pathfinder or 3.5?

[animevacker1045]

So I'm relatively new to D&D and got all my 3.5 books from a friend including the cool sub systems like ToB ,ToM, MoI and the psionic stuff. I'm sure everyone here know 3.5 is kind of wonky so I'm using a lot of fixes mainly giants and graveyards and I was wondering if it would be a good idea to update to pathfinder and convert the 3.5 books and homebrew I like or if it would be easier to just convert pathfinder stuff backwards?


feel free to tell me which one you think is better feel free to disagree but be civilized.

Thanks to any one who helps. :smallsmile:


here is G&G if your interested.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329161-Giants-and-Graveyards-Grod-s-collected-3-5-revisions

[Elricaltovilla]

You're asking for people's opinions on whether pathfinder or 3.5 are better, and asking people not to fight about it? That ain't gonna happen. Well it might, people here tend to be pretty civilized.

I prefer Pathfinder, the main reasons being:

Its still in print, so there is new material coming out and they are actively fixing old material.
Some really good classes like the Alchemist, Investigator, Magus, Inquisitor are strong without being overpowered and offer a good mix of magic and muscle
Archetypes let you customize classes to better fit your goals and ideas. The rules for stacking archetypes though... I prefer not to think about them.
The PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) has all Pathfinder material available for free, including most 3rd party material, much of which is of stellar quality
I'm extremely biased because I write 3rd party material for Pathfinder:smalltongue:


Ultimately its a question of preference and opinion. Both systems have their strong points and are pretty similar, but I've played a lot more Pathfinder and find that I generally enjoy the openness of it a lot.

[Vhaidara]

I second the recommendation of PF. Especially since, as you are using things like Giants and Graveyards your group seems open to 3rd Party/Homebrew. Dreamscarred Press has ported most of the fun 3.5 subsystems (Psionics, ToB, Incarnum, with truenaming in the works) to PF, and the good people there are easy to contact through GitP. As in I've actually had occasion where I had a question, sent one of them a PM, and got a response within a few hours.

The only thing that hasn't been ported yet (binder was done by Radiant House and is also being done by Paizo themselves) is Shadowcasting. Which I'm still hoping to see a DSP announcement for.

[Forrestfire]

Personally, I feel that the only reason to play either is because you like the mechanics... So, play 3.5 if you like its strengths (ignoring multiclassing penalties to turn it into a cleverly-disguised point buy system, sheer amount of options allowing for any concept to be built), or play PF if you like its strengths (less space for fiddly builds, archetypes allowing easy customization on single classes, wealth of third-party content).

Both have issues, and while I immensely dislike many of Paizo's practices (especially regarding caster/noncaster disparity, hidden nerfs in the feats, general developer attitude on the forums [although a decent amount has died down now that SKR's gone]), I won't deny that the archetypes system has advantages for some people over the prestige classes system, and that the ceiling of TO stuff has been lowered (even if that's irrelevant in actual play).

Personally? I think mixing the best of the two is the way to go. 3.p with a DM who takes care to mix the two games in ways that don't cause issues (for example, PoW and ToB can be mixed to get hideously high numbers through some feats that are redundant between the books) makes for a very fun game.

[Vhaidara]

for example, PoW and ToB can be mixed to get hideously high numbers through some feats that are redundant between the books

I feel like doing a silly numbers thing.
So, we get a +1 Aptitude Agile Revolver. Dip 3 levels of Trench Fighter and mainline Pistolero Gunslinger. Take Weapon Finesse and Deadly Agility. Pick up Dervish Dance and Slashing Grace too. Then Shadow Blade.

Through hilarious abuse of the Aptitude enchantment, I believe this revolver now deal 7 times your Dex mod in damage.

EDIT: This is not meant to prove any points about either system, I just felt like doing it.

[animevacker1045]

Personally? I think mixing the best of the two is the way to go. 3.p with a DM who takes care to mix the two games in ways that don't cause issues (for example, PoW and ToB can be mixed to get hideously high numbers through some feats that are redundant between the books) makes for a very fun game.


how any recommendation on how to mix them?



You're asking for people's opinions on whether pathfinder or 3.5 are better, and asking people not to fight about it? That ain't gonna happen. Well it might, people here tend to be pretty civilized.



well not really witch is better butt which one would make a better base if I were to port stuff from one to the other and I edited my post to a request to keep disagreement civilized because honestly if people disagree maybe I will see some point that pulls to one or another

Is the PFSRD leagl?

[Red Fel]

well not really witch is better butt which one would make a better base if I were to port stuff from one to the other.

I find that PF works just a bit more smoothly, in terms of a mechanical base. It doesn't eliminate the gap between casters and non-casters, but it helps narrow it a bit. It doesn't make some of the sub-optimal classes (Paladin, Monk, etc.) suddenly awesome, but it does make them more useful. And its feat structure and skill streamlining are a substantial improvement. Overall, I'd say it's easier - and probably better - to port 3.5 into PF, rather than the other way around.

Now, be aware that a lot of things have already been ported into PF, at least by third parties, or are in the process of being imported. Also, be aware that a lot of 3.5 material suffered from substantial overlaps, redundancies, and just plain trap options. Be sure, should you decide to port 3.5 content into PF, that it hasn't been done already, or at least done better.

[Ssalarn]

You're asking for people's opinions on whether pathfinder or 3.5 are better, and asking people not to fight about it? That ain't gonna happen. Well it might, people here tend to be pretty civilized.

I prefer Pathfinder, the main reasons being:

Its still in print, so there is new material coming out and they are actively fixing old material.
Some really good classes like the Alchemist, Investigator, Magus, Inquisitor are strong without being overpowered and offer a good mix of magic and muscle
Archetypes let you customize classes to better fit your goals and ideas. The rules for stacking archetypes though... I prefer not to think about them.
The PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) has all Pathfinder material available for free, including most 3rd party material, much of which is of stellar quality
I'm extremely biased because I write 3rd party material for Pathfinder:smalltongue:


Ultimately its a question of preference and opinion. Both systems have their strong points and are pretty similar, but I've played a lot more Pathfinder and find that I generally enjoy the openness of it a lot.

Add me to the PF party for pretty much all the same reasons.

Pathfinder is still a "live" system, so there's more 1st party support for it than 3.5, their 3pp community is amazing and on average several notches above the quality and balance that 3pp's used to put out in the 3.5 days, and for good or ill they've streamlined a lot of the subsystems like skills and combat maneuvers, making them easier to reference and use.

The other thing I like is that the optimization floor is a little bit higher in Pathfinder. Classes get more goodies and a lot of the class chassis' are more self-sufficient than in 3.5. For example, the Paladin is really easy to screw up or make a really poor character from in 3.5, being very MAD, dependent on abilities that can be completely wasted with a single poor roll, etc. In Pathfinder, the Paladin only needs Charisma and his combat stat, either STR or DEX, to be fully functional, his smites last until the target is defeated, and his spells and class abilities key off the same stat.


*** It doesn't make some of the sub-optimal classes (Paladin, Monk, etc.) suddenly awesome, but it does make them more useful. And its feat structure and skill streamlining are a substantial improvement. Overall, I'd say it's easier - and probably better - to port 3.5 into PF, rather than the other way around.

Now, be aware that a lot of things have already been ported into PF, at least by third parties, or are in the process of being imported. Also, be aware that a lot of 3.5 material suffered from substantial overlaps, redundancies, and just plain trap options. Be sure, should you decide to port 3.5 content into PF, that it hasn't been done already, or at least done better.

I agree with most of this, except for the Paladin thing. Paladin got a big, big boost in Pathfinder and went from being a Tier 5 unles you could grab a bunch of splatbook options, to beign a solid Tier 4 easily able to cross the line into Tier 3. Monk definitely kind of clocked in at basically the same awkwardly deficient place it was in 3.5, but at least there are a bunch of good feats and archetypes right in the core product line that can quickly and easily bump it into the realms of efficient competence.

[Fallenreality]

Nowadays I prefer Pathfinder. I really enjoy Magus and Alchemist and some of my favorite material has come from 3rd party.

The PFSRD makes life easy as well.

[Vhaidara]

Is the PFSRD leagl?

Yes. Because all of PF is written under OGL (3.5's "you can make stuff for this but you have to make any rules content free" rule), Paizo and all 3rd party developers are legally required to make all rules-material freely available. They can charge for the books, because those additionally contain art and fluff, but everything else (crunch) is free online. The PFSRD is usually updated with new content within a week.

[Elricaltovilla]

well not really witch is better butt which one would make a better base if I were to port stuff from one to the other and I edited my post to a request to keep disagreement civilized because honestly if people disagree maybe I will see some point that pulls to one or another

Is the PFSRD leagl?

Yes, the PFSRD is 100% legal. Everything in Pathfinder is OGL (open game license) compatible, and all 3rd party material is required to be OGL as well.

Pathfinder closes some loopholes in 3.5 but leaves others open, for example:


I feel like doing a silly numbers thing.
So, we get a +1 Aptitude Agile Revolver. Dip 3 levels of Trench Fighter and mainline Pistolero Gunslinger. Take Weapon Finesse and Deadly Agility. Pick up Dervish Dance and Slashing Grace too. Then Shadow Blade.

Through hilarious abuse of the Aptitude enchantment, I believe this revolver now deal 7 times your Dex mod in damage.

EDIT: This is not meant to prove any points about either system, I just felt like doing it.

This is only legal if you are using 3.5 as a base. In Pathfinder you can only ever gain +STAT bonuses once, while in 3.5 you could stack them as high as you want as long as they came from different sources.

On the other hand, Pathfinder still didn't fix infinite wish loops as far as I'm aware.

[Ssalarn]

Yes. Because all of PF is written under OGL (3.5's "you can make stuff for this but you have to make any rules content free" rule), Paizo and all 3rd party developers are legally required to make all rules-material freely available. They can charge for the books, because those additionally contain art and fluff, but everything else (crunch) is free online. The PFSRD is usually updated with new content within a week.

Not strictly true, but close enough. Setting specific materials actually aren't treated the same way as core mechanics by the OGL, which is why d20PFSRD had to go in and change the names of numerous archetypes and PrCs and make various other tweaks to their site when they left the umbrella of the free use clause and opened a commercial store-front on their site.

That being said, it's still a fairly reliable source for rules and mechanics, and one of the few places to reliably access splatbook materials which aren't otherwise available.



This is only legal if you are using 3.5 as a base. In Pathfinder you can only ever gain +STAT bonuses once, while in 3.5 you could stack them as high as you want as long as they came from different sources.



I was just about to jump in and say the same thing.

[Forrestfire]

It's not like infinite wish loops are an issue outside of TO, though.

[Vhaidara]

This is only legal if you are using 3.5 as a base.

And even then I'm torturing the wording of Aptitude weapon to cause a revolver to be considered a scimitar.

[Elricaltovilla]

It's not like infinite wish loops are an issue outside of TO, though.

No, but it could have been fixed with a single sentence. I.e. The Wish spell cannot be used to wish for more wishes or items which grant wishes.

EDIT:


And even then I'm torturing the wording of Aptitude weapon to cause a revolver to be considered a scimitar.

If you're not torturing rules constructs, you're not doing TO properly.

[Ssalarn]

No, but it could have been fixed with a single sentence. I.e. The Wish spell cannot be used to wish for more wishes or items which grant wishes.


I feel like Robin Williams made the RAI on that pretty clear back in 1992.

[animevacker1045]

wow the Pathfinder people sound really cool the fact that its open game license make me so much more partial to it.

[Elricaltovilla]

wow the Pathfinder people sound really cool the fact that its open game license make me so much more partial to it.

Its definitely one of the benefits to Pathfinder, and its paid off for them so far. If you're interested in 3rd party stuff as well, there's been a lot of work by 3rd party developers to port over and revamp most of the 3.5 subsystems like psionics, tome of battle, incarnum, binding and truenaming. A lot of this stuff is available in various playtests, or on the PFSRD if its already made it to print.

As a side benefit, you'll get to talk to the developers like me and Ssalarn if you have questions about our stuff. :smalltongue:

[Fallenreality]

Yeah, the OGL is really helpful. 3rd party wise, pretty much every DM I've had has considered Dreamscarred Press to practically just be base rules. I'm fond of the Radiance House Occultist as well. There are a few other fun ones in there like the Rogue Genius Games Time Thief. I would personally avoid the 3rd party Artificer and Warlock, that's what backwards compatibility with 3.5 is for.

Robin Williams also invented a great use for girdles of femininity/masculinity and taught a generation of young adventurers not to touch the cursed board game.

[Red Fel]

If you're not torturing rules constructs, you're not doing TO properly.

It's true. You can't spell "torturing rules constructs" without "TO".

You also can't spell "Toughness" without TO. Which is odd, when you consider how non-TO Toughness is. Or "Tomfoolery." Which makes sense, given what TO is. Or "Tomblike." Or "Toneless." Or "Topology." Or...

... wait, what were we discussing again?

[Fallenreality]

It's true. You can't spell "torturing rules constructs" without "TO".

You also can't spell "Toughness" without TO. Which is odd, when you consider how non-TO Toughness is. Or "Tomfoolery." Which makes sense, given what TO is. Or "Tomblike." Or "Toneless." Or "Topology." Or...

... wait, what were we discussing again?

I think we were discussing gelato or something.

[Elricaltovilla]

It's true. You can't spell "torturing rules constructs" without "TO".

You also can't spell "Toughness" without TO. Which is odd, when you consider how non-TO Toughness is. Or "Tomfoolery." Which makes sense, given what TO is. Or "Tomblike." Or "Toneless." Or "Topology." Or...

... wait, what were we discussing again?

We were discussing the benefits of adding 3rd party cookibooks like Deepfried Chef's Path of Salads to your standard game.

No but seriously, TO is all about twisting the rules into a Gordian Knot and telling your DM "No see its totally legal to become a giant snake thingy with arbitrarily high stats because I worship a squirrel."

[Fallenreality]

we were discussing the benefits of adding 3rd party cookibooks like deepfried chef's path of salads to your standard game.

no but seriously, to is all about twisting the rules into a gordian knot and telling your dm "no see its totally legal to become a giant snake thingy with arbitrarily high stats because i worship a squirrel."

It's everywhere!

[Red Fel]

We were discussing the benefits of adding 3rd party cookibooks like Deepfried Chef's Path of Salads to your standard game.

To be fair, DFC's Path of Salads is so awesome it really should be core. Just... the book's acronym is kind of unfortunate. Really, just unfortunate.

[Elricaltovilla]

To be fair, DFC's Path of Salads is so awesome it really should be core. Just... the book's acronym is kind of unfortunate. Really, just unfortunate.

Yeah, it was brought up a bunch in the playtest thread, but the authors were pretty against changing it.

[oxybe]

If I had to choose one or the other? 3.5 as the base with some pathfinder cherrypicking.

A lot of people make a big hubbub about the game being currently supported, but the material paizo is coming out with tends to be very hit and miss for me. 3.5, however has a large back-stock of stuff to draw from which, while still very much hit and miss, the sheer volume of content out there means that there is likely something for you out there, and many players/GMs have found fixes for some of the borked mechanics years ago. Some of the concepts, like martials VS casters, are borked on a fundamental level that requires more then just a mechanical overhaul, but this is true in both 3.5 and PF, though I do find PF has it both somewhat better and worse then 3.5 in that regard (a few nerfs in some feats and features cause problems for the martial types IMO, but they've also swung the nerf bat at some of the annoying spells that plagued 3.5 and generally raised the useability of the martials).

While both rulesets are basically cousins, 3.5 plays nicer with the mundanes then PF I find, from an optimization standpoint. There are more, IMO, viable and weird martial stuffs I find you can do in 3.5, while in PF I feel far more constrained to stick to a traditional, and boring, martial character, should I pick one. Some of the concepts that Pathfinder uses, like reworking polymorph to still be a form/mobility change, but instead of replacing the stats entirely, it alters yours with a +/- bonus is great, as is how it killed off cross-class skills (though both games could use more skill consolidation and more skill point destribution across the board).

Food for thought.

[Ssalarn]

***While both rulesets are basically cousins, 3.5 plays nicer with the mundanes then PF I find, from an optimization standpoint. There are more, IMO, viable and weird martial stuffs I find you can do in 3.5, while in PF I feel far more constrained to stick to a traditional, and boring, martial character, should I pick one. ***
Food for thought.

I personally find the exact opposite to be true. Non-spellcasting classes have a huge swath of options available right in the core product line for Pathfinder, and generally don't require splatbook diving to make them viable. The Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger have everything they need to be highly effective built right into the CRB, the Fighter got a fair boost (though not quite as much as he needed), and lots of new classes with great options like the Brawler, Cavalier, Investigator, and Samurai are solid right out of the box.
You want to talk about hit and miss, look at some of the garbage you have to wade through for martial options in 3.5, like the CW Samurai, or the base Paladin, or the Marshal, or numerous other options.

[Powerdork]

No, but it could have been fixed with a single sentence. I.e. The Wish spell cannot be used to wish for more wishes or items which grant wishes.

"I wish the word splork were used interchangeably with the word 'wish.' I wish that the restrictions on wishes were restricted only to the specific word wish. I splork for infinite splorks."

This post brought to you by #giantitp IRC.

[Faily]

I like both equally. Both of them give different options for what I like.

I like 3.5 for its huge array of sources. You can make almost any concept in 3.5, and it's always fun to take a low-tier class, spend some hours running through splatbooks and then theory-craft it into something that is fun, functionable and cool.
I like Pathfinder for being much easier for players who are not so much into building-mechanics to just make a character that works as intended and functions really well. We use Pathfinder for our weekly game, where 2 players lack a lot in the optimization departement, and it works really well because it allows them to have good characters that work for them without the extra layer of work or high level of game-knowledge.

3.5 satisifies my need for tinkering, customizing and theorycrafting.
Pathfinder satisifies my need for changing gears and not worry about Prestige Classes, alternate class features (that much), or scouring all the books ever printed to find the best spells for my caster.

[Fallenreality]

I like both equally. Both of them give different options for what I like.

I like 3.5 for its huge array of sources. You can make almost any concept in 3.5, and it's always fun to take a low-tier class, spend some hours running through splatbooks and then theory-craft it into something that is fun, functionable and cool.
I like Pathfinder for being much easier for players who are not so much into building-mechanics to just make a character that works as intended and functions really well. We use Pathfinder for our weekly game, where 2 players lack a lot in the optimization departement, and it works really well because it allows them to have good characters that work for them without the extra layer of work or high level of game-knowledge.

3.5 satisifies my need for tinkering, customizing and theorycrafting.
Pathfinder satisifies my need for changing gears and not worry about Prestige Classes, alternate class features (that much), or scouring all the books ever printed to find the best spells for my caster.

I can honestly agree with everything in this post. It sums up my feelings exactly. Although it is possible to theorycraft Pathfinder and have fun with it as well.

[Faily]

Oh, not denying that. I just think theorycrafting in Pathfinder and 3.5 are two completely different things. That's my experience with it though. :smallbiggrin:

[AmberVael]

"I wish the word splork were used interchangeably with the word 'wish.' I wish that the restrictions on wishes were restricted only to the specific word wish. I splork for infinite splorks."

This post brought to you by #giantitp IRC.

By way of SMBC, which came up with the idea. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2740)

[137beth]

I don't mind mixing them, but I prefer 3.5 as a base. The main reasons are:
1. Subsystems are my favorite part of the game. Paizo has utterly failed to deliver any well-written subsystems for classes.
2. I have more 3.5 books, so there is less conversion work going from pathfinder to 3.5.
3. I find converting from pathfinder to 3.5 easier anyways.
4. Aside from making cantrips unlimited, I don't actually like any of the changes in the pathfinder core rules.

Dreamscarred Press has ported most of the fun 3.5 subsystems (Psionics, ToB, Incarnum, with truenaming in the works) to PF

Note: the upcoming 'truenaming' product is not a conversion of ToM truenaming. It is an original subsystem Fax wrote/is writing. There is a really well-done conversion of ToM truenaming to pathfinder, (http://paizo.com/products/btpy94sb?Libram-of-the-First-Language-Truename-Magic), by a different company, though (and its being expanded (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/138223/Strange-Magic-Subscription-PFRPG?term=strange+magic), along with other subsytems, as the result of a kickstarter).

[Teapot Salty]

Pathfinder is usually hailed as better for the fact that it is largely a polished version of 3.5. Personally I think that 3.P is the best (3.5 and pathfinder together) for example using pathfinder as a base, but taking awesome 3.5 books (tome of battle) and throwing them in.

[Vhaidara]

The point is still that the idea is being ported. I don't think anyone is going to miss the terrible mechanics of 3.5 Truenaming, and I trust Fax to get it right so that I can shape the universe with a rousing speech.

[Snowbluff]

The thing about 3.5 is that the less you know about it, the more you will hate it. The opposite is true for PF.

Either way, be glad that 3.5 is no longer supported. If you want to know why, ask someone about a FAQ. It doesn't even have to be 3.5's FAQ, which was horrible. PF's is terrible, too.

Probably the most annoying thing about PF is the amount of praise it receives despite the lack of marked improvements over 3.5. Many of the changes made weren't for the better. It still plays similarly if you're really into casters, but melees get stuck in ruts and spell-less skill monkey classes are pretty much useless thanks to the new skill system. Like I said at the beginning, the only people who would really care about this are the people who really like customizing their characters.

In terms of material, 3.5 swamps PF, but PF is designed to be compatible, which means barely any DM will let you use materials from one gae in the other. If you're counting third party, a couple of devs became popular for PF with it being so easy to spread material online. DSP is the only one I consider (mostly) good, and they usually alter 3.5 subsystems, so they can really be used in either system with minimal conversion.

So, make an informed decision based on your own research on the systems, and don't say I didn't warn you. :smallsmile:

[Vhaidara]

In terms of material, 3.5 swamps PF

You know, while I don't question this with regards to first party material, I feel that quality PF first party (there is some) + quality PF third party is actually > quality 3.5 first party + quality 3.5 third party.

[Snowbluff]

You know, while I don't question this with regards to first party material, I feel that quality PF first party (there is some) + quality PF third party is actually > quality 3.5 first party + quality 3.5 third party.

I don't know enough about 3.5 third party, mostly because I haven't gotten to use the 3.5 material. Of course, 0+1 is still higher than 1-1. Not to mention once you start working with 3rd party (which also covers homebrew, let's be legit here), you can just kiss whatever rules you had goodbye. You can convert freely between the two, and PF is really just a large 3rd party mod to 3.5, anyway.

[Roxxy]

general developer attitude on the forums [although a decent amount has died down now that SKR's gone]Explanation? I'm always on the Paizo boards, and I haven't seem much rudeness from developers at all, including SKR.

[Elricaltovilla]

Explanation? I'm always on the Paizo boards, and I haven't seem much rudeness from developers at all, including SKR.

A lot of that stuff got removed, updated or changed I think. It was a few years ago. There was a big hulabaloo over monk flurrying+TWF and another one over magus spellstrike+Haste, and SKR apparently got very defensive and made some knee-jerk rulings that made people pretty upset.

I think all of those have been changed, and the paizo guys are generally pretty pleasant.

[Ssalarn]

A lot of that stuff got removed, updated or changed I think. It was a few years ago. There was a big hulabaloo over monk flurrying+TWF and another one over magus spellstrike+Haste, and SKR apparently got very defensive and made some knee-jerk rulings that made people pretty upset.

I think all of those have been changed, and the paizo guys are generally pretty pleasant.

To be clear, SKR actually passed down the design team's joint decisions and people got really pissy about it. I was there. The monk thing that he's villified for to this day wasn't even his ruling, he mentioned right in the initial ruling that he was passing on what Jason had intended when he wrote the new mechanics. Also, Paizo's forums lock posts 1 hour after posting, so you can find what was said and who said it unless it was deleted for violating the forum rules, so the history is there to see with relatively little digging.

He did get a little pissy toward the end there, but honestly, I probably would have too when every decision a company made as a team that people disagreed with got directly attributed me as an individual, accompanied with name calling and aspersions on my ability in my chosen profession.

I've had the wonderful experience of the bulk of the people who playtest and/or review my products being very helpful and supportive, and expressing their opinions in a really positive manner, and I'm incredibly thankful for it. I'd encourage everyone to stop and think before you post something and ask yourself "If I didn't know me, would this still come off as constructive?"
A lot of us intelligent gamer types tend to be both opinionated and sarcastic, and unfortunately, that can really come off the wrong way when someone reading a post doesn't have the benefit of our facial expressions and tone of voice helping to identify which words are intended to be helpful, and which are meant to be taken with a dose of rueful humor.

[Vhaidara]

To be clear, SKR actually passed down the design team's joint decisions and people got really pissy about it. I was there. The monk thing that he's villified for to this day wasn't even his ruling, he mentioned right in the initial ruling that he was passing on what Jason had intended when he wrote the new mechanics. Also, Paizo's forums lock posts 1 hour after posting, so you can find what was said and who said it unless it was deleted for violating the forum rules, so the history is there to see with relatively little digging.

He did get a little pissy toward the end there, but honestly, I probably would have to when every decision a company made as a team that people disagreed with got directly attributed me as an individual, accompanied with name calling and aspersions on my ability in my chosen profession.

I've had the wonderful experience of the bulk of the people who playtest and/or review my products being very helpful and supportive, and expressing their opinions in a really positive manner, and I'm incredibly thankful for it. I'd encourage everyone to stop and think before you post something and ask yourself "If I didn't know me, would this still come off as constructive?"
A lot of us intelligent gamer types tend to be both opinionated and sarcastic, and unfortunately, that can really come off the wrong way when someone reading a post doesn't have the benefit of our facial expressions and tone of voice helping to identify which words are intended to be helpful, and which are meant to be taken with a dose of rueful humor.
Was going to post something sarcastic, but I'll leave it to your imaginations
{self-scrubbed}

[Dgrin]

Lately I find that I prefer 3.5 for theorycrafting and Pathfinder for playing.

But if you are going to convert all the cool stuff anyway, I'd suggest you to use PF as a base and allow players to use stuff from 3.5, maybe tweaking it to better fit. Although I don't really like some of the changes, like wild shape nerf - in my opinion, in 3.5 it was much more fun :smallamused:

But if you're using Pathfinder - DO NOT forget to look at Dreamscarred Press stuff! It should be treated as official Pathfinder material.
Warning: following that advice may cause highly increased enjoyment of your game!

[Vhaidara]

But if you're using Pathfinder - DO NOT forget to look at Paizo stuff! It should sometimes be treated as official Dreamscarred Press material.
Warning: following that advice may cause highly increased enjoyment of your game!

ftfycharmin

[AmberVael]

ftfycharmin

Hehehe. I could get behind that movement. :smallbiggrin:

[RolkFlameraven]

^ Playing that right now, group is a Warder, Psion, Tactician and a Magus :biggrin:

[PsyBomb]

PF with DSP and Radiance House, any day. There is enough material out there now between them to have something like a billion effective builds, with choices defining style and mechanics without instantly nerfing yourself into oblivion. More is still coming as well, plus the active dev feedback

[Ssalarn]

^ Playing that right now, group is a Warder, Psion, Tactician and a Magus :biggrin:

That's what our games have turned into as well. Sometimes players don't even make it to flipping through a Paizo book to see what they want to play. Currently, the general order of events after deciding to play a new game or create a new character is:

1) I suggest something from the Akashic Mysteries subscription or playtest so I can get more data, and because I think it's genuinely cool stuff.

2) If they don't go for that, they typically pick up my copy of Ultimate Psionics to see if there's something there they want to play.

3) If they still haven't found something, they grab my copy of Path of War and check out the initiators.

4) It diverges a bit here; sometimes they'll go for the ARG to see if there's a cool race that they want to play that might help guide them to a class, sometimes they grab the ACG to check out the hybrid classes.

5a) Finding a race often loops them back to an earlier class that hadn't quite clicked; otherwise they typically go with whatever class is most archetypical of the race they've chosen.

5b) If they don't find something in the ACG, it usually goes Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, APG, and if they're still not clicking they something along the lines of "Well, I guess I'll just play a XYZ" and they go with one of the CRB classic classes.

[animevacker1045]

I will probably be updating classes and spells that don't have a direct equivalentas well as psionic powers, vestiges, soulmelds, Maneuvers and stances to their PF equivalent.

On that note can some one direct me to the incarnum update that i believe was metiond and perhaps a guide to updating monsters and classes?

[Vhaidara]

I will probably be updating classes and spells that don't have a direct equivalentas well as psionic powers, vestiges, soulmelds, Maneuvers and stances to their PF equivalent.

Incarnum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?349964-Dreamscarred-Press-Introduces-Akashic-Mysteries)
Tome of Battle (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war) (Expanded (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?373269-Dreamscarred-Press-Announces-Path-of-War-Expanded))
Psionics (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed)
Binder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/radiance-house/occultist), Spirits (new vestiges) (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/binding-spirits/spirits), and how they work (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/binding-spirits)

[Ssalarn]

I will probably be updating classes and spells that don't have a direct equivalentas well as psionic powers, vestiges, soulmelds, Maneuvers and stances to their PF equivalent.

On that note can some one direct me to the incarnum update that i believe was metiond and perhaps a guide to updating monsters and classes?

Akashic Mysteries (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?349964-Dreamscarred-Press-Introduces-Akashic-Mysteries) is Dreamscarred's reimagining of the Incarnum subsystem. You can also find the Vizier, the first class from Akashic Mysteries, up on d20pfsrd.com.

**EDIT**
Beaten to the punch, and quite thoroughly so!

[Mehangel]

If you had asked me 3 years ago if i preferred 3.5 or Pathfinder, I would've said 3.5.. but having played several games in pathfinder, I will have to say, I have been converted. This is not to say that I dont enjoy 3.5 games, but with having all the information online with easy access thats links everything together, I would have to say that Pathfinder has won my vote. I still allow players design (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/magic/designingSpells.html) spells from the 3.5 Spell Compendium if they don't have a translated version.

[animevacker1045]

so could some one link me to a guide on updating 3.5 stuff to pathfinder to help me get started specifically monsters and classes.

[Vhaidara]

so could some one link me to a guide on updating 3.5 stuff to pathfinder to help me get started specifically monsters and classes.

It would probably be easier to do them case by case, since most things have been ported. Can you give us any specific class you want to port? For example, the duskblade hasn't been ported, but the Magus class is effectively the 3.5 duskblade.

As far as monsters, check the Bestiary (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary) first.

[137beth]

Now that I think about it, Interjection Games+DSP might have more subsystems than 3.5. Interjection mainly does original subsystems (aside from their heavily revised truenaming), while DSP does ports of 3.5 ones...so currently they have
Interjection:
1. Antipodist (the author said it was a spiritual successor to shadow magic from ToM, but it doesn't really have anything in common aside from the name).
2. Brewers
3. Card-magic
4. Edgewalker
5. Ethermagic
6. Tinkering
7. Herbalist
8.Onmyoji
9.Sanguine Disciple
10. Truenaming
And DSP has:
11. Psionics
12. PoW
13. Incarnum
14. Fax-truenaming

[Fallenreality]

It would probably be easier to do them case by case, since most things have been ported. Can you give us any specific class you want to port? For example, the duskblade hasn't been ported, but the Magus class is more effective than the 3.5 duskblade.

As far as monsters, check the Bestiary (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary) first.

Fixed that for you. Not even counting the wonderful DSP and Radiance House additions, You can probably make a large portion of cool concepts just using Magus, Alchemist, or Summoner.

[Vhaidara]

@Fallen: There are a few things I know will be pointed out that Magus can't do, namely THF while casting. That's a houserule I'm using for our campaign.

@ben: Well, given that DSP has covered all but 2 (binding and shadowcasting) of 3.5 subsystems (3 if you count invocations), it's hardly difficult to pass 3.5 by adding DSP and another company.

[137beth]

Fixed that for you. Not even counting the wonderful DSP and Radiance House additions, You can probably make a large portion of cool concepts just using Magus, Alchemist, or Summoner.

The magus tends to be a lot more cookie-cutter than the duskblade, though. Duskblade can handle a huge variety of fighting styles, while magi all end up in one of a couple different builds.

[Fallenreality]

The magus tends to be a lot more cookie-cutter than the duskblade, though. Duskblade can handle a huge variety of fighting styles, while magi all end up in one of a couple different builds.

I like to theorycraft random silly builds with magus. It has a fairly good chassis to build off of concept wise. I do wish Myrmidarch was better though. Having a solid ranged archetype would give it a much wider variety of fighting styles.

[Vhaidara]

The magus tends to be a lot more cookie-cutter than the duskblade, though. Duskblade can handle a huge variety of fighting styles, while magi all end up in one of a couple different builds.

Now that is untrue. Duskblades generally go THF Str builds using either Shocking Grasp or Vampiric Touch.

Magus, meanwhile, can go for a Str or a Dex build, can go armored or can use Kensai (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/kensai) for unarmored, can go melee or use Myrmidarch (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/myrmidarch) for ranged, can be Int prepared or Cha spontaneous with Eldritch Scion (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/eldritch-scion), can be a normal combatant or a crafter with Soul Forger (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/soul-forger), can go Spell and Sword or can go TWF with Spellblade (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/spellblade) or Sword and Board with Skirnir (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/skirnir), can keep their standard Arcana or grab hexes with Hexcrafter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/hexcrafter).

Oh, and also Bladebound (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/bladebound)

[Ssalarn]

Now that is untrue. Duskblades generally go THF Str builds using either Shocking Grasp or Vampiric Touch.

Magus, meanwhile, can go for a Str or a Dex build, can go armored or can use Kensai (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/kensai) for unarmored, can go melee or use Myrmidarch (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/myrmidarch) for ranged, can be Int prepared or Cha spontaneous with Eldritch Scion (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/eldritch-scion), can be a normal combatant or a crafter with Soul Forger (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/soul-forger), can go Spell and Sword or can go TWF with Spellblade (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/spellblade) or Sword and Board with Skirnir (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/skirnir), can keep their standard Arcana or grab hexes with Hexcrafter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/hexcrafter).

Oh, and also Bladebound (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/bladebound)

And once again, Keledrath says what I was going to say before I could finish saying it, and does a better job of it than I was going to do :smallamused:

[Vhaidara]

And once again, Keledrath says what I was going to say before I could finish saying it, and does a better job of it than I was going to do :smallamused:

I guess I'm just really good at speed linking :smalltongue:

EDIT: I do find it hilarious that there isn't a good archetype for THF Magus.

[Fallenreality]

Now that is untrue. Duskblades generally go THF Str builds using either Shocking Grasp or Vampiric Touch.

Magus, meanwhile, can go for a Str or a Dex build, can go armored or can use Kensai (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/kensai) for unarmored, can go melee or use Myrmidarch (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/myrmidarch) for ranged, can be Int prepared or Cha spontaneous with Eldritch Scion (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/eldritch-scion), can be a normal combatant or a crafter with Soul Forger (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/soul-forger), can go Spell and Sword or can go TWF with Spellblade (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/spellblade) or Sword and Board with Skirnir (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/skirnir), can keep their standard Arcana or grab hexes with Hexcrafter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/hexcrafter).

Oh, and also Bladebound (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/bladebound)

That's just with base Paizo stuff. If you throw in 3rd party you can even replace your casting with binding http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/magus-archetypes---radiance-house/sibyl.

Edit: While I agree about THF, I personally don't use it on characters much so I would rather see a bit of an update to Myrmidarch. I mean, who cares about THF when you have actual support for a bladed scarf? :P http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/kapenia-dancer

[Ssalarn]

EDIT: I do find it hilarious that there isn't a good archetype for THF Magus.

To be fair, the "only" Magus ability that isn't compatible with THF is Spell Combat (you can still Spellstrike by holding the TH weapon, casting the spell, and then regripping as a free action and attacking), so if you could find something that trades away Spell Combat and then stacked up Vital Strike and Imp. Vital Strike, you could maybe come up with something decent.

[137beth]

Okay, that's an indication to me that I'm just not sufficiently familiar with magus. Thanks, forum/ Keledrath!

[Fallenreality]

To be fair, the "only" Magus ability that isn't compatible with THF is Spell Combat (you can still Spellstrike by holding the TH weapon, casting the spell, and then regripping as a free action and attacking), so if you could find something that trades away Spell Combat and then stacked up Vital Strike and Imp. Vital Strike, you could maybe come up with something decent.

Any archetype that "removes" spell combat just replaces it with a new one that functions with your new form of casting. Nothing wrong with doing the vital strike thing anyway. Does vital strike actually work with the spell portion of the attack?

[Ssalarn]

Any archetype that "removes" spell combat just replaces it with a new one that functions with your new form of casting. Nothing wrong with doing the vital strike thing anyway. Does vital strike actually work with the spell portion of the attack?

As I think about it, you could only combo up Vital Strike in attack routines with spells cast as swift actions or spells with charges that hold over multiple rounds, like chill touch, since it requires an attack action. So if you'd cast chill touch in a previous round, you could make Spellstrike/Vital Strike attacks with it until you ran out of charges, or, if you are capable of casting something like shocking grasp as a swift action, you'd cast, Spellstrike with the free touch attack granted by the spell, then standard action Vital Strike.

...

So really, any time you could pull that combo off, you could pretty much just as easily full attack as Vital Strike... /facepalm

[Fallenreality]

Now now, don't facepalm too hard. We need your braincells working to finish up awesome Akashic stuff :P

[animevacker1045]

It would probably be easier to do them case by case, since most things have been ported. Can you give us any specific class you want to port? For example, the duskblade hasn't been ported, but the Magus class is effectively the 3.5 duskblade.



You misunderstood, I meant some guidelines on the how to do it, I mean it looks fairly easy but if there are some Instructions that could help smooth the processes that be nice. As for which classes mostly homebrew stuff

[Vhaidara]

You misunderstood, I meant some guidelines on the how to do it, I mean it looks fairly easy but if there are some Instructions that could help smooth the processes that be nice. As for which classes mostly homebrew stuff

Well, most of it is just skill consolidation.
Perception = Spot+Listen+Search
Stealth = Hide+Move Silently
Acrobatics = Jump+Balance+Tumble
Disable Device = Disable Device+Open Lock
Linguistics = Speak Language+Forgery
Diplomacy = Diplomacy+Gather Information
Fly = Available to any class with the ability to get flight (such as wings or the Fly spell)

Then take off the x4 skill points at first level (because of the change to the skill system), and you're basically done. Maybe tweaking a few numbers, but without knowing what you are starting with, we can't tell you if your numbers are high or low.

EDIT: Same is honestly true for monsters. There is no general rule.

[Ssalarn]

You misunderstood, I meant some guidelines on the how to do it, I mean it looks fairly easy but if there are some Instructions that could help smooth the processes that be nice. As for which classes mostly homebrew stuff

There's a 3.5 to Pathfinder conversion guide (http://paizo.com/products/btpy89m6?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Conversion-Guide) available for free on the Paizo website.

[Roxxy]

I getting the feeling that the SKR issue is still a thorny one. Is it a bad idea to bring it up?

As for my personal preferences, Pathfinder all the way. The two big things are the lack of dead levels and the archetype system. Also don't know what I'd do without some of the classes. Alchemist is so good it holds the spot of dominant magic user in my campaign setting, Witch has the best flavor of all the spellcasters, Magus is so much better than Eldritch Knight, Investigator is just plain cool, and Shaman fills a role that needed filling. Also, Qinggong Monks are actually pretty sweet, Sorcerer bloodlines were an amazing idea, and Barbarian rage powers are nice. Granted, I am a voracious house ruler with any system, and Pathfinder is no exception. Consolidated feat chains are my current thing, and I'm working on a new skill system. My campaign setting has different takes on races than the default, so races are rewritten. Particular things to note are that elves and dwarves and the like are human races, and "Earth humans" aren't a do everything flexible race. They have set stat modifiers (+2 Int, +2 Con), because they have a specific role within the setting. However, no standard player race has a stat penalty, to make it easier to break out of a race's mold. Drow and Orc are considered standard races, and usually evil races aren't a thing. I also use 3PP. I allow Path of War with great enthusiasm (now that I finally understand the system), and await the expansion eagerly. I allow all the Rogue Genius Games Talented Class PDFs, and await new releases of those with similar eagerness. I use Super Genius spell points if I can get away with it, and allow their variant spells to be interchanged with the base spells. I have a respectable collection of 3PP monsters, and 3rd Edition's Nyambe allows me to have a great Africa analog in my setting despite not really knowing a whole lot about Africa. Heroes of the Jade Oath is pretty good, too, and I still keep 3rd Edition Oriental Adventures and Rokugan around. I have Dreamscarred Press Psionics, but I dislike Psionic fluff. I'd allow the mechanics to be used fluffed to appear like arcane casters, though.

[137beth]

EDIT: Same is honestly true for monsters. There is no general rule.

For monsters, there is the extra step of picking new feats (if it has exactly five HD, or at least 7 HD.) I'd go with simple feats (things like ability focus and save-boosters that don't make the monster any more complicated.)

[Grod_The_Giant]

Minor mechanical details aside, the two systems feel pretty much identical. Individual things are better or worse in one game or the other, but the overall experience is exactly the same, and it's the work of moments to convert anything you like from one to the other. Since you have a bunch of 3.5 books already, I'd go with that, and add in PF stuff as you see fit.

(Or, you know, I'd go with G&G, since I think it does a lot better job of balancing things that either 3.5 of PF. But then, I'd pretty much have to)

[Ssalarn]

***I have Dreamscarred Press Psionics, but I dislike Psionic fluff. I'd allow the mechanics to be used fluffed to appear like arcane casters, though.

I don't know if you have a copy of Ultimate Psionics, but they actually have a whole section on refluffing psionics as rune magic. Psionic tattoos become runes graven into your skin, and I believe there's even suggestions on naming conventions for powers that have less of a sci-fi vibe to them. I played in a game not too long ago that used that fluff and the psionic players really loved it (I was test-driving a Mosaic Mage from Rogue Genius Games at the time, so I can't speak from personal experience).

One of the things that I really like about Pathfinder over 3.5 is that it feels like character concepts come "online" a lot sooner. The Magus from Ultimate Magic is doing the sword and spell thing simultaneously right from level 1, Alchemists have bombs, extracts, Brew Potion, and mutagen right at first level, etc. You have a lot less of that "Great! Now that I'm level (3, 5, 7, 11, 15...) I can finally do that thing I wanted to do!" Even casters feel more magical right away; since switching to Pathfinder I've never had to run around with my level 1 wizard plinking people with darts or crossbows; I can still flick a globe of acid or shoot a ray of frost all day long after my big spells run out, and that's actually something I really appreciate.

[atemu1234]

I like pathfinder but personally prefer 3.5. I convert a lot of pathfinder material, use it under 3.5 rules.

[137beth]

Minor mechanical details aside, the two systems feel pretty much identical. Individual things are better or worse in one game or the other, but the overall experience is exactly the same, and it's the work of moments to convert anything you like from one to the other. Since you have a bunch of 3.5 books already, I'd go with that, and add in PF stuff as you see fit.

(Or, you know, I'd go with G&G, since I think it does a lot better job of balancing things that either 3.5 of PF. But then, I'd pretty much have to)

I call bias!
But yes, if tier three is your preference, I recommend G&G.

[animevacker1045]

Minor mechanical details aside, the two systems feel pretty much identical. Individual things are better or worse in one game or the other, but the overall experience is exactly the same, and it's the work of moments to convert anything you like from one to the other. Since you have a bunch of 3.5 books already, I'd go with that, and add in PF stuff as you see fit.

(Or, you know, I'd go with G&G, since I think it does a lot better job of balancing things that either 3.5 of PF. But then, I'd pretty much have to)

SQEEEEEEEEEEE grod replied to me.


Annnnnny way I was planing on using you stuff in pathfinder if i made the switch.

[Elricaltovilla]

Minor mechanical details aside, the two systems feel pretty much identical. Individual things are better or worse in one game or the other, but the overall experience is exactly the same, and it's the work of moments to convert anything you like from one to the other. Since you have a bunch of 3.5 books already, I'd go with that, and add in PF stuff as you see fit.

(Or, you know, I'd go with G&G, since I think it does a lot better job of balancing things that either 3.5 of PF. But then, I'd pretty much have to)

I like a lot of your G&G updates and agree with most of them. But I'm not cool with you switching Warblades to being CHA based. I like my Genius Bruisers! :smalltongue:

[Vhaidara]

I like a lot of your G&G updates and agree with most of them. But I'm not cool with you switching Warblades to being CHA based. I like my Genius Bruisers! :smalltongue:

To be fair, the Warblade fluff sounds MUCH more like a Cha based class than an Int based class. In fact, wasn't there a company that recently ported ToB to PF, and made the Warblade equivalent Cha based?

[Ssalarn]

To be fair, the Warblade fluff sounds MUCH more like a Cha based class than an Int based class. In fact, wasn't there a company that recently ported ToB to PF, and made the Warblade equivalent Cha based?

Was that an intentionally leading comment that you know the answer to and posed for dramatic effect, or a legit question you need an answer to?

The Warlord from Dreamscarred Press' Path of War is CHA based, but there's also the INT based Warder. Neither one of them quite does the Warblade thing though, instead kind of divvying up some of his themes and then heading in their own unique direction. I'm a big fan of INT based combatants, but even I kind of felt like the Warblade's fluff was more CHA based and they went INT because he was basically supposed to be the answer to all the things that were wrong with the Fighter.

[Elricaltovilla]

To be fair, the Warblade fluff sounds MUCH more like a Cha based class than an Int based class. In fact, wasn't there a company that recently ported ToB to PF, and made the Warblade equivalent Cha based?

My complaint is less that the Warblade got turned into a CHA class, and more that without the INT Warblade there isn't an INT based Martial Initiator in G&G. Its the principle of the thing.

But, I play pathfinder anyway, and I love my Warder(s) more than anything else pretty much ever, so I'm satisfied.

[Vhaidara]

Was that an intentionally leading comment that you know the answer to and posed for dramatic effect, or a legit question you need an answer to?

Clearly I need to post more in the threads. Yes, I am aware of DSP and its beautiful work. I have the PDF for PoW.

[Ssalarn]

My complaint is less that the Warblade got turned into a CHA class, and more that without the INT Warblade there isn't an INT based Martial Initiator in G&G. Its the principle of the thing.

But, I play pathfinder anyway, and I love my Warder(s) more than anything else pretty much ever, so I'm satisfied.

I enjoy INT based martials. The Battlelord class I wrote for Amora Games (link in sig) is an INT based Pathfinder class that kind of takes 3.5's Marshal and 4e's Warlord and mixes in a Specialty class feature inspired by military MOS'.

I like the Warder for being INT based, but what I really get a kick out of is the Hawkguard archetype I bullied Chris into keeping and helped refine. One of the few builds in the game capable of actually guardian tanking in real play.

[Fallenreality]

I always end up playing a Wis or Cha based class for some reason. Which is really odd as I like playing a skill monkey.

[Ssalarn]

I always end up playing a Wis or Cha based class for some reason. Which is really odd as I like playing a skill monkey.

Considering that two of the best skill-monkeys in core are the WIS based Inquisitor and the CHA based Bard, it's not too surprising.

[Grod_The_Giant]

SQEEEEEEEEEEE grod replied to me.
SQUEEEEEEEEE people like my stuff.


I like a lot of your G&G updates and agree with most of them. But I'm not cool with you switching Warblades to being CHA based. I like my Genius Bruisers! :smalltongue:
On the other hand, Fighters and Psychic Warriors can now be Int-based, so there you go :smalltongue:

[animevacker1045]

Thanks for the help everybody
:smile:

[Roxxy]

I don't know if you have a copy of Ultimate Psionics, but they actually have a whole section on refluffing psionics as rune magic. Psionic tattoos become runes graven into your skin, and I believe there's even suggestions on naming conventions for powers that have less of a sci-fi vibe to them. I played in a game not too long ago that used that fluff and the psionic players really loved it (I was test-driving a Mosaic Mage from Rogue Genius Games at the time, so I can't speak from personal experience).I wasn't too inspired by Rune Magic, either. What works really well for me is to consider Psionics Sorcerers with different manifestations and uses for their magic (It helps that I allow Spell Points for casters as an optional thing, and typically do use them for NPC Sorcerers.), with the occasional Psionic fluffed as a different arcane spellcasting class. The one thing is that I ban seers and any concept that can gather information like a seer can. They are so insanely good at solving mysteries that it would straight up invalidate a good 80% of my out of combat ideas. I can't have that. Good rule of thumb is that if it can out-investigate the Investigator, it's not going to be allowed.

[Almarck]

Add another one up for the PF band wagon. I like the system better because, to me, it seems neater. By no means is it perfect, but I think it, to me, reduces some of the weird things that made 3.5 more complicated in some areas, most specifically skills. Not having to put 2 ranks into nonclass skills that are required, by game rules, to progress at half the speed of a class skill. The 4 ranks on first skill level is a nice touch, but it does confuse things a little.
Consolidating skills together such as Spot and Listen into Perception removes some frustration.

Also, it helps that there's options. As some of the developers here can attest to, they've got some real quality products. 3.5 doesn't have as much 3rd party support these days, which is the nature of gamelines once their main developer stops supporting them.

The amount of variety in Pathfinder is quite astonishing once you start factoring Archetypes. Those make even Fighters and Rogues stand out from each other.

[atemu1234]

Add another one up for the PF band wagon. I like the system better because, to me, it seems neater. By no means is it perfect, but I think it, to me, reduces some of the weird things that made 3.5 more complicated in some areas, most specifically skills. Not having to put 2 ranks into nonclass skills that are required, by game rules, to progress at half the speed of a class skill. The 4 ranks on first skill level is a nice touch, but it does confuse things a little.
Consolidating skills together such as Spot and Listen into Perception removes some frustration.

Also, it helps that there's options. As some of the developers here can attest to, they've got some real quality products. 3.5 doesn't have as much 3rd party support these days, which is the nature of gamelines once their main developer stops supporting them.

The amount of variety in Pathfinder is quite astonishing once you start factoring Archetypes. Those make even Fighters and Rogues stand out from each other.

Convert PrCs from 3.5, and you'll never make the same character twice.

[PsyBomb]

Convert PrCs from 3.5, and you'll never make the same character twice.

To date in Pathfinder, I've only ever used the same character twice in one instance. Tried busting open a Vizier build during the Akasha playtest (class is out, now), and have recreated him for a solo challenge. This is having never ported any 3.5 material to it other than some rough conversion work for Incarnum (before I found out about Akasha)

[Vhaidara]

Convert PrCs from 3.5, and you'll never make the same character twice.

The only time I reuse a character is when it was made for a PbP that died before anything really happened. So the character was made but not used.

[Almarck]

I don't think porting over prestige classes from 3.5 is neccesary. There's plenty of good prestige class available already. In fact, outside of arch mage and red wizard of thay, all of the other original prestige classes are available in pathfinder... again as far as I know.

[Forrestfire]

Overall, the changes to prestige classes and classes means that in Pathfinder, you're better off just not taking the official PF ones at all unless it exactly fits your character concept (or dipping a few levels at most, generally). Things like Dragon Disciple and Arcane Archer got buffed, and the core PrCs got ported over, but the vast majority of options and classes do not exist in the game. Using the often extremely boring and awkwardly-designed core PrCs as an example to point to avoiding porting stuff is... Kinda missing the point, to be honest.

There are dozens of well-made, fun prestige classes (and dozens more of ones that aren't especially well-made or fun, but can be combined in fun ways) that grant collections of abilities that either do not exist in base classes or cannot be emulated without the baggage of playing a Tier 1 spellcaster. I see no reason not to bring them over them if someone wants to play them.

[T.G. Oskar]

The thing about 3.5 is that the less you know about it, the more you will hate it. The opposite is true for PF.

I...didn't quite get this. Does it mean that the more you know about PF, the less you will hate it, or that the less you hate PF, the more you know about it? The way the sentence is constructed, it suggests that the more you know about 3.5, the less you'll hate it.


Now that is untrue. Duskblades generally go THF Str builds using either Shocking Grasp or Vampiric Touch.

Magus, meanwhile, can go for a Str or a Dex build, can go armored or can use Kensai (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/kensai) for unarmored, can go melee or use Myrmidarch (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/myrmidarch) for ranged, can be Int prepared or Cha spontaneous with Eldritch Scion (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/eldritch-scion), can be a normal combatant or a crafter with Soul Forger (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/soul-forger), can go Spell and Sword or can go TWF with Spellblade (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/spellblade) or Sword and Board with Skirnir (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/skirnir), can keep their standard Arcana or grab hexes with Hexcrafter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/hexcrafter).

Oh, and also Bladebound (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/bladebound)

Lemme rephrase it, then.

A Duskblade "generally [goes] THF Str builds using either Shocking Grasp or Vampiric Touch." It is a Str-based, melee-based, armored, Int-spontaneous, Spell and Sword normal combatant. Oh, and it's full BAB. It's hard to tweak since it was developed around the medium-to-end portion of the system's life, and barely got any support.

A Magus is generally a Str- or Dex-based, melee-based, armored, Spell & Sword, normal combatant. It's also medium BAB. You can tweak it using Archetypes, of which it has a lot since it was developed early in the system's life.

...I can see how the pitch is going, but it's kinda unfair for the Duskblade. I mean, the Paladin, the Inquisitor and the Warpriest can exist in unison, but the Magus and the Duskblade can't since one will upstage the other. I beg to differ.

On a PF environment, the Duskblade suddenly gets three more feats by virtue of its character creation method. This is in addition to free Combat Casting, which means they get a pretty hefty concentration check bonus with little effort. The Duskblade has the ability to eventually cast spells while wielding a shield, so S&B is also supported; the Magus aims for heavy armor, instead (thus, it's Breastplate + Heavy Shield vs. Full Plate or Hellknight Plate). The Duskblade can't full attack and cast a spell every time, but it gets something similar by 5th level. Duskblade's Arcane Channeliing is somewhat superior to the Magus' Spellstrike when you can retain the charge while doing a full attack. Finally, Duskblade's spells have an easier chance to break spell resistance than those of the Magus. Oh, and while the Duskblade has only a few cantrips (really, only 4), by virtue of how cantrips work, they can be used all day. You'll rarely see that, though, because the Duskblade has far, FAR more spell slots than the Magus does, even if the Magus has the stronger spell list (barring Polar Ray as a 5th level spell).

Now, introduce 3.PF, and a mix of feats and skills. The extra feats benefit the Duskblade, albeit the Magus will have its own support by means of access to arcanas. On the other hand, some of the feats a Magus won't consider because of its medium BAB are freely selectable because of the Duskblade's full BAB; a Duskblade can do a better job at using, say, Dazing Assault or getting the higher-end Critical feats than the Magus because it can get it earlier (and in the case of the former, with better saving throw DC). The Magus may edge the Duskblade if using 3.5's version of Arcane Strike, but only by +1 to attack rolls and +1d4 to damage, honestly; the Duskblade can use the feat a bit more since it has spell slots to spare.

I guess the only reason no one can see the two classes coexist is that they both represent "gish", but people are willing to accept Paladin and Warpriest even if both represent "divine gish". I can see the Duskblade being a more martially inclined gish, while the Magus is a more spellcasting-inclined Gish. The Duskblade can exist in PF with only a few tweaks and work just as well, and if they had full access to Magus' arcanas (which will definitely not be the case), it would be a serious contender. IMO, it's the spell selection (/support, since Magus got a whole lot more spells) and the Arcanas which edge the Magus forward, since the Duskblade is very good at dishing damage on its own. Trying to undermine the Duskblade "because Magus" is ironic when people don't undermine Paladin "because Warpriest".

[Vhaidara]

I think you misunderstood me. I was responding to the idea that the Duskblade had more build options than the Magus. I was not saying that you could not have both


Trying to undermine the Duskblade "because Magus" is ironic when people don't undermine Paladin "because Warpriest".

I have actually heard people say that :P

Also, I think it has more to do with "Why port Duskblade when Magus does most of that already?". In fact, personally, I would prefer to make the Duskblade a Magus Archetype. Give it Full BAB in exchange for Diminished Spellcasting and Spell Combat and I think you have a solid port.

It was more that the sheer degree of overlap (they have the same primary class feature, Spellstrike = Arcane Channeling) makes them redundant to be used together.

[T.G. Oskar]

I have actually heard people say that :P

Also, I think it has more to do with "Why port Duskblade when Magus does most of that already?". In fact, personally, I would prefer to make the Duskblade a Magus Archetype. Give it Full BAB in exchange for Diminished Spellcasting and Spell Combat and I think you have a solid port.

It was more that the sheer degree of overlap (they have the same primary class feature, Spellstrike = Arcane Channeling) makes them redundant to be used together.

I'd rather go with expanding the spell selection of Duskblades, add Arcanas, and then make it an Alternate Class. There's quite a bit of differences between the two that allow for a distinct approach:
Full BAB versus Medium BAB is the biggest. I doubt I've seen any archetype exchange the class' BAB.
Some of the skills are different. Duskblade had Decipher Script, Jump and Sense Motive, and ALL Knowledge skills (yes, that sounds odd but true). That, in PF terms, means they'd have 1/3rd of Acrobatics, 1/3rd of Linguistics and Sense Motive. An archetype could definitely grant Sense Motive, but then you have all Knowledges to deal with.
With full BAB, you'd have the Duskblade shift its Hit Dice to a d10, making it a very respectable front-liner in comparison to a Paladin.
Duskblades are Int-spontaneous rather than Cha-spontaneous, which is another BIG difference. Pathfinder already has WIS-spontaneous, and not sure if Arcanist is INT-spontaneous, so that'd matter. Also, the huge amount of spells per day for all five spell levels, something even the Paladin lacks.
The spell list is completely different. The Magus has a better spell list than the Duskblade, but the latter has an intense focus on ranged attack spells and more than a few debuffs (Chill Touch, Color Spray, Enervate, Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Exhaustion, Touch of Fatigue, Waves of Fatigue). It also has some short-range teleportation and swift-action defenses. The Magus has some of those spells, but certainly lacks that more "offensive" approach for variety, including many of the better Sorc/Wiz spells and many spells of the Polymorph subschool.
The Duskblade stops at Medium armor but gains shields while the Magus doesn't. To gain benefits with the shield, the Magus has to go with a specific archetype which...removes Spell Combat and Spellstrike, whereas the Duskblade doesn't. Thus, it already integrates a bit of a specific archetype.
On the other hand, the Duskblade's Quick Spell class feature is a washed-down version of Spell Combat, except the latter has virtually no limitations (maybe being unable to use Somatic components, and Somatic Weapons deals with that).

To make the Duskblade a simple archetype that replaces Int-prepared for Int-spontaneous and maybe limit Spell Combat by forcing uses of your Arcane Pool wouldn't exactly be a disservice, but it implies that the Duskblade has to lose the full BAB, which is the main reason why you'd want to port it (a bonafide gish with full BAB). The Magus doesn't have attack roll problems, certainly, but it gets the shaft with the lack of full BAB making some good feats somewhat pointless; the Duskblade could cover for those, and still be "distinct" enough to count at least as an Alternate Class for the Magus. That would allow for playing with the concept of Alternate Classes a tad further, doesn't really make it a Hybrid Class, and could stand toe-to-toe with a Magus without the latter being overwhelmingly better. As it stands, with few conversions? The spell list and the arcana of the Magus beats them, but if considering the Duskblade as an alternate class, then the entire aspect of their relation changes. IMO, the full BAB, better Hit Dice and the way it plays hard and fast with spells (like...say, the Summoner?) makes it distinct enough to merit existing alongside the Magus; otherwise, a Warpriest could be considered good enough to replace a Paladin, and thus it wouldn't have made sense at all to go with the former if the idea was not to offset the latter (hence, the "because Warpriest" argument).

Finally, and just to add some debate: it's a tad unfair to compare the Magus with the Duskblade, even if they're closer. The way the Magus behaves? Compare it to 3.5's Psychic Warrior, or why not, its DSP counterpart which is pretty much identical to its 3.5 incarnation. A Psychic Warrior and a Magus could easily duke it out all day, until one exhausts its spells or the other exhausts its power point pool. People pointed that the PsyWar was the way to make a gish, and PF ran with the idea...by making the Magus. Doesn't mean the Duskblade was a bad class in 3.5, though; it was certainly good enough to play with.

P.S. Almost forgot. IMO, the primary trait of the Magus is Spell Combat, which is like the Duskblade's Quick Cast ability. The Duskblade's primary trait is Arcane Channeling, whereas the Magus' Spellstrike is pretty much secondary to Spell Combat. The Magus lets you cast a spell while doing a full attack, and considers channeling spells via weapons as a nice trick; the Duskblade considers channeling more important, but its focus on casting and attacking at the same time is limited to a few uses, but more flexible ones. Completely different focus.

[Vhaidara]

I agree with all of what you said as another option (I forgot Alternate Classes were a thing).


To gain benefits with the shield, the Magus has to go with a specific archetype which...removes Spell Combat and Spellstrike

This isn't true, however. Skirnir still has Spellstrike, and gets Shielded Spell Combat, which is spell combat with a shield. Admittedly, that doesn't come online until level 8, but it does still get it

[Optimator]

Most of the points as to why PF is less revolutionary than claimed have been brought up. As such, I prefer back-porting PF material into 3.5 (3.P). To me PF is a collection of house rules anyway, and treating it like Unearthed Arcana ++ has worked brilliantly for my group.