do you mean?

[Alent]

Note btw that PF consolidates Balance, Jump and Tumble into Acrobatics, but leaves Climb and Swim as separate skills.
We once played with the houserule the Balance plus Tumble was Acrobatics, and Climb, Jump, Swim was rolled into Athletics.

This honestly makes more sense.

I guess to clarify, I'm not opposed to simplification, I just like the synergy bonuses between similar skillsets.

[KorbeltheReader]

Funny (http://youtu.be/0NpsXS8bnHE) Thing About that... (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/02/crocodiles-can-climb-trees/) :smallamused:

Vindication!


Note btw that PF consolidates Balance, Jump and Tumble into Acrobatics, but leaves Climb and Swim as separate skills.
We once played with the houserule the Balance plus Tumble was Acrobatics, and Climb, Jump, Swim was rolled into Athletics.

Interesting. I combined the skills the same way but assumed that was what Pathfinder did. I've got multiple players who took ranks in Athletics who would not have put any ranks in separate climb/jump/swim skills.

[Larkas]

I really like some of the new classes. I'd allow the Magus and the Inquisitor just fine, and probably an adapted form of the Summoner: Summon Monster spells only up to VI (SLA up to SMIX is fine, SLA Gate might not be) and a modified version of the Synthesist.

I'd also backport the favored class system, but just the basic one: +1 HP or +1 skill point is a nice touch.


* PF Races, i.e. floating +2 bonus for Hoomins and HElves, an extra +2 fixed stat for most other races. (Half-Orcs I'd set at a fixed +2 Str)

This is a nice one. I usually set Half-Orcs to +2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Cha, though.


* Skill Subsystem:
-- consolidated skill list

I like the consolidation; they way it was consolidated, not so much. I use a different list.


-- 1:1 purchase rate regardless of class list, +3 Trained bonus for class skills

I use this, but I'm not so sure the 1:1 rate is necessary, or even good. Consolidate the list enough and this might not be needed. Just make a class skill count as such regardless of the class you're taking.

Regarding skills, one thing that is nice to backport too is the Concentration skill, or lack of thereof.


* Traits: I think these are a nice touch; great way to get some important skills Trained.

Nice catch.


* certain Classes, particularly Fighter, Paladin, Ranger.

* the few feats that are worth it, such as Deadly Aim.

Yep, that's a nice one too.

[Coidzor]

How do you mean?

Can you get a new one if it dies. Can you select a new one as you level up. Are you stuck with whatever one you select whenever you first gain the feat. How does selecting a higher powered one effect your effective level for bonus HD and other effects. Things like that. I believe there's some other concerns that I am not able to put my finger on offhand though.

[Slipperychicken]

Can you get a new one if it dies. Can you select a new one as you level up. Are you stuck with whatever one you select whenever you first gain the feat. How does selecting a higher powered one effect your effective level for bonus HD and other effects. Things like that. I believe there's some other concerns that I am not able to put my finger on offhand though.

It ought to work like vanilla AC (i.e. pray for 24 hours to get it back), even if RAW suggests something else.

[mephnick]

I'd rather do the reverse.

Yep. Play Pathfinder, port 3.5 stuff.

The gentleman's choice.

[Pex]

The Skill System.

If you use Point Buy, Pathfinder's.

Humans and Half-Orcs get +2 to ability score of choice.

Spell changes.

Negative Levels.

Pathfinder Paladin, all of it, just replace 3E Paladin. At the very least Paladins cast spells based off Charisma.

Channel Energy

Pathfinder Fighter armor training so as not to suck wearing heavy armor.

[Coidzor]

It ought to work like vanilla AC (i.e. pray for 24 hours to get it back), even if RAW suggests something else.

Ought to and does are two different things with depressing frequency, is the thing.

Especially when you're converting from 3.5 assumptions to PF assumptions.

[Firechanter]

I really like some of the new classes.

Yeah, the Magus is alright. Inqui and Alchi, I don't like the meta-mechanics.

I'm a bit unsure about the Favoured Class bonuses. In 3.5, PrCs are an integral part of the class system, and you are never penalized for taking them. In PF, PrCs are discouraged and you are always penalized for taking one. That seems to be pretty irreconcilable.


I like the consolidation; they way it was consolidated, not so much. I use a different list.

I'm interested, would you post your method?


Yep. Play Pathfinder, port 3.5 stuff.

Nah. Paizo has screwed up too much for my liking. For one thing, the last thing Wizards needed was get even more bacon thrown at them. I strongly dislike the CM system. I hate how they keep nerfing mundanes.

In short, I look at both systems and consider which is less work: overwriting all the things that PF made worse with tried and proven 3.5 stuff, or cherry-picking the few things that they got right.

[TuggyNE]

As well as merging PF and 3.5 Power Attack, I suggest merging PF and 3.5 Manyshot. PF's "two arrows at once on one attack per round" mixes much better with full attacks and Rapid Shot, but is kind of horrible for move-and-shoot stuff, and the small power boost from this flexibility is not out of place for archers.

Like one or two others so far, I'm not convinced PF's handling of cross-class skills is the best. Consolidation is fine and desirable, but the way that having a class skill gives you only +3, ever? Not so happy.

[Firechanter]

How would you merge 3.5 and PF Power Attack? PF exchange ratio (3:1 for Two-Handed) and free scaling?

[Calimehter]

As an alternative to PF skill consolidation, I've just added skill points and class skill options to the 3.5 character classes. You get some of the best of both worlds this way IMO - characters get to do more things that their archetypes suggest, and you retain the granularity of 3.5 skill sets if you want to keep them.

My basic setup is as follows:

classes that get 2-4 skill points per level get +2 skill points per level
classes that get 6 skill points per level get +3 skill points per level
classe(s?) that get 8 skill points per level get +4 skill points per level

All characters get the low/middle/high class options presented in Cityscape for purposes of adding some class skills to their list.

Works pretty well.

---------------------------------

Technically, this is off-topic homebrewing, but since PF skill consolidation is being mentioned so often, I thought I'd mention it as an alternative for anyone interested. :smallsmile:

[Zanos]

My opinion:
-Races actually having features
-Classes Actually Having Features
-Feat Progression
-Consolidated Skill List
-LA removal

[Theomniadept]

Things I would port back would be:

Core races. Make everyone just a little bit closer to kobolds in LA +0 power.

Skills. Listen, Search, and Spot didn't need to be separate skills. Open Lock should have been a subset of Disable Device, the same with Gather Information with Diplomacy. Also, no penalties for cross-class skills because that's just limiting nonmagical characters.

Feats: Every odd level makes characters have much more options rather than the sparse 7 feats of 3.5

[TuggyNE]

How would you merge 3.5 and PF Power Attack? PF exchange ratio (3:1 for Two-Handed) and free scaling?

More like allowing you to choose which one you want to use. At low levels there is no reason not to use PF's, but at higher levels you can choose to trade more away at the price of having a reduced return on those additional points of BAB.

Possibly simplify it more, I don't know.

[Coidzor]

How would you merge 3.5 and PF Power Attack? PF exchange ratio (3:1 for Two-Handed) and free scaling?

I'd say the most basic level would be to open up 3.5's version to use with light weapons. The most kludgey level would probably be 3.5's exchange ratio if one chooses to specify the penalty they're taking and reserving PF's exchange ratio for when one uses the default penalty for one's BAB.

The most powerful option is just taking the PF version and giving it 3.5's free scaling, and whether that presents an issue largely depends upon whether a given table has an issue with people choosing to stack PA multipliers to deal ridiculous amounts of damage per hit, but that (to the best of my recollection) would largely just amount to either A. one less feat they take at the end of the combo or B. going from dealing 3x the damage they need to kill something to dealing 4x the damage they needed to kill it in such a case anyway. Although, actually, come to think of it, I think the PF version would prevent using Power Attack with Wraithstrike.

[Larkas]

I'm a bit unsure about the Favoured Class bonuses. In 3.5, PrCs are an integral part of the class system, and you are never penalized for taking them. In PF, PrCs are discouraged and you are always penalized for taking one. That seems to be pretty irreconcilable.

If you stick to the basic +HP/skill, you should be fine. What would you rather do, get +1 HP or go, say, Rogue -> Nightsong Enforcer, or to put things in perspective, Wizard -> Incantatrix? The bonus hit point or skill rank is a minor perk: nice to have, but certainly not enough to tip the balances and make people wonder if they should go dipping/prcing. Keep your distance to the alternative bonuses, though.


I'm interested, would you post your method?

Sure. This is my full list, with the subsumed skills in brackets:

Acrobatics (Dex) [Balance, Escape Artist, Acrobatics]
Athletics (Str) [Climb, Jump, Swim]
Bluff (Cha) [Disguise]
Craft (Int)
Diplomacy (Cha) [Gather Information]
Disable Device (Dex) [Open Lock]
Handle Animal (Cha) [Ride]
Heal (Wis)
Intimidate (Cha)
Investigation (Int) [Appraise, Search]
Knowledge (Int)
Linguistics (Int) [Decipher Script, Forgery, Speak Language]
Mysticism (Int) [Spellcraft, Psicraft]
Perception (Wis) [Listen, Spot]
Perform (Cha)
Profession (Wis)
Sense Motive (Wis)
Sleight of Hand (Dex)
Stealth (Dex) [Hide, Move Silently]
Survival (Wis)
Use Mystic Device (Cha) [Use Magic Device, Use Psionic Device]

Like I said, I don't use Concentration. And neither Fly, that one must die in a fire. To that list, I add stuff as needed (i.e.: Autohypnosis, Martial Lore, Lucid Dreaming, Iaijutsu Focus, etc.). It wouldn't hurt consolidating the Knowledges internally either (i.e.: Geography+Nature, Local+Nobility, etc.).

One minor change that might be useful to backport too is the retroactive increase in skill points when your Int modifier increases. The way it works in 3.5 just adds unnecessary bookkeeping ("when did I increase my Int score again?").

Lastly, one other thing that I'm considering is (as I said previously) keep the cap on cross-class skills, but backport the cost from PF. That is, your cross-class skills still cap at half the max rank for class skills, but they only cost one point per rank to buy, as in PF. That way, you reduce the bookkeeping (the character might get that skill as a class skill later) and the penalty for going cross-class, but still keep the meaningful max rank limitation from 3.5.

Be sure to complement all this with the aforementioned traits, though.

[Slipperychicken]

Like one or two others so far, I'm not convinced PF's handling of cross-class skills is the best. Consolidation is fine and desirable, but the way that having a class skill gives you only +3, ever? Not so happy.

The math works out so you get the same bonus from your skill ranks (level+3). It simplifies skill rank math and lets characters take cross-class skills without being crippled. That way one can have, say, a fighter who happens to be decent at a knowledge skill or two, or a Cavalier who can reliably use a wand.

[Larkas]

A possible compromise between 3.5's a PF's Power Attack: "On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add double that number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed half your base attack bonus, rounded up. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn."

I'd backport this PF sentence, however, to keep it fair to two-weapons styles: "This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls." YMMV, however, as I'm a sucker for symmetry.

[TuggyNE]

The math works out so you get the same bonus from your skill ranks (level+3). It simplifies skill rank math and lets characters take cross-class skills without being crippled. That way one can have, say, a fighter who happens to be decent at a knowledge skill or two, or a Cavalier who can reliably use a wand.

I am aware of how the math works. I do not think it makes sense for entirely cross-class skills. Allowing a straight-classed Wizard Disable Device or Sleight of Hand with no other handicap than a lack of +3 to the skill is silly.

There may be some edge cases like UMD where it's desirable for a modest investment to allow nearly-equal rank investment, but in those cases specific patches like traits are preferable to distorting the whole system.

[Drachasor]

Even without being As clear and leaving open to group interpretation it is not nearly as broken as poly morph was in 3.5

Does Pathfinder fix it no....does it at least take a step towards a direction to bring it under control YES.

Like a lot of things in PF, they take steps to fix something and you get a messy amateurish result. It honestly has a lot of problems. Alter Self into an Elf and you get STRONGER, do it into a gnome and you get more dexterous. The "one size fits all" approach to stat adjustments really has a ton of bizarre results.

I'd take some ideas from PF here, but I'd never just copy their crappy solution.


Even without being As clear and leaving open to group interpretation it is not nearly as broken as poly morph was in 3.5

Does Pathfinder fix it no....does it at least take a step towards a direction to bring it under control YES.

Like a lot of things in PF, they take steps to fix something and you get a messy amateurish result. It honestly has a lot of problems. Alter Self into an Elf and you get STRONGER, do it into a gnome and you get more dexterous. The "one size fits all" approach to stat adjustments really has a ton of bizarre results.

I'd take some ideas from PF here, but I'd never just copy their crappy solution.


I am aware of how the math works. I do not think it makes sense for entirely cross-class skills. Allowing a straight-classed Wizard Disable Device or Sleight of Hand with no other handicap than a lack of +3 to the skill is silly.

There may be some edge cases like UMD where it's desirable for a modest investment to allow nearly-equal rank investment, but in those cases specific patches like traits are preferable to distorting the whole system.

Well, it works out fine if you realize what characters do shouldn't be defined by skills. Probably a good thing to adopt this philosophy. Rogues getting to T3 should be done by giving them ways to use skills that other people don't get. That's my opinion, anyhow.

But if you want a cap, it shouldn't be at half level. It should be something like Level - 2, minimum 1. That gives a -5 penalty compared to people with a class skill, which is significant. It still makes it relevant though.

[Slipperychicken]

Allowing a straight-classed Wizard Disable Device or Sleight of Hand with no other handicap than a lack of +3 to the skill is silly.

A thief-y wizard sounds like a breath of fresh air to me. It's nice to break the mold every so often. Also, such a wizard couldn't disable magic traps.

[Coidzor]

I am aware of how the math works. I do not think it makes sense for entirely cross-class skills. Allowing a straight-classed Wizard Disable Device or Sleight of Hand with no other handicap than a lack of +3 to the skill is silly.

Why? Even if you get rid of the sacred cow of having trapfinding be limited to Rogues and a handful of other classes, what's the big deal?

[eggynack]

Why? Even if you get rid of the sacred cow of having trapfinding be limited to Rogues and a handful of other classes, what's the big deal?
It just makes big skill lists mean less. Thus, classes who once had a big list are now somewhat weaker. It's a thing that applies to trapfinding, sure, but it also applies to any skill that is on this list that isn't on some other list. Which is a lot, if you consider the relative power changes relative to all other classes. It's not the biggest issue, but reduced power from a big list is a thing of some import.

[Drachasor]

It just makes big skill lists mean less. Thus, classes who once had a big list are now somewhat weaker. It's a thing that applies to trapfinding, sure, but it also applies to any skill that is on this list that isn't on some other list. Which is a lot, if you consider the relative power changes relative to all other classes. It's not the biggest issue, but reduced power from a big list is a thing of some import.

It's not that bad, since the guy with the big list is good at a lot of things. Of course, a lot of PrCs show better ways to distinguish someone as great at a skill that don't involve ranks.

Skill Tricks don't hurt either.

It's kind of like if you let a Warrior take Fighter Feats. The Fighter is still loads better because he has so much more. (Yeah I know, they both still suck, but that's besides the point).

[eggynack]

It's not that bad, since the guy with the big list is good at a lot of things. Of course, a lot of PrCs show better ways to distinguish someone as great at a skill that don't involve ranks.

Skill Tricks don't hurt either.

It's kind of like if you let a Warrior take Fighter Feats. The Fighter is still loads better because he has so much more. (Yeah I know, they both still suck, but that's besides the point).
Sure, it's not that bad. It's just kinda bad, which is still some degree of bad. I think it makes a couple of PrC prerequisites in 3.5 kinda awkward as well.

[Drachasor]

Sure, it's not that bad. It's just kinda bad, which is still some degree of bad. I think it makes a couple of PrC prerequisites in 3.5 kinda awkward as well.

Well, that's not what I meant, my mistake. I meant to say it's not bad. Period.

There only classes it remotely affects are ones that are dependent on special access to one or two skills that no one else gets. And that's just bad class design. Those classes already were bad, and they were so bad they made the game worse by distorting the skill system.

But it does highlight some problems with the skill system. Namely that some skills are much, much, much better than others. PF makes some of them even better, like Perception. That bit is problematic, but it is already there.

In any case, if you worry about such things it is easy enough to adjust. Like I said cap non-class skills at Character Level - 2 (min 1). That's more than sufficient for whatever hamfisted uniqueness you feel is necessary.

[TuggyNE]

A thief-y wizard sounds like a breath of fresh air to me. It's nice to break the mold every so often. Also, such a wizard couldn't disable magic traps.

Watch as I blow your mind.

Rogue 1…

multiclassed with…

Wizard 19.

It's a thief-y wizard! WHAT IS THIS SORCERY.

:smalltongue: (Or, in short, multiclassing is good stuff, make it more important and more useful.)


It's not that bad, since the guy with the big list is good at a lot of things.

In PF, the guy with a big list is slightly better at a lot of things. In 3.5, the guy with the big list is a lot better at a lot of things. Pulling the cross-class cap down to 2 or 3 below level helps, and since it's a static penalty instead of a scaling penalty it's probably more sensible.

Skill points/level (which is about half Int, and half class) is also significant, but given the usual low- to moderate-int Rogues and high- to very-high-Int Wizards, their skill points are generally quite close.

[eggynack]

Well, that's not what I meant, my mistake. I meant to say it's not bad. Period.

There only classes it remotely affects are ones that are dependent on special access to one or two skills that no one else gets. And that's just bad class design. Those classes already were bad, and they were so bad they made the game worse by distorting the skill system.
As I noted, it's not just about a couple of unique skills. Some classes don't get all the non-unique skills, and in fact, I can say that for a lot of classes. It's a rule that grants sorcerers diplomacy and UMD, and it's a rule that grants wizards perception and stealth of various flavors. It's a bigger impact than you're claiming, in other words, because while some classes get a big list, other classes get a small list, and within that discrepancy is some loss to the skill monkey capabilities of classes like the rogue. It's not a full loss, but there's something lost there, I think.

[Drachasor]

As I noted, it's not just about a couple of unique skills. Some classes don't get all the non-unique skills, and in fact, I can say that for a lot of classes. It's a rule that grants sorcerers diplomacy and UMD, and it's a rule that grants wizards perception and stealth of various flavors. It's a bigger impact than you're claiming, in other words, because while some classes get a big list, other classes get a small list, and within that discrepancy is some loss to the skill monkey capabilities of classes like the rogue. It's not a full loss, but there's something lost there, I think.

Skill monkeys aren't good in D&D. Wizards don't need stealth. Everyone needs perception because of how the game works. Sorcerers should be able to be good at diplomacy, imho -- why exactly do you think this is so bad? This lets Fighters pick up UMD, Stealth, and Diplomacy if they want too. Is that also horrible? They don't have spells or summons or other things that make these things not matter -- for casters this stuff is just some fun flair they could make irrelevant with magic.

I'd increase the skill points on some classes too.

[Coidzor]

It just makes big skill lists mean less. Thus, classes who once had a big list are now somewhat weaker. It's a thing that applies to trapfinding, sure, but it also applies to any skill that is on this list that isn't on some other list. Which is a lot, if you consider the relative power changes relative to all other classes. It's not the biggest issue, but reduced power from a big list is a thing of some import.

They already didn't really mean all that much, aside from limiting certain builds to having to take one class or another for prerequisites or the like.

Having a big skill list certainly doesn't really make up for all the other flaws of the Rogue in either 3.5 or PF.


Sure, it's not that bad. It's just kinda bad, which is still some degree of bad. I think it makes a couple of PrC prerequisites in 3.5 kinda awkward as well.

PrC Prereqs were already awkward in 3.5 anyway, since they tried to use skill ranks as a subsitute for character level sometimes but not all the time. Though using the PF skill system actually fixes several borked skill rank prerequisites such as those for the Fleshwarper, and conversion is simple enough for most PrCs, since it's just a matter of reducing most required skill rank values by 3, unless they're low enough already.


:smalltongue: (Or, in short, multiclassing is good stuff, make it more important and more useful.)

I certainly agree with the premise, but the proposed path of execution seems flawed.


Pulling the cross-class cap down to 2 or 3 below level helps, and since it's a static penalty instead of a scaling penalty it's probably more sensible.

Hm. I rather like that idea.

[georgie_leech]

From a World-building perspective, I'm going to toss out Master Craftsman. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final) Sure, casters still do Crafting better. Casters do everything better. But now the village blacksmith can actually be an Expert instead of a Wizard. PC-wise it's not much, but at least in enables a few archetypes, like the warrior that builds and maintains his own gear.

Also, I'm kind of alright with the classes that work with the very forces of creation being better at, you know, creating stuff.

[otakumick]

While CR is kind of wonky I love the Pathfinder monsters as pc use of it. Makes it a lot easier to have a nonstandard race. Makes Doppleganger or dragon a playable choice... though with a dragon your starting age would be determined by the party's starting level and whether or not you wanted to have any class levels starting out... like having a baby dragon with a level of something or a young dragon with no class levels. In short, level adjustment should take a hike.

[Drachasor]

From a World-building perspective, I'm going to toss out Master Craftsman. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final) Sure, casters still do Crafting better. Casters do everything better. But now the village blacksmith can actually be an Expert instead of a Wizard. PC-wise it's not much, but at least in enables a few archetypes, like the warrior that builds and maintains his own gear.

Also, I'm kind of alright with the classes that work with the very forces of creation being better at, you know, creating stuff.

Master Craftsman is fine as long as it isn't a feat and everyone has access to it and you can use it with everything that isn't a spell completion or spell trigger item.


On an unrelated note, I think Acrobatics is good and so is Athletics. This leads to one issue: jump. I say let both Acrobatics and Atheletics be used for jump, and you use whatever is higher -- perhaps with a synergy bonus if you are keeping those.

[Larkas]

From a World-building perspective, I'm going to toss out Master Craftsman. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final) Sure, casters still do Crafting better. Casters do everything better. But now the village blacksmith can actually be an Expert instead of a Wizard. PC-wise it's not much, but at least in enables a few archetypes, like the warrior that builds and maintains his own gear.

Also, I'm kind of alright with the classes that work with the very forces of creation being better at, you know, creating stuff.

Oh, totally forgot about this one. It's awesome!


Pulling the cross-class cap down to 2 or 3 below level helps, and since it's a static penalty instead of a scaling penalty it's probably more sensible.

Hmmm, this might just work!

[Firechanter]

So let me sum up a possible revamped Skill system:

- do some consolidation, but keep synergies
- one skill point always buys one skill rank
- once in Class, always in Class
- Limit for Class skills is Level +3, Limit for Cross-Class is level -3 (or so)
- increasing your Int mod retroactively increases Skill points, just like Con and HP
- Int bonus items also grant Skill points/ranks

Should the "Class" bonus be a fixed "Trained" bonus as in PF, or do you prefer to get 4x the skill points at 1st level?

Either way, changing the Cross-Class skill rank progression also requires to adapt PrC entry prerequisites as required. Typically, most PrCs are meant to be entered after level 5. If a skill requirement is expected to be cross-class for the natural entry, it is usually 4 ranks. If we say that Cross-class rank maxima are level-3 (instead of (level+3)/2), we'd have to change these requirements to 2 ranks or PrC entry would be delayed. Not a big deal, just something to keep in mind.

[Coidzor]

- Limit for Class skills is Level +3, Limit for Cross-Class is level -3 (or so)

Should the "Class" bonus be a fixed "Trained" bonus as in PF, or do you prefer to get 4x the skill points at 1st level?

Either way, changing the Cross-Class skill rank progression also requires to adapt PrC entry prerequisites as required. Typically, most PrCs are meant to be entered after level 5. If a skill requirement is expected to be cross-class for the natural entry, it is usually 4 ranks. If we say that Cross-class rank maxima are level-3 (instead of (level+3)/2), we'd have to change these requirements to 2 ranks or PrC entry would be delayed. Not a big deal, just something to keep in mind.

I like that proposal for the most part.

The only real potential issue I see is that until level 4, you'd have a max rank that was either negative or 0 for cross class skills, and the idea of having to wait until level 4 to begin investing in cross-class skills doesn't quite jive with the skill system as I understand it. I can certainly see a rationale that works for such a thing, but it changes things up a bit too much for my comfort.

I'm honestly not sure, on the one hand, I rather like the 4x skill points at first level for the potential granularity of putting half-ranks into two skills that aren't going to need to go past a basic investment for synergies or what have you, on the other I also like the ability to get a decent modifier for a side skill with minimal investment that having the trained bonus allows(Though, this might just be an illusion, depending upon how DCs are set up).

Yeah, Prerequisites will have to be re-examined for both feats and PrCs, I believe, but for the most part it seems like it'd just take a moment or two of eyeballing it.

[Firechanter]

Oh sure, insert a "minimum 1" clause there in the "cross class skill rank maximum" section. And maybe Level-2 (Min 1) would also suffice to give the real "professionals" enough of an edge.

[Larkas]

- Int bonus items also grant Skill points/ranks

Not too sure about this bit, though it does keep the symmetry to Con.

[Scow2]

In PF, the guy with a big list is slightly better at a lot of things. In 3.5, the guy with the big list is a lot better at a lot of things. Pulling the cross-class cap down to 2 or 3 below level helps, and since it's a static penalty instead of a scaling penalty it's probably more sensible.

Skill points/level (which is about half Int, and half class) is also significant, but given the usual low- to moderate-int Rogues and high- to very-high-Int Wizards, their skill points are generally quite close.No, in Pathfinder the guy with a big list is STILL a lot better at a lot of things, because while other classes might have an almost-equal theoretical cap on the skills, they don't have the skill points to HIT those caps!The wizard has a different set of "Skill Taxes" than the rogue - Before you can even think of touching Stealth, Perception, and Disable Device, he needs to grab Spellcraft, and probably is pressured into grabbing Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge(The Planes), and wants to grab Fly later as well.

The rogue, however, has a +3 to whatever skills he wants to invest in, and at higher levels, can choose to reduce that to a +2 for a bonus to ALL skills - there are enough non-scaling DCs that you're not chasing a constantly-moving target you risk falling behind on (Perception and Acrobatics being the exceptions). And the ONLY class that comes close to stepping on the rogue's toes is the Wizard (No other class gets enough skill points to have the breadth of skills needed to be a good Rogue), who does that anyway, even if he was banned from every skill other than Spellcraft.

Unfortunately, Rogue's tricks, like most Rage powers and Fighter off-features, tend to be weaker, not stronger, than a feat.

[TuggyNE]

No, in Pathfinder the guy with a big list is STILL a lot better at a lot of things, because while other classes might have an almost-equal theoretical cap on the skills, they don't have the skill points to HIT those caps!The wizard has a different set of "Skill Taxes" than the rogue - Before you can even think of touching Stealth, Perception, and Disable Device, he needs to grab Spellcraft, and probably is pressured into grabbing Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge(The Planes), and wants to grab Fly later as well.

That has nothing to do with the list itself, only with skill points, which the wizard has in plenty from their high Int mod (+5 at first level is trivial in PF). Skill points/level did not change from 3.5 in most cases, and skills were even consolidated*, so this objection doesn't really work: 7 skill points, 8 or 9 if playing a human wizard with favored class bonus, gets every last one of those listed skills and more besides. At level 1 and all succeeding levels, trivially.

Also, any consideration of game balance that relies on peer pressure to pick certain details of character build is not robust.


And the ONLY class that comes close to stepping on the rogue's toes is the Wizard (No other class gets enough skill points to have the breadth of skills needed to be a good Rogue), who does that anyway, even if he was banned from every skill other than Spellcraft.

I think you're forgetting Alchemists and Magi at the very least; Rangers, Bards, and Inquisitors certainly get enough skill points to substitute, although since they are skill monkeys one might consider that somewhat less obnoxious. In any case, it's clear that at least a third of the class list can not merely come close to, but actually, step on the Rogue's toes in this way. (19 base/standard classes, 1 is Rogue, 6 out of the remaining 18.)

And, of course, the existence of one unfortunate source of imbalance and baffling overshadowing does not excuse another.


* While I support skill consolidation on the whole, it does have a few minor downsides that need to be taken into account and preferably patched.

[Kudaku]

One of my favorite aspects of Pathfinder is the archetypes. It would probably be a headache to backport unless you take the PF classes as well though.

[Firechanter]

Yeah, we don't need Archetypes, we've got ACFs that you can mix and match. Ofc it might be possible to backport archetypes as ACFs.

[Alent]

Yeah, we don't need Archetypes, we've got ACFs that you can mix and match. Ofc it might be possible to backport archetypes as ACFs.

This would be a selective endeavor, I'd think. Some archetypes should be backported as new classes, some should be backported as ACFs.

A few of those Archetypes are new classes snuck in as bards and gunslingers.

[Drachasor]

Archetypes ARE a type of ACF really. No reason not to have both, but you might as well remove the Archetypes that suck (over half of them easily).

I do think it is unnecessary to have skill caps on non-class skills, but level -2 (min 1) is more than enough if you implement it. That's a 5 point difference.

If you are worried about casters verses non-casters, then I'd think you should just edit or remove the most powerful spells and leave other things alone. Or just modify the classes a bit. I could see the Druid being toned down to 3 versions perhaps - Spells + Spontaneous SNA; Spells + Wildshape; Spells + Animal Companion; SNA like the summoner in PF + Wildshape + Animal Companion (and maybe some animal companion buff powers that can be used instead of SNA).

Though, one could spend decades talking about how magic could be fixed. Probably the best thing to do would be to just toss the whole thing out for a more freeform system that had stricter limits. Toss on bonus feats and feats providing bits of magical ability and you are set. Easier said than done though. I tend to ramble on about this sort of thing.

[Kudaku]

I think you're doing yourself a disservice by dismissing archetypes for ACFs unless you plan to use homebrew ACF material - the bard alone has over 25 archetypes, each one contains multiple unique ACFs.

The main reason why I like archetypes is that unlike with prestige classes the unique class mechanics come online as early as level 1 - the Dawnflower Dervish bard plays completely differently from a typical bard right from the get-go, for instance.

I'd definitely consider using some of the archetype class features AS ACFs.

Come to think of it, I'd probably replace the 3.5 bard Inspiration abilities for the PF bard's Bardic Performance, but phrase it so that the plethora of 3.5 Inspire x feats and powers still work.

[Firechanter]

What I meant (I was writing on my phone) was the following:
You could split up PF Archetypes into a number of ACFs, then make these available separately. So you get to pick the ACFs you really want and can pass on those that are uninteresting or an outright downgrade.

[Drachasor]

Just be wary about that. Some Archetypes are designed as a package and give free stuff that's not really traded for anything in particular, but is factored into the fact other stuff was traded. Other archetypes might trade something weak for something better, and have another trade that goes the other way.

That said, a lot of archetypes are balanced poorly, so you might not notice the distinction.

[Scow2]

That said, a lot of archetypes are balanced poorly, so you might not notice the distinction.

Aye. Such as the "Savage Barbarian" archetype that's supposed to make you effective at fighting unarmored, but is about as effective in this task as 3.5's Reaping Mauler's attempt to make a good grappling character.

[SinsI]

Armor as Damage Reduction.

[Alent]

Armor as Damage Reduction.

It was already there in Unearthed Arcana, wasn't it?

[SinsI]

It was already there in Unearthed Arcana, wasn't it?

PF version is vastly expanded and improved, solving many issues that plague ill-thought UA version. It answers such questions as "what DR does a skeleton in armor has"? or "Do you apply that DR against coup-de-grace?"

[Drachasor]

Armor as DR doesn't work. Damage enemies and players do in a single hit is too variable, so you end up screwing over some people or the DR is pretty much worthless.

PF has DR = Armor bonus, pretty much. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/armor-as-damage-reduction) Which means that a Chain Shirt makes you immune to short swords unless they crit or bonus damage is involved. Which is to say, if you use bows or melee without strength at low levels, you're not going to do well against anyone in decent armor.

This also happens to make AC pretty much useless, because DR-as-armor doesn't modify attack rolls but drastically lowers AC.

So no, I don't think this is worth using nor do I think it was well thought out.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Sidenote on Armor as DR: There is also one very large problem with the rules as they currently stand. Namely: Until you get magic armor, any caster or large creature will treat your armor as paper because all magic weapons, and all large creatures can ignore mundane armor DR.

"What's that, you have plate armor on? Good thing I have enlarge person to make it completely useless."

That only applies to characters who use armor (you), of course. Natural armor is basically impossible to break through (adamantine or huge creatures) for most of the game. It also doesn't seem to scale with target size, i.e. a large creature can break through mundane armor on a human, but a human can't break through mundane armor on a goblin.

One set of alternate rules that I do like are wounds and vigor. I like them the greater verisimilitude they provide compared to hit points, though they also have some odd rules hiccups (splitting Oozes = ???), and balance implications (a high con is worth even less).

[SinsI]

Armor as DR doesn't work. Damage enemies and players do in a single hit is too variable, so you end up screwing over some people or the DR is pretty much worthless.

PF has DR = Armor bonus, pretty much. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/armor-as-damage-reduction) Which means that a Chain Shirt makes you immune to short swords unless they crit or bonus damage is involved. Which is to say, if you use bows or melee without strength at low levels, you're not going to do well against anyone in decent armor.

This also happens to make AC pretty much useless, because DR-as-armor doesn't modify attack rolls but drastically lowers AC.

So no, I don't think this is worth using nor do I think it was well thought out.

In Cajamarca battle 168 Spaniards defeated 10 thousand Aztec warriors without a single casualty. That's what Armor as Damage Reduction means in real life - and that's the way it should work. If you want to damage somebody in heavy armor - you better bring your War Hammer with you, or rely on critical hits/sneak attack (in other words, aim for the gaps) or try to break through via power attack.

[Drachasor]

In Cajamarca battle 168 Spaniards defeated 10 thousand Aztec warriors without a single casualty. That's what Armor as Damage Reduction means in real life - and that's the way it should work. If you want to damage somebody in heavy armor - you better bring your War Hammer with you, or rely on critical hits/sneak attack/power attack.

Yes, yes. It's very impressive when armored people with guns and weapons slaughter a bunch of unarmed civilians.

Of course, if you picked a more valid example, then it wouldn't fit your theory. Better armor is a big deal, but it doesn't make people unable to harm you. The Armor as DR rules even make it so you can't hurt someone if you grapple them.

And more significantly, the system just doesn't handle it well. DR doesn't mesh all that well with how combat works to begin with, but it is even worse if toss DR on everything. At least with how it is in the default game you can usually find a way around it.

And again, this system makes it so you waste a lot of time with stupid attack rolls when they don't mean much of anything. There are other problems as well.

It's just badly done all over.

[nobodez]

Well, I was ging to just post "I'd base as PF and import 3.5 goodies like the Spell Compendium", but then people talked about Armor as DR and WP/VP, and then I got really interested.

I've adapted the Armor as DR and WP/VP systems for Ultimate Campaign for my Dragonstar Pathfinder game.

Armor as DR no longer as the "large defeats all armor DR" problem, as I just removed that. I also made things a bit easier with natural armor as DR. Since I'm in Dragonstar, I also added energy resistance comparable to DR (since plasma rifles are a thing), with scaling appropriate to DR (having armor DR grants you a bonus against non-magical energy attacks, but not against magical energy attacks). The WP/VP system is mostly the same from UCamp, though I changed the unconsciousness rules to be a Fort save equal to the total wounds taken, rather than just DC 10 Con check (which was just too easy, especially when working with non-lethal damage, which also forces the Fort save with every wound point of nonlethal damage, so an unlucky roll will get a PC before they get below their wound threshold).

But yeah, I've been a fan of armor as DR and WP/VP since the first d20 Star Wars RPG came out, and it works pretty well.

Oh, one more thing, in addition to the Defense bonus in the Ultimate Campaign rules, I added in the base Reflex bonus (so it actually scales better with level now).

[broodax]

The one thing I haven't seen on this list so far: Eliminate all forms of XP as cost. No XP components, no XP penalty for death, etc. With this I brought along PF's negative level and restoration statuses and spells.

I happen to think XP is a horrible system on the whole, as it promotes all kinds of weird behavior with no benefit, and was pretty poorly thought out 40 years ago.

Other things I use that others have mentioned:
Consolidated skill lists
Polymorph line of spells (I only need to worry about Alter Self right now... I'd love to hear more about how PF Polymorph is broken so I can fix it before my players get there)

[Socksy]

Lawful Maenad barbarians. Please!