Blending Pathfinder with 3.5

[shadowseve]

I've heard pathfinder thrown around a few times and so I got the core rule book to see what I thought. So far I really like some of the changes in Pathfinder (really like the druid) vs 3.5. How easy is it to blend some of the good things in pathfinder with some of the good things in 3.5?

[Psyren]

The easiest way is to use PF as the base and port over anything from 3.5 (classes, spells, feats etc.) that you want. Most of it is straightforward, and fans/third-party publishers have put together conversions for the trickier things.

Note however that the druid is one of the most changed classes between the two editions, because shapeshifting in general was so thoroughly overhauled.

[Skysaber]

It's so common most people I've heard of have just taken to calling it 3.P or 3.75, either way the intent is clear.

Use their combo skills if you want, or only a couple of them is you disagree with one or two. Play the Pathfinder versions of the classes as another set of Alt class features. They nerfed a whole lot of spells, so you'll probably go 3.0 or 3.5 for at least some of your favorites, many groups go all older versions on the spells.

Basically, it's a buffet. Take what you want and leave behind what you don't. And that applies to material out of both sides of that particular fence.

[T.G. Oskar]

Feats: Some of the PF feats got nerfed a bit, or split. Take the Pathfinder feat progression, which should help most classes, but go with 3.5's feats whenever possible; in particular, Improved Bull Rush if you intend to use 3.5's Bull Rush and maybe merge Improved Trip with PF's Greater Trip. If you're too scared of high damage, you can use the PF Power Attack, but at least port Deadly Aim and Clustered Shots. If you have the Player's Handbook II, please make Agile Shield Fighting count as Two-Weapon Fighting for requisites, at least to help Sword & Boarders. Otherwise, choose from both sides, since both games have decent feats: a demoralizing specialist may love to combine Imperious Command (3.5) with Cornugon Smash (PF) and Dreadful Carnage (PF), a Sword & Boarder might find Shield Focus (PF) better than Shield Specialization (3.5), but using that as a prerequisite might allow combining Agile Shield Fighting (3.5), Shield Charge (3.5, allows a trip with a charge) and Shield Slam (3.5; daze opponent that you charge or make a single attack as full-round action) with Shield Slam (PF; make a bull rush with each shield attack, and might change the name as well) and Shield Master (negate all penalties when fighting with weapon & shield and add enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls). Just choose which feats work well for each type of fighting style.

Skills: PF collapses a few feats, so for the most part follow that but with a few changes. Jump should be its own skill, while Climb and Swim should probably be part of their own merged skill (Acrobatics). Forgery is subsumed into Linguistics, but you should allow another way to beat that skill (maybe Spot?) For the most part, use PF skills, though consider whether the skill points should remain the same. Also, consider whether you should keep Concentration or use the PF version of it.

Classes: Your call, really. Of all classes, the two most controversial will be the Druid (as Psyren said, shapeshifting in Pathfinder is a different monster) and Paladin (most people agree that the PF version is better, but you lose access to quite a bit of the best Alternate Class Features for them, such as Cursebreaker; not only that, the way they work Channel Energy and Lay on Hands means that Divine feats are either non-existent or not as worthwhile). Otherwise, choose which of the two sides is better. PF Fighter crosses into 3.5 without problems, and even the Archetypes combine well with the typical trio of ACFs that help the Fighter (Dungeon Crasher, Zhentarim Fighter and Thug). Also: beware when porting the Bard, as their Bardic Music/Performance is measured in rounds, while 3.5 measures it by uses per day.

Spells: Again, your call. You may still need to ban some higher-level spells like Wish, though.

Races: PF Races are somewhat more varied. Your call as to which to use, honestly.

Multiclassing: Pathfinder dropped the multiclass restriction and has a unique way to handle favored classes. You could port that off without much problem.

Almost forgot:
Magic Items: For the most part, 3.5 has the most fun magic items, period. Treat the Magic Item Compendium as a bible. That said, some of the PF armor special properties are great (Righteous!!), and some of the weapon properties as well (Cruel, Menacing).

[deuxhero]

What T.G. Oskar said.

I'd recommend porting the non-human races from PF, though not necessarily human. Core non-humans in 3.5 really struggle to compete with humans.

[AnonymousPepper]

I can second everything said here. Take and pick what you choose.

I will warn you to take a close look at WSAs before approving them, though. Some PF classes and abilities are clearly not designed to be balanced when combined with 3.5 WSAs. For example, from personal experience: if you want a balanced game, you will not let a Gunslinger - especially not one with a long-range rifle - take Exit Wound on his weapon.

[shadowseve]

Thanks for the advice, what I was talking about with the druid in pf is the fact they get shape shifting earlier and get wild shape shape at will at 20. I like the rules for shape shifting better in 3.5 but I like the progression better in pathfinder. things like that.

[Aergoth]

What others were mentioning regarding the Druid is that the basic mechanics for wildshape have changed. Wildshape used to be keyed off of a polymorph-like effect which meant that RAW only living creatures could use it. The alterations in pathfinder have removed that kind of weirdness so there's nothing preventing anyone from making use of what is essentially a big grab bag of SLAs that wildshape now represents.

[Vortenger]

Psyren and TG nailed it for the most part, but I'd suggest a hard look at pathfinder's combat maneuver system and tumble rules. (My groups use PF rules with exceptions around the following)

PF's combat maneuvers are a bit weaker than in 3.5 and the assisting feats (improved grapple, etc.) were split into 2 each. Want that +4 to trip? Takes 2 feats now. Also monsters defenses against these maneuvers tend to outpace all but the most optimized players by around level 10-12, about the same time Freedom of Movement becomes an issue.

Tumble in PF is based on a DC of 'That Guy's' CMD, which as mentioned, scales pretty fast for monsters, and so most rogues, monks, etc. will have around a 50% chance of avoiding an AoO. Compare to 3.5 where its a static number that can be hit regularly by level 1 characters, and the result is rogues & monks take way more hits and feel less durable.

Incidentally, every class gets a boost, but rogues suck in PF anyway. (They suffer from Everyone-Does-My-Job-Better-and Dies-Less Syndrome)

edit: The rules changes to Wild Shape, Polymorph and others was a much needed change to the game. I'd encourage 3.5 players to steal the mechanics from PF shamelessly. Less headache and bookkeeping by far.

[Ssalarn]

I'll tell you, we started playing Pathfinder trying to mix it into our 3.5 game and the big lesson I learned is that it's much easier to port 3.5 stuff into Pathfinder than vice versa, just from a logistics and ruling perspective.

Life got easier when we said "Okay, Pathfinder is the base rule. Anything that exists in both Pathfinder and 3.5 now uses the Pathfinder rules. Anything you want to bring in from 3.5 is fine, touch bases with the GM if you need help porting classes or anything like that".

[Psyren]

P
Tumble in PF is based on a DC of 'That Guy's' CMD, which as mentioned, scales pretty fast for monsters, and so most rogues, monks, etc. will have around a 50% chance of avoiding an AoO. Compare to 3.5 where its a static number that can be hit regularly by level 1 characters, and the result is rogues & monks take way more hits and feel less durable.

This does however make feats like "Skill Focus: Tumble Acrobatics" and speed buffs more worthwhile, whereas in 3.5 you could reliably tumble around without having either, even if you were fighting a tentacled cosmic horror with catlike reflexes or something.

[Coidzor]

This does however make feats like "Skill Focus: Tumble Acrobatics" and speed buffs more worthwhile, whereas in 3.5 you could reliably tumble around without having either, even if you were fighting a tentacled cosmic horror with catlike reflexes or something.

Skill Focus is a bum feat and making it a requirement to do the job is not an improvement to most people who are aware of the joke that Skill Focus as a feat represents. :smalltongue:

It is possible to say that they had an idea with merit and then decided to overdo it, after all.

[Psyren]

Skill Focus is a bum feat and making it a requirement to do the job is not an improvement to most people who are aware of the joke that Skill Focus as a feat represents. :smalltongue:

It's better in PF though, not just because DCs are harder but also because it scales with level (somewhat) rather than providing a flat one-time bonus and doing nothing else forevermore.

And remember too that not all feats are designed for 1-20 play. In a game that caps out at, say, level 5, feats like Toughness and Diehard can actually be worthwhile.

[Vortenger]

Thanks for correcting my use of tumble in place of acrobatics.

I believe my point still stands, semantics aside, that the lightest defended classes that are expected to be in melee took a significant hit to their skirmishing ability. That is significant, regardless of whether a 'fix' is in place or not.

[Ssalarn]

Tumble in PF is based on a DC of 'That Guy's' CMD, which as mentioned, scales pretty fast for monsters, and so most rogues, monks, etc. will have around a 50% chance of avoiding an AoO. Compare to 3.5 where its a static number that can be hit regularly by level 1 characters, and the result is rogues & monks take way more hits and feel less durable.


I don't actually think the 3.5 way was better by any stretch of the imagination. I actually thought a set DC to Tumble past anyone was a terrible mechanic. An ability which gives you a 50% chance to avoid an AoO with normal investment (which then still needs to connect with your defenses) is, in my opinion, pretty much exactly right. It's also often better than 50% at the first 10 levels of play, and after 10 when CMD really starts to hit crazy high levels Skill Focus pops up to a +6. If you take Acrobatic feat, that's a +2 which scales to +4 after 10th. So a Rogue or Monk who actually wants to focus on that option could easily have at 10th level an Acrobatics check of 28 (+3 class skill, +10 ranks, +6 Skill Focus, +4 Acrobatic, +5 Dex). With the average CMD of a same level challenge being 31-32 that means a character whose actually invested in the ability with no other magic items supporting the action has an 80-85% chance of success on a Acrobatics check. Someone who prepped pre-combat with an Elixir of Tumbling could actually drop either one of the feats and still have no chance of failure. A character with no investment at all who chugged the potion could have an hour with the same 80-85% chance. That's where it should be.

The fact that in 3.5 a third level Rogue could tumble circles around Demogorgon with no chance of ever provoking an AoO is not, to me, a selling point for 3.5 Tumble.

[Psyren]

I don't actually think the 3.5 way was better by any stretch of the imagination. I actually thought a set DC to Tumble past anyone was a terrible mechanic. An ability which gives you a 50% chance to avoid an AoO with normal investment (which then still needs to connect with your defenses) is, in my opinion, pretty much exactly right. It's also often better than 50% at the first 10 levels of play, and after 10 when CMD really starts to hit crazy high levels Skill Focus pops up to a +6. If you take Acrobatic feat, that's a +2 which scales to +4 after 10th. So a Rogue or Monk who actually wants to focus on that option could easily have at 10th level an Acrobatics check of 28 (+3 class skill, +10 ranks, +6 Skill Focus, +4 Acrobatic, +5 Dex). With the average CMD of a same level challenge being 31-32 that means a character whose actually invested in the ability with no other magic items supporting the action has an 80-85% chance of success on a Acrobatics check. Someone who prepped pre-combat with an Elixir of Tumbling could actually drop either one of the feats and still have no chance of failure. A character with no investment at all who chugged the potion could have an hour with the same 80-85% chance. That's where it should be.

The fact that in 3.5 a third level Rogue could tumble circles around Demogorgon with no chance of ever provoking an AoO is not, to me, a selling point for 3.5 Tumble.

Very much this. While I do think CMD does scale a bit too quickly (I'm considering making it all of bonus A and 1/2 of bonus B, where A and B are the higher and lower of Str and Dex mod respectively) the fact that it scales at all is not a problem.

[Ssalarn]

One thing I did (and it's a teensy bit cumbersome for the GM), I instituted a house rule that size bonuses to CMD only apply to Bull Rush, Overrun, and Reposition attempts. Its generally worked out pretty well, since the issue with CMD's skyrocketing scaling often has a lot to do with the size of the critters you're facing.

[Coidzor]

Very much this. While I do think CMD does scale a bit too quickly (I'm considering making it all of bonus A and 1/2 of bonus B, where A and B are the higher and lower of Str and Dex mod respectively) the fact that it scales at all is not a problem.

Not many as have said that to my knowledge. What has been said, generally, is that it scales too quickly to the point of making tumble unworkable when before, while a tad on the broken side, could at least be used. That Ssalarn's argument hinged upon taking both Acrobatic and Skill Focus as feats to try to keep up after 10th level highlights the problem more than doing so addresses the problem.

Edit: That is to say, it seems to be less the scaling and more what the scaling is seen as accomplishing.


One thing I did (and it's a teensy bit cumbersome for the GM), I instituted a house rule that size bonuses to CMD only apply to Bull Rush, Overrun, and Reposition attempts. Its generally worked out pretty well, since the issue with CMD's skyrocketing scaling often has a lot to do with the size of the critters you're facing.

That does make a fair bit of sense.

[Ssalarn]

That does make a fair bit of sense.

Right? I'm pretty sure the whole "Jack the Giant-killer" trope and the phrase "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" have been around for a while, and I always found it silly that these humanoids with tree trunks for legs were effectively invincible to the tactic most commonly used in both classic and modern fantasy to take them down.
And how does being 12 feet tall and weighing 500 pounds make you less susceptible to the Dirty Trick combat maneuver? If anything I'd think you'd be less likely to notice me tying your shoelaces together, and your eye's would be bigger targets for the handful of gravel I'm about to toss into them.

Shifting size bonuses to only applying to the checks where increased mass and leverage are actually a factor just seems to make sense, and make the game more dynamic to boot. I swear that the instances of my players taking combat maneuver feats and using combat maneuver based weapons doubled after that ruling.

[Sylthia]

I for one love the Combat Maneuver system of Pathfinder. I wish there were better feats to make it easier for martial types to utilize it, but not having to spend ten minutes every time someone wants to grapple is a boon.

[Psyren]

Not many as have said that to my knowledge. What has been said, generally, is that it scales too quickly to the point of making tumble unworkable when before, while a tad on the broken side, could at least be used. That Ssalarn's argument hinged upon taking both Acrobatic and Skill Focus as feats to try to keep up after 10th level highlights the problem more than doing so addresses the problem.

I don't see investing in feats (or receiving/purchasing buffs) to have an 85% chance of succeeding at something as a "problem." I do think it's a problem that without those feats you're closer to 50-50 though. I think if you max out the skill and nothing else you should be in the 65-70% success range.

And of course, if you combine both buffs and feats that should push you to 95-100%.

[Sylthia]

I don't see investing in feats (or receiving/purchasing buffs) to have an 85% chance of succeeding at something as a "problem." I do think it's a problem that without those feats you're closer to 50-50 though. I think if you max out the skill and nothing else you should be in the 65-70% success range.

And of course, if you combine both buffs and feats that should push you to 95-100%.

The problem with the skill system of 3,3.5,PF in general is that it's almost a dichotomy between "not being able to do it at all" and "Auto-success" depending on the investment level of various skills.

[Theomniadept]

Only thing I could suggest is playing with the Pathfinder skill system and their feat progression of every odd level. Everything else in PF fails compared to 3.5 or doesn't mesh at all with it. Most I could suggest class-wise is use the PF Fighter since it at leas thas more than base 3.5 Fighter.

[Sayt]

Only thing I could suggest is playing with the Pathfinder skill system and their feat progression of every odd level. Everything else in PF fails compared to 3.5 or doesn't mesh at all with it. Most I could suggest class-wise is use the PF Fighter since it at leas thas more than base 3.5 Fighter.

Really, not even paladin's Smite? Or Ranger's going up to D10 Hit die, getting actual choices on Combat Style feats, a variety of combat styles?

Or both of them getting their Caster Levels hastened?

Really, I'd whole-cloth import the Pathfinder Martials as a whole, and tweak the wording make them compatible with the worthwhile ACFs, if I was taking your approach.

[tarlison]

one thing i really miss in 3.5 thay i saw back in pathfinder is a little weapon called scyhe and a little feat calles power attack true its been nerf alot but a critical from those weapons is enough to make any monster cry dont even think bring coup de grace by one after brimg affected by a sleep spell, athough i use a NG ex-paladin/cleric of death and healing (no diety) with a shield and rapier(its the only magical weapom i cam get I use to have a longsword) but i really enjoy our fighter who wield a scyhe when he say boon when he confirm a critical hit :D

[Snowbluff]

In general: All players may use all 1st Party material from either game. If there are two versions of a feat, they select which one they take. Personally I prefer to use 3.5 as the base rule set, but PF rules should work.

Feats: Use the 4e progression for feats. Allow 2 flaws. People will want more feats than in PF since 99% of the good feats exist in 3.5.

Classes: Add them all up. Convert the 3.5 classes if they want them.

Skills: Make concentration a skill again.
Skill costs of 3.5.
Skill consolidation from PF.

[Anlashok]

Only thing I could suggest is playing with the Pathfinder skill system and their feat progression of every odd level. Everything else in PF fails compared to 3.5 or doesn't mesh at all with it. Most I could suggest class-wise is use the PF Fighter since it at leas thas more than base 3.5 Fighter.

Couldn't possibly disagree more. The only thing really bad coming from Pathfinder are overly heavy handed CMD and skill tweaks, even then they're conceptually sound, just numbered wrong.

The skill consolidation and class tweaks are great overall and really clean up some of the mess of 3.5 and the pathfinder variant classes utterly trash the 3.5 classes they're based on (duskblade vs magus, oracle vs favored soul, etc).

Most of pathfinder's issues come from bad choices in post launch design (constantly giving mages new tools and constantly finding ways to make materials less interesting), the core system tweaks are pretty smooth.

[Gnaeus]

Right? I'm pretty sure the whole "Jack the Giant-killer" trope and the phrase "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" have been around for a while, and I always found it silly that these humanoids with tree trunks for legs were effectively invincible to the tactic most commonly used in both classic and modern fantasy to take them down.
And how does being 12 feet tall and weighing 500 pounds make you less susceptible to the Dirty Trick combat maneuver? If anything I'd think you'd be less likely to notice me tying your shoelaces together, and your eye's would be bigger targets for the handful of gravel I'm about to toss into them.

Shifting size bonuses to only applying to the checks where increased mass and leverage are actually a factor just seems to make sense, and make the game more dynamic to boot. I swear that the instances of my players taking combat maneuver feats and using combat maneuver based weapons doubled after that ruling.

Love it. Implementing this in my game now.

[Ssalarn]

Love it. Implementing this in my game now.

Let me know how it goes. I think you'll find that it resolves a lot of the issues in Pathfinder. You kill the issues with Acrobatics requiring serious investment to scale properly for avoiding AoO, boosting the Monk and Rogue as a result, you take a lot of maneuvers that are poor or highly situational and make them perfectly valid options, and all it takes is a little quick math on your end. I printed up a little size chart and stuck it to my GM screen listing the size bonuses as penalties so I just have to glance over and do a little quick math whenever my players want to do something and it's been fantastic. I am so much about anything that makes the game more dynamic and helps my players break away from rocket tag style combat where both sides just take turns hitting each other until someone goes down. I'm not even sure if my players realize how much their ability to coordinate, work as a team, and execute tactical decisions has increased since combat maneuvers were re-introduced with that little adjustment.

[T.G. Oskar]

Really, not even paladin's Smite?

You mean the Paladin's mark (sorry, I simply can't call it "smite"). Sure, go ahead: just make it unique to the Paladin instead of also giving it to the Crusader and whomever else. However, replacing Turn Undead for Channel Positive Energy and expect us to spend 2 uses of Lay on Hands to power Divine feats isn't my idea of fun. If anything, the best is to merge the Paladins: one has things the other don't. That way, you can work with the ACFs that would otherwise be incompatible.

On the other hand, 3.5 boosts smite damage so much, a merged Paladin would be even MORE dangerous. Just giving a PF Paladin a mighty smiting weapon, or the ability to choose the Sapphire Smite feat (+1 use of smite and +1 to smite damage per point of essentia) and let it apply to the Paladin's mark would make it even more dangerous, since both items grant further uses for little to no drawback.


Or Ranger's going up to D10 Hit die, getting actual choices on Combat Style feats, a variety of combat styles?

First: it's more like "Rangers recovering their Hit Die". In 3rd Edition, they originally began with a d10 Hit Die, but it was nerfed in the transition.

Second: you just have a bunch of free bonus feats. IMO, Ranger Combat Styles should have modified the feats, not just given bonus feats. I like that you can use Medium armor with them, but in the end, you only get half as many bonus feats as the Fighter would, and only for one specific "combat style". The choices are artificial: for example, in TWF, three of your choices will be to get up to Greater TWF, one for Double Slice, and the last one really doesn't matter. On Archery, the options are somewhat wider: Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Rapid Shot and Manyshot...wait, I think I made all the choices; might as well use the level-gained feats for whatever I didn't get, but I might still need to fulfill the requirements. Think about it: the illusion of options doesn't really mean you have real options, since you'll end up with generally the same feats most of the time. In the case of TWF, most of the time you'd end up with the feats above; without the two extra feats at 14th and 18th, you'd end up with the same feats as 3.5's TWF combat style, with the only benefit being using the feats in Medium armor.

As for the third one: those are mostly based upon the same combat styles Paizo published on Dragon magazine for the Ranger years ago, except you get a natural weapon combat style tagged in. If you check out which feats the combat styles granted, you'll see that most of them follow a pattern that most of the time resembles what you'll actually end up getting. The only actual difference would be Two-Handed Weapon combat style, since you probably won't end up with Improved Sunder (like the Strong Arm combat style), but your choices are pretty much made (Power Attack at first, then anything but Improved Sunder or Shield of Swings, so you have 5 feats for 4 feat slots). You're missing an Unarmed Attack combat style and a Thrown Weapon style, and the Dragon Magazine version had a "Piscator" style that granted Imp. Trip for free and also proficiency with Nets. Sure, the only thing the GM can do is not approve them, but it's not like D&D didn't have any more combat styles.


Or both of them getting their Caster Levels hastened?

Fair enough. 1/2 Caster level is overrated.


Really, I'd whole-cloth import the Pathfinder Martials as a whole, and tweak the wording make them compatible with the worthwhile ACFs, if I was taking your approach.

As I said: merge the Paladin, tweak the Ranger. The Paladin's chassis may be better, but you lose things in the transition (the mount is less powerful because it's based on the Druid's Animal Companion and you're limited in mount choices; lose of Turn Undead pool means Divine feats are less attractive to Paladins because they compete with LoH). The Ranger loses less, but could have more combat styles around, though I still say Combat Styles should be more than just free feats (maybe the 1st levels, but later on, make sure they actually are distinct).

[jjcrpntr]

I don't actually think the 3.5 way was better by any stretch of the imagination. I actually thought a set DC to Tumble past anyone was a terrible mechanic. An ability which gives you a 50% chance to avoid an AoO with normal investment (which then still needs to connect with your defenses) is, in my opinion, pretty much exactly right. It's also often better than 50% at the first 10 levels of play, and after 10 when CMD really starts to hit crazy high levels Skill Focus pops up to a +6. If you take Acrobatic feat, that's a +2 which scales to +4 after 10th. So a Rogue or Monk who actually wants to focus on that option could easily have at 10th level an Acrobatics check of 28 (+3 class skill, +10 ranks, +6 Skill Focus, +4 Acrobatic, +5 Dex). With the average CMD of a same level challenge being 31-32 that means a character whose actually invested in the ability with no other magic items supporting the action has an 80-85% chance of success on a Acrobatics check. Someone who prepped pre-combat with an Elixir of Tumbling could actually drop either one of the feats and still have no chance of failure. A character with no investment at all who chugged the potion could have an hour with the same 80-85% chance. That's where it should be.

The fact that in 3.5 a third level Rogue could tumble circles around Demogorgon with no chance of ever provoking an AoO is not, to me, a selling point for 3.5 Tumble.

I actually really like the Pathfinder tumble rules for exactly this reason. I don't like that something can be an auto pass once you get to a decent level. Even if it was only 50% of the time I've always felt there should be some risk for running around through threatened areas and in 3.5 it felt like that risk was incredibly low.

I also like how monster to hit seems to scale up better in pathfinder. I was in a 3.5 game until recently where for 2 of our 3 players the DM had to roll a 19 or 20 just about every time or he wasn't going to hit us. So we'd buff and run in with little to no fear for safety. Now in the pathfinder game I'm running one of the guys from that group still plays that way but gets smacked around more.

[Sayt]

You mean the Paladin's mark (sorry, I simply can't call it "smite"). Sure, go ahead: just make it unique to the Paladin instead of also giving it to the Crusader and whomever else. However, replacing Turn Undead for Channel Positive Energy and expect us to spend 2 uses of Lay on Hands to power Divine feats isn't my idea of fun. If anything, the best is to merge the Paladins: one has things the other don't. That way, you can work with the ACFs that would otherwise be incompatible.

On the other hand, 3.5 boosts smite damage so much, a merged Paladin would be even MORE dangerous. Just giving a PF Paladin a mighty smiting weapon, or the ability to choose the Sapphire Smite feat (+1 use of smite and +1 to smite damage per point of essentia) and let it apply to the Paladin's mark would make it even more dangerous, since both items grant further uses for little to no drawback.

I generally play PF with imported 3.5 content, but in reversed, I'd probably put a rider in the Lay on hands so that they could be used as if they were turn attempts 1-to-1, rather than channel energy, because yeah, I agree that Divine feats with paladin's channel progression would be unhappy. I'd also not have a problem with Paladin getting their own special version of Smite/Inflict Smitten.




First: it's more like "Rangers recovering their Hit Die". In 3rd Edition, they originally began with a d10 Hit Die, but it was nerfed in the transition.

Gaining or recovering, I hope we can both agree that they should get the d10?



Second: you just have a bunch of free bonus feats. IMO, Ranger Combat Styles should have modified the feats, not just given bonus feats. I like that you can use Medium armor with them, but in the end, you only get half as many bonus feats as the Fighter would, and only for one specific "combat style". The choices are artificial: for example, in TWF, three of your choices will be to get up to Greater TWF, one for Double Slice, and the last one really doesn't matter. On Archery, the options are somewhat wider: Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Rapid Shot and Manyshot...wait, I think I made all the choices; might as well use the level-gained feats for whatever I didn't get, but I might still need to fulfill the requirements. Think about it: the illusion of options doesn't really mean you have real options, since you'll end up with generally the same feats most of the time. In the case of TWF, most of the time you'd end up with the feats above; without the two extra feats at 14th and 18th, you'd end up with the same feats as 3.5's TWF combat style, with the only benefit being using the feats in Medium armor.

As for the third one: those are mostly based upon the same combat styles Paizo published on Dragon magazine for the Ranger years ago, except you get a natural weapon combat style tagged in. If you check out which feats the combat styles granted, you'll see that most of them follow a pattern that most of the time resembles what you'll actually end up getting. The only actual difference would be Two-Handed Weapon combat style, since you probably won't end up with Improved Sunder (like the Strong Arm combat style), but your choices are pretty much made (Power Attack at first, then anything but Improved Sunder or Shield of Swings, so you have 5 feats for 4 feat slots). You're missing an Unarmed Attack combat style and a Thrown Weapon style, and the Dragon Magazine version had a "Piscator" style that granted Imp. Trip for free and also proficiency with Nets. Sure, the only thing the GM can do is not approve them, but it's not like D&D didn't have any more combat styles.
It is worth noting, I think, that Ranger CSFs can actually grant feats early (Shield Master and Improved Precise shot are both available 5 levels early, for instance). Maybe choice is the wrong word. Flexibility, perhaps? It would seem to make dipping a little easier, although I'm not sure if that's actually a practical benefit.

As for Dragon magazine content, I wouldn't know, not having access to most of them. Also, the classics student in my is crying at 'piscator'.




As I said: merge the Paladin, tweak the Ranger. The Paladin's chassis may be better, but you lose things in the transition (the mount is less powerful because it's based on the Druid's Animal Companion and you're limited in mount choices; lose of Turn Undead pool means Divine feats are less attractive to Paladins because they compete with LoH). The Ranger loses less, but could have more combat styles around, though I still say Combat Styles should be more than just free feats (maybe the 1st levels, but later on, make sure they actually are distinct).

I also forgot to mention that the Ranger's Animal Companion gets something of a buff in PF, as they treat their druid level as ranger -3, rather than half, and there's a feat to ameliorate that penalty.

That said, I do conceptually like the way that 3.5 handles animal companions over Pathfinder's (Creatures retain their own kind of hit dice, is the main thing). As such, I'd probably use the 3.5 Paladin mount (With the option to sub it out for the PF Paladin's Divine Bond for the weapon) options and advancement.

[Ssalarn]

Ranger animal companions also automatically gain the benefits of the Ranger's Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain class features, which is a pretty huge boost. With the new spells available allowing Rangers to designate a creature as their favored enemy on the fly, this is pretty powerful. Add in the Boon Companion feat from Paizo's "Animal Archive", and you've got a full druid progression Animal Companion that also has the full benefits of the Ranger's Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain abilities.
PF Ranger also has better spell advancement, better spell selection, and better Combat Style options which include early entry into powerful feats, and the ability to ignore prereqs, allowing you to do things like TWF effectively without pumping your DEX. Oh yeah, and they get Quarry, Improved Quarry, Improved Evasion, Favored Terrain, and Master Hunter all as core class features.

3.5 Ranger was pretty middle of the road. Pathfinder Ranger stomps serious face.

[Snowbluff]

Better spell selection? :smallconfused:

[Optimator]

My group plays 3.5 and uses Pathfinder stuff all the time. Works great.

[Ssalarn]

Gravity Bow, Hunter's Howl, Lead Blades, Arrow Eruption, Protective Spirit, Instant Enemy, Strong Jaw, Aspect of the Wolf, Bow Spirit, Fickle Winds, Animal Aspect (you'd be surprised), Effortless Armor (lets just take one of the Fighter's main class features and turn it into a spell), Communal Protection from Energy, and Brow Gasher are all fantastic, effective, and powerful spells that the PF Ranger has access to just from the core line. Hunter's Howl is a little debatable, but it's fantastic if you chose the Hunter's Bond that allows you to share your Favored Enemy bonuses with your teammates. Even if you took the animal companion option, that's still giving the two of you favored enemy bonuses, so not bad even then, just not as good.

[Anlashok]

I feel like the 3.5 ranger gets more hate than he deserves honestly. Outside of core the ranger gets a lot of cool spells and while it's not amazing I really do think archery gets more of a bad rap than it deserves.

[Ssalarn]

I feel like the 3.5 ranger gets more hate than he deserves honestly. Outside of core the ranger gets a lot of cool spells and while it's not amazing I really do think archery gets more of a bad rap than it deserves.

Archery was very underrated in 3.5. While Pathfinder definitely made it better (and it is widely acknowledged as the most powerful non-magical combat option currently available, with the possible exception of Pounce), the change wasn't as extreme as some people believe. Increased opportunities for full attacks is never a bad thing.

[Incanur]

Honestly the contrast between assessments of archery in PF versus 3.5 confuses me. In 3.5 debates, people always say that many/most encounters happen at close range and that low-level spells like wind wall and obscuring mist easily counter archery. Is PF archery really that great in a dungeon crawl? 3.5 archery can be quite solid in longer-range encounters, but folks always insist that archery sucks in 3.5.

[Anlashok]

The Wind Wall comment always confused me

Wind Wall does really, really suck for archers and basically shuts you down... but at the same time by the time a caster gets a single use of wind wall he already has three or four spells that are just as devastating to the THF fighter. Cheesing yourself to Huge size isn't that much different than some of the hoops you jump through to get past everything as a melee either.

[Snowbluff]

I concur. Archery sucking is way overblown, and PF really fixed none of the real issues, like Point Blank Shot existing.

Gravity Bow, Hunter's Howl, Lead Blades, Arrow Eruption, Protective Spirit, Instant Enemy, Strong Jaw, Aspect of the Wolf, Bow Spirit, Fickle Winds, Animal Aspect (you'd be surprised), Effortless Armor (lets just take one of the Fighter's main class features and turn it into a spell), Communal Protection from Energy, and Brow Gasher are all fantastic, effective, and powerful spells that the PF Ranger has access to just from the core line. Hunter's Howl is a little debatable, but it's fantastic if you chose the Hunter's Bond that allows you to share your Favored Enemy bonuses with your teammates. Even if you took the animal companion option, that's still giving the two of you favored enemy bonuses, so not bad even then, just not as good.Instant Enemy is alright, Communal Protection from Energy is great, but Arrow Eruption sucks... I'm not sure if these are better than the long list of 3.5 spells.

I'm not a big 3.5 ranger guy, but Arrow Mind is really sweet. Those dragon magic 24 hour buffs are great. Hunter's Mercy is cool. I mean, you can open the SpC and get a spell list real fast. I think they might even get Arrow Split.

[T.G. Oskar]

Smite/Inflict Smitten.

I prefer "Mark of Zealous Judgment", thank you very much. It's the difference between the term smite (a sudden, destructive manifestation of divine power) and what PF's "Smite" offers (a constant bonus to attack and damage rolls). I doubt Cain was punished by the "sevenfold smite", right?

Semantics, yes, but I can't happen to call it like that. It's not that I don't like it, but I can't bear myself to call it like that.


Gaining or recovering, I hope we can both agree that they should get the d10?

Sure. While at it, maybe downgrade the Wizard's HD to d4. Not a fan of an upgrade that can leave a Wizard with enough hit points to survive, when they already have several ways to survive.


It is worth noting, I think, that Ranger CSFs can actually grant feats early (Shield Master and Improved Precise shot are both available 5 levels early, for instance). Maybe choice is the wrong word. Flexibility, perhaps? It would seem to make dipping a little easier, although I'm not sure if that's actually a practical benefit.

I can give you Imp. Precise Shot, but the lack of Agile Shield Fighter is a blow to my loins. Rangers can ameliorate this by getting TWF through the Weapon & Shield combat style, but that leaves only Fighters and Rangers as those capable of using shields offensively. The fact that it's almost impossible for Paladins is what shanked my loins horribly; at least in 3.5, despite the lack of feats, you could spend less in terms of ability scores and still fight decently with a shield (and also get a rockin' bonus to touch AC and what's essentially CMD with it). Waiting for 10th level for Improved Sunder is a joke, though. A bad joke, even. Not even Improved Bull Rush?


I also forgot to mention that the Ranger's Animal Companion gets something of a buff in PF, as they treat their druid level as ranger -3, rather than half, and there's a feat to ameliorate that penalty.

That said, I do conceptually like the way that 3.5 handles animal companions over Pathfinder's (Creatures retain their own kind of hit dice, is the main thing). As such, I'd probably use the 3.5 Paladin mount (With the option to sub it out for the PF Paladin's Divine Bond for the weapon) options and advancement.

The animal companion getting better HD is nice, though I still feel the Druid stole one of the things the Ranger had since its inception. Why a Ranger should have a weaker animal companion when the Druid's Wild Shape is almost as powerful as being a combatant (even if you require good fighting scores, you still can outclass a Ranger in its own turf) and you get better spells. I also like that you get full bonus with Favored Enemy, but it sucks that you can't change it later on as a class feature rather than as an optional rule.

As for the Special Mount...the 3.5 version is hands down better, IMO, as it allowed you to get rockin' mounts like Griffons and Pegasi, whereas you're limited to a horse or a camel (or a shark if you're underwater). The weapon bond can be adapted almost verbatim as a Paladin ACF, though Divine Spirit is a pretty strong competitor.


Gravity Bow, Hunter's Howl, Lead Blades, Arrow Eruption, Protective Spirit, Instant Enemy, Strong Jaw, Aspect of the Wolf, Bow Spirit, Fickle Winds, Animal Aspect (you'd be surprised), Effortless Armor (lets just take one of the Fighter's main class features and turn it into a spell), Communal Protection from Energy, and Brow Gasher are all fantastic, effective, and powerful spells that the PF Ranger has access to just from the core line. Hunter's Howl is a little debatable, but it's fantastic if you chose the Hunter's Bond that allows you to share your Favored Enemy bonuses with your teammates. Even if you took the animal companion option, that's still giving the two of you favored enemy bonuses, so not bad even then, just not as good.

Aspect of the Wolf is in 3.5, but it's a 1st level Polymorph spell (it turns you into a wolf). However, if looking for 14 good 3.5 spells...

Arrow Mind, Healing Lorecall, Hunter's Mercy, Ram's Might, Rhino's Rush, Scent (think Bloodhound), Fell the Greatest Foe, Lion's Charge, Swift Haste, Listening Lorecall, Arrow Storm, Find the Gap, Foebane, Wild Runner. That's 13 spells to your 14 spells, and all are at the Spell Compendium (not exactly the "Core" line, but a compendium of nearly all spells published up to that moment. That doesn't include Player's Handbook II, which has the spell that grants you sneak attack for free (Hunter's Sense?).

As for the PF spells: Animal Aspect doesn't surprise me (maybe the otter?), I cringe at Communal spells because you have to share the duration (plus cast them all at the same moment), and Protective Spirit is a joke (you shouldn't provoke AoO, and if you do because of Archery, there's ways to evade that with items; also, Arrow Mind does that for you, and that's a 1st level 3.5 spell). On the upper hand, Bloodhound is the natural progression of Scent.

A merger of the two lists would be brutal, though: Instant Enemy + Foebane means you can play into being an Inquisitor, Strong Jaws + Jagged Tooth makes your animal companion a complete menace, Lead Blades + Lion's Charge on a Two-Weapon Ranger means you can make an enemy bleed to death in your second turn (and if you cast Swift Haste on the first turn, you probably keep it for the second turn which means you get an extra attack which means even MORE bleed damage). Seriously, between the two lists, you could create a monster.

P.S. Bzzap, Snowbluff, bzzap!! Awesome Mindlink.

[Snowbluff]

P.S. Bzzap, Snowbluff, bzzap!!

Bzzap! Bzzap! :smallwink: