Pathfinder Advice for a 3.5e DM transitioning to Pathfinder [Archive]

View Full Version : Pathfinder Advice for a 3.5e DM transitioning to Pathfinder

BlackOnyx

2020-12-27, 01:23 AM

Alcore

2020-12-27, 03:38 AM

Hmmm.....

1. Combat, some things operate differently. Base mechanics are the same so if your fighters don't do anything other than hit for damage you'rer gold. That is about it for me. I transitioned early and actually find parts of 3.5 more foreign than PF.

2. Skipping...

3. Core, base and prestige play nicely together. Not sure what alternate is though. Hybrid and occult do play nicely with the others but i recommend banning them for your first game. Occult specifically as they work best with a more narrow theme/genre than the others. Much like mythic

4. Don't much like unchained. Background Skills are something to look into as it forces players to pick skills in a non optimized fashion; to create more setting grounded people. I already do that; in fact in some high level games i joined i spent 1k on a house.

Dynamic Magic Item Creation is a fun system to have. Might run it past the players first; if only one wants to then it is impossible to make anything awesome (though you can still make funny gag/cursed items). If you have a caster heavy party i recommend Esoteric Material Components and finally almost the entire "mastering magic" chapter of Ultimate Magic. I recommend banning the section of designing spells. If you have all casters just go Harry Potter Doctor Who all the way! Add depth to the magics.

I do not recommend the kingdom building system as it is far more involved than what most players would prefer. If you Play-by-post i would run it in the background only bring it to the players when their plan derails. Downtime system is another that i do recommend but i suggest getting a good grasp first; it is in heavy need of editing for clarity. I do use the settlement rules in the game master's guide just to quantify and consistently role play the settlements; i leave it up to you to allow the bonuses for players. (i do not)

5. I add the third party book "Fields of Blood, the Book of War". I use hex maps and while the party is adventuring kingdoms move. It helps to keep the world feeling dynamic (and without kingmaker rules does not interact with most rules outside of it). That is the kingdom level though. I recommend reading up on the downtime system of Ultimate Campaign. There are a number of events that can happen to a building that can add flavor whether they are pasing by, walking into or just something that happened while they were away and the gossip is going strong.

6. None that i can think of that would be different for PF.

Kurald Galain

2020-12-27, 04:55 AM

1.) To a casual player, the most important difference is that PF's sneak attack works on undead just fine, and that cantrips get infinite uses. To a more advanced player, a number of spells and feats work subtly differently. For instance, a player that knows 3E's Glitterdust by heart might assume that it works the same way in PF, and not look it up to confirm that (3E's gives a single saving throw, and PF's gives a saving throw each round).

2.) Not in the main ruleset. There are a couple of optional subsystems (e.g. the debate system, or the mythic rules) that are problematic. There are also a handful of classes that don't exist in 3E and that suck in PF (although to be fair, the opposite is also the case).
Note that several commonly-mentioned complaints about PF turn out to be incorrect. In particular, "they nerfed power attack" is false (it increased from a 2:1 benefit to 3:1); "they split oh so many feats into smaller feats" is false (it applies to only a single feat that 3E players would take, and PF characters get more feats); and "combat maneuvers never reliably connect" is also false (once you do the math it just works out fine, noting that almost every bonus to attack rolls also applies to combat maneuvers).

3. and 4.) All of them, except you should really use the Unchained version of the rogue, monk, and summoner instead of their original version (this is why they exist, after all). Also, you should arguably drop the barbarian in favor of bloodrager, and the ranger in favor of hunter. Note that prestige classes are rarely used in PF, due to the existence of Archetypes. Also note that players/GMs that dislike having guns in a fantasy setting should get rid of the gunslinger class.
It's worth noting that the most popular classes are Core (except ranger but including unchained rogue and monk); the "flexible partial caster" classes (Magus, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Hunter); and the witch. That also means that these work together pretty well.

5.) No.

6.) No, and I should mention that low-level characters in PF get more build options than in 3E (e.g. because of barbarian rage powers, sorcerer bloodlines, and so forth).

HTH.

AnimeTheCat

2020-12-28, 10:44 AM

I have recently (past 2 years-ish) made the transition from primarily 3.5 to PF.

1.) What are the hardest hurdles to overcome when transitioning from 3.5e to Pathfinder? (i.e the things that trip you up.)
While they aren't "hard", I constantly still ask for Spot, Listen, Hide, Jump, or search checks, but none of those skills exist in PF, they're acrobatics, perception, and stealth now. I used to play with people who were familiar with both, so they would just roll the right skill and give me the total, but I recently started playing with players who had no knowledge of 3.5 and had only played 5e in the past, so I've had to really be extra careful with my notes to include specifically pathfinder skills. Other things are any of the combat actions that previously had independent calculations, such as grapple, trip, bull rush, overrun, etc. Same as the skill checks, I was used to just asking for the grapple check and rolling with it, but with new players, they aren't used to that kind of thing so be specific about what you're asking for (normally CMB). The most difficult hurdle for me as a player though was absolutely the Magic. Clerics got a solid nerf from 3.5 to PF, and many of the things that are obviously powerful in 3.5 for other spellcasters are not so powerful in PF. If you know a spell or sell combination is powerful in 3.5, make sure you look at it in PF to make sure it still does what you think it does.

2.) Have you ran into any issues with the Pathfinder system that didn't already exist in 3.5e?
Not that I can think of, but most (pretty much all) of the same pitfalls of 3.5 exist to some extent in PF. If you know of a pitfall in 3.5, make sure you look for the analog in PF, because it exists in some capacity. For example, Druids and their Animal Companion is problematic in 3.5 because it skews the action economy and party roles in favor of the Druid (a pretty good tank and a spellcaster acting at the same time in concert). This is not different in PF, and in many ways the AC is more powerful in PF than it was in 3.5. Wild Shape is still problematic because of the sheer utility of it, even if PF did nerf it by making it far less powerful in a strictly combat situation. Those are just two things that spring to mind about 3.5 that are very easy to check against in PF, so ultimately you're just going to have to dig in to what PF offers and compare it to the issues/problem from 3.5.

3.) Which "families" of available classes play well together? (Core, Base, Alternate, Hybrid, Unchained, Occult, Prestige Classes etc.)
In general, I've found that Prestige classes are kind of garbage. Unlike 3.5 where it was pretty much universally true that prestige classes were better than base classes, Pathfinder gave nearly every base class (i.e. non-prestige class) a class-level dependent ability. For Sorcerers, this is their bloodline. For Clerics, this is Channel Energy. Fighters, bravery/armor and weapon training. Prestige classes typically don't improve these things, but rather just give you different things without improving upon the base class. This is only problematic if you are relying on those class-dependent abilities though. With a recent character I'm playing (Blade Adept Arcanist 4/Rogue 1/Enchanting Courtesan 4), I didn't care about the Arcanist Exploits beyond the first two I could choose myself (specifically Quick Study and Potent Spells). This character was so heavily focused on enchantment spells and skillful guile that I only wanted the versatility and DC improvement of those two exploits and then I wanted the class features of the Enchanting Courtesan prestige class. In most cases though, those class-level dependent abilities are better than what you would get from prestige classes.

Comparing Core, Base, Alternate, Hybrid, Unchained, and Occult classes though, I find them to be kind of a mixed bag. Your core classes run in to similar pitfalls as the 3.5 Core classes, with nearly identical "tiers" (for lack of a better term). In general, spellcasters were somewhat nerfed (not particularly noticeably in practice) and non-spellcasters were improved (fairly substantially), but there was no major overhaul that realigned all of the classes to be on the same power level as each other. Fighters are still subpar compared to Wizards, Clerics, and Druids, even in the Fighter's wheelhouse still. That's just because Magic is still far more potent than any non-magical class ability. Base classes are the same bag, but I find them to be more balanced internally than the Core classes, however there are still "good" and "bad" classes. Between core and base, they work just fine together. Alternate is just some core and base classes changed up for flavor so that the flavors haves some rule support, no issues interacting with base or core classes (they're designed to do so). Unchained classes are straight upgrades to some Core classes. If you're going to use them, make sure you also look at the unchained skill systems and understand all of the changes these make to the game. If you're used to the standard power level of the classes, there may be no reason for you to use the unchained versions. Either use unchained or don't, but don't mix it. Occult classes are basically psionics. I find them to be the most mixed in terms of power/utility, but all of them are playable and can be fun. There should be no issue including them if you like.

Hybrid classes get their own distinct paragraph. These are, in my opinion, AMAZING. To me, these classes could be played by themselves without issue and there would be plenty of player options. They stand toe-to-toe with the core classes, even the powerhouse trio of Wizard, Cleric, Druid. They're great. You can play them with all of the other classes, or you can play them stand alone. This is the only category of classes that I think could simply be played stand-alone and not run in to any sort of issue.

In the context of newly introducing yourself to PF, I would suggest that it be in your best interest to stick to the core classes to start with, make sure you're comfortable with the stylistic changes between the two editions, and then branch out in to the variety of archetypes and other class categories.

4.) Which variant rulesets do you think work well/should be incorporated? (I'm particularly interested in hearing people's views on the Unchained rules.)
I think that Unchained is more or less irrelevant. If you're used to how 3.5 operates and you have no issue with it, adding a new variant ruleset is not necessary. I think it adds some interesting things and improves some classes that are considered to be "weak" or "bad" but if these classes are not problematic to you, don't try to "fix" something that isn't a problem. By contrast, I think that Mythic is a super fun subset of rules. So much so that I offer it willingly to my party as something that they can achieve should they, as a group, want to (it's been yes 9/10 times I've asked, only time that it was a no was because it was a post magical apocalypse setting). The rules are pretty simple and they add a whole lot of versatility, options, and general fun things that the players can do.

5.) Do you go out of your way to incorporate/substitute certain 3.5e rulings for those offered in the Pathfinder rules?
If a character concept or something can't be replicated in PF, I'll bring up just enough from 3.5 to make that happen. As far as rules or rule interactions, I find that there is no need to.

5.) I will mention that I do run E6 almost exclusively these days; my intent would likely be to do the same in Pathfinder ("P6") should I make the transition. Are there any glaring issues I might run into with this fact in mind?
I have never run E6, but based off of what I know of E6 you shouldn't have much of any issue other than a hard cap on class-level dependent class features, so you may have to extend those class features out if you want the players to get longevity out of them. I'm sure that can be handled on a case-by-case basis.

TheFamilarRaven

2020-12-30, 08:34 PM

1.) What are the hardest hurdles to overcome when transitioning from 3.5e to Pathfinder? (i.e the things that trip you up.)

The usual things one might expect. Sneak attack works on anything that isn't called out as immune, (same with critical). Spells that share a name wit ha 3.5 counterpart may work differently. Smite Evil stays active until the target is dead. Archery is stronger thanks to feats like Deadly Aim and Clustered Shots.

2.) Have you ran into any issues with the Pathfinder system that didn't already exist in 3.5e?

Not really, but I was a teenager when I played 3.5 so my understanding of the rules were pretty bad. PF felt more streamlined to me as the shift away from multiclassing made it easier to build characters that are competent.

3.) Which "families" of available classes play well together? (Core, Base, Alternate, Hybrid, Unchained, Occult, Prestige Classes etc.)

I'm not really sure I understand the question. I mean, you don't want a paladin (core) hanging out with an anti-paladin (alternate). Unless you're writing a sitcom.

Each class is designed to fill one or more roles in the standard paradigm of TTRPGs (damage/control/utility/recovery). How WELL any given class does what it's meant to do is another story. But one class from a family of classes doesn't really describe the whole group. So as long as the party is balanced in that paradigm, all of families play well together.

The only really themed group, as others have said, is the occult classes. But even then they're mostly just mid to high casters with a gimmick.
EDIT: And you absolutely want to use the unchained versions of the monk, rogue and summoner. The first two because they're much better than the base version, the latter one because it's a little more balanced than the base version.

4.) Which variant rulesets do you think work well/should be incorporated? (I'm particularly interested in hearing people's views on the Unchained rules.)

Don't really use unchained except for the classes. Background skills are neat though. Gives people some extra skill points to put into things they wouldn't otherwise, like craft or profession.

5.) Do you go out of your way to incorporate/substitute certain 3.5e rulings for those offered in the Pathfinder rules?

Nope. It's not necessary unless you want to expand your players' options. I find it cumbersome as I will often check to make sure that PF didn't incorporate something similar under a different name.

5.) I will mention that I do run E6 almost exclusively these days; my intent would likely be to do the same in Pathfinder ("P6") should I make the transition. Are there any glaring issues I might run into with this fact in mind?

PF IMO works better for E6, since many of the classes get more goodies early on than in 3.5. And unless I'm mistaken about E6, you get a scaling bonus instead of progressing beyond level 6. PF has a lot of abilities that are tied to how many levels you have in a class so you may want to let that scaling bonus apply in those cases.

Kitsuneymg

2020-12-31, 06:07 AM

1: There are a lot of things that have the same name, but work differently. Spells, combat maneuvers, and feats are obvious, but read the full grapple rules. Grappling no longer pulls people into your square.

2: The main issues are the same. Martial-caster disparity, combat maneuvers losing value as you level (due to lack of weapons/immunity to trip etc), trap options, etc. I can’t think of anything that is unique to pathfinder that could be considered a unique issue. They are the same issues, just different specifics.

3: I typically don’t use the occult classes, because that’s a very specific type of game I feel. They are also less well known. The shifter is hot garbage. As for the rest? They all fall into the same basic tier structure as 3.5, with some notable exceptions (fighter is t4, paladin is 4 bordering on 2 in the right game type.) if you successfully had rogues and wizards playing together in 3.5, you’ll still have that in PF.

I would recommend you always use unchained rogue and summoner and barbarian. Monk is a little iffier.

4: I don’t use any of the variant subsystems paizo provides. They are not worth it.

For unchained, in a home game, scaling items are a good niche for ancestral items. Like an ancient sword of kings the character gets at 5th level and becomes an important part of his identity. Automatic bonus progression is also somewhat useful for games where you want to reduce theChristmas tree, but I prefer MIC stacking rules. Background skills are fine.

I use none of the other unchained rules.

5: No. theres no point.

6: tons of abilities scale by level. 1/5/10/15/20 and 1/5/9/13/17 are the most common scaling numbers, but 3/7/11/15/19 is common too. So things like armor training to move at full speed in full plate don’t kick in until fighter 7. And p6 will never get that. I suggest looking at 7-11 and seeing what of those abilities should be made into feats.

As an aside, unlike 3.5, there’s a lot of good 3pp for pathfinder. Of particular note for a P6 or P8 or even P10 game is spheres of power and spheres of might (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/). They are talent based magic and combat systems where (almost) all powers scale by level and are available at level 1, but power and style is build one talent at a time. Imo this is ideal for a p6 type game as effects are capped by level, but a character still get more powerful by learning more talents. I’d highly suggest it if you’re willing to more radically alter your 3.x experience.

There is also Path of War (Tome of Battle), Ultimate Psionics (3.5 power point based psionics), and Akashic Mysteries (soul melds) available from Dreamscarred Press. They are different like core pathfinder classes are different, but they are roughly the same as their 3.5 counterparts in what they do and how they work.

Powerdork

2020-12-31, 12:45 PM

Here's one nobody mentioned. It's not DR/silver and DR/good and piercing. It's DR/cold silver or +3 and DR/good and piercing or +5 and piercing.
Basically, there's a rule that lets certain amounts of raw weapon plusses bypass certain DRs as if they possessed the relevant qualities. It's up to you whether you want to houserule that out. It affects combat math.

TheFamilarRaven

2020-12-31, 02:58 PM

Oh! And one more thing that might be overlooked if one is transitioning to PF from 3.5.

Cross-class skill penalties aren't a thing. Investing ranks into any skill is a 1:1 purchase. Having a skill be a class skill gives a static +3 bonus to that skill the first time a rank is committed.

On that note, favored classes don't work the same. Instead of preventing multiclass XP penalties (that rule that no one plays with), any class can be a character's favored class. Each time they take a level in that class (including level 1), you can choose to either gain 1 HP, 1 skillpoint, or a race specific bonus.

radthemad4

2021-01-01, 12:34 AM

I never made the leap, but I feel like Pathfinder has things worth using and allow them as options.

As the d20srd is fairly bare bones, the d20pfsrd seems to be my best bet. I really enjoy 3.5e, and as Pathfinder seems to be is closest living relative, I'm hoping it'll fit the bill as a suitable substitute.See also, https://aonprd.com/ and if you're interested in Dreamscarred Press stuff (3rd party psionics, ToB (called Path of War) and Incarnum (called Akasha) ), https://libraryofmetzofitz.fandom.com/wiki/Library_of_Metzofitz

BlackOnyx

2021-01-01, 03:32 AM

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone.

I'm not really sure I understand the question. I mean, you don't want a paladin (core) hanging out with an anti-paladin (alternate). Unless you're writing a sitcom.

Each class is designed to fill one or more roles in the standard paradigm of TTRPGs (damage/control/utility/recovery). How WELL any given class does what it's meant to do is another story. But one class from a family of classes doesn't really describe the whole group. So as long as the party is balanced in that paradigm, all of families play well together.

The only really themed group, as others have said, is the occult classes. But even then they're mostly just mid to high casters with a gimmick.

I was just curious if there were any major mechanical reasons for the groupings on the d20pfsrd site. (I.e. do any of the "families" feature systems that play radically differently or have the potential to interact in an odd manner like psionics & spellcasting in 3.5e)

Gnaeus

2021-01-01, 09:45 AM

I was just curious if there were any major mechanical reasons for the groupings on the d20pfsrd site. (I.e. do any of the "families" feature systems that play radically differently or have the potential to interact in an odd manner like psionics & spellcasting in 3.5e)

Not really. Occult is just a different flavor of magic with different components. Every family as far as I can remember has things that play Tier 1 through Tier 5. The things at the bottom of each group are closer to the bottoms of the other groups than the tops of the groups, and same at the top.

That said, the PF design concept of 6 level specialist casters does make a lot of classes that play well together across subsystems (at T3 basically)

atemu1234

2021-01-01, 07:14 PM

I've been flirting with the idea of transitioning to Pathfinder for a while now, but I think I might finally see about going for it the next time I have a chance to run a campaign.

While I have no qualms with 3.5e myself (it's been my go-to system ever since I started with tabletop rpgs), the main issue I run into with it is accessibility. With particular regard to new/inexperienced players, I'd like to make use a system that offers a free and centralized ruleset that anyone can access without issue (logistical or otherwise).

As the d20srd is fairly bare bones, the d20pfsrd seems to be my best bet. I really enjoy 3.5e, and as Pathfinder seems to be is closest living relative, I'm hoping it'll fit the bill as a suitable substitute.

This said, for those who made that same leap in the past, what advice can you offer a DM looking to make the transition? In particular:

Howdy! I started playing 3.5 back in 2012, switched to 3.PF in 2016. I've been personally updating a bunch of content from 3rd and 3.5e to Pathfinder, among other things, and am basically running a system that's half both. It's a trying and incredibly unbalanced method, but I have fun with it.

1.) What are the hardest hurdles to overcome when transitioning from 3.5e to Pathfinder? (i.e the things that trip you up.)

As with every edition, grappling. It's simpler in Pathfinder, but calculating it is a new thing to learn. Secondly, certain core changes to things like how Flying work. The lack of a Psionics system core to the game is a little bit irritating, but ultimately Dreamscarred Press stepped in to fill the gap that Paizo left.

2.) Have you ran into any issues with the Pathfinder system that didn't already exist in 3.5e?

None that have significantly impacted gameplay. The hardest part of either is always going to be balancing the wants and desires of a group of players, which is inherent to every edition.

3.) Which "families" of available classes play well together? (Core, Base, Alternate, Hybrid, Unchained, Occult, Prestige Classes etc.)

Most people I've met who DM Pathfinder allow for most choices; I personally allow all the base classes from 3.5 and Pathfinder, with some hotfixing as necessary. Unchained classes in general are kind of buffed, but the trade-off is the lack of compatible Alternate Class Features in some cases. Ultimately, I tend to let the players pick their own poison and let them deal with the consequences.

4.) Which variant rulesets do you think work well/should be incorporated? (I'm particularly interested in hearing people's views on the Unchained rules.)

Unchained is hit and miss, I allow it but few people take me up on it. The changes it made are better, but unpopular in certain ways. In a way, I'd describe it as almost a "Pathfinder 1.5e".

Dreamscarred Press's Psionics are your best option for Psionics if you want it added on, and I'd also recommend Path of War for an update on 3.5's initiating.

5.) Do you go out of your way to incorporate/substitute certain 3.5e rulings for those offered in the Pathfinder rules?

The biggest compatibility problems you'll run into are the changes to the Polymorph line. It's easier for updating monsters (as they are arguably more balanced) but it makes updating Prestige Classes and Class Features dependent on them a pain.

5.) I will mention that I do run E6 almost exclusively these days; my intent would likely be to do the same in Pathfinder ("P6") should I make the transition. Are there any glaring issues I might run into with this fact in mind?

None that spring to mind that wouldn't already show up in 3.5. If anything, the game might be even more balanced because of some of the changes Paizo made.

Endarire

2021-01-01, 08:22 PM

Pathfinder is sort of like 3.5's identical twin that was raised by another mother. They came out similarly, but with distinct enough differences you need to read the rules to understand.

Tn short, Pathfinder is sorta 3.5. If you're comfortable allowing every first party 3.5 source or close to it, expect to allow every first party Paizo source or just everything on d20PFSRD.com.

As GM, I've been surprised by players who put certain things into their builds or used certain things with which I was unfamiliar, but if it was in the rules, I normally allowed it. You seemed like you did things similarly.

From what I've studied and played of PF, many items and feats just felt weaker compared to 3.5, like there was a much smaller assortment of material that made me go, "Wow! I want that now!"

Favored classes for spontaneous casters are extremely important since certain races (Human, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, and any other race that counts as Human for race) can usually get extra spells known instead of +1 HP or +1 skill point. This is one change that buffs spontaneous casters into the "seriously worth considering" territory.

Just read paragon surge (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/paragon-surge/) + Emergency Attunement (https://aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Emergency%20Attunement). Someone at Paizo really liked Half-Elves!

CHA seems more viable for builds in PF, largely for casters. Pathfinder X to Y (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=4369.msg90055#msg90055). It's quite possible to play a Half-Elf Sor with the feat Noble Scion (Scion of War) to get CHA instead of DEX to initiative.

Undead get d8 HP + CHA mod per HD, potentially a massive HP buff per HD compared to straight d12 from 3.5! Undeath is very synergistic with CHA-based casting!

Many characters are expected to start with 20 in a stat due to race, and more if they have templates, items, or are Middle Age or older.

Staffs/staves were changed in PF to have a 10 charge limit with the ability to recharge 1 charge per day. I preferred the 50 charge limit with the ability to recharge it - but that's my house rule.

As for E6, the system can still work in Pathfinder like in 3.5. I've preferred higher levels - and ran a game that ran 1-21+ - but you're the GM.

Rynjin

2021-01-01, 09:04 PM

Note: I am someone who started playing RPGs proper with pathfinder, but I have a relatively solid working knowledge of 3.5's quirks as compared to PF. Just keep in mind to take some of my assumptions with a grain of salt if they sound a bit off.

1.) What are the hardest hurdles to overcome when transitioning from 3.5e to Pathfinder? (i.e the things that trip you up.)

The biggest issues you're likely to have are in the little details, as the larger parts of the ruleset are pretty much identical. As mentioned by other posters, the most common are going to be things like the conglomerated skills, Sneak Attack working on a MUCH wider variety of creatures (Undead and Constructs, notably), the relatively increased durability of Undead (IIRC 3.5 Undead didn't do a 1:1 find and replace Cha for Con), and crafting (which no longer costs EXP).

There are others as well, so it might be good to get in the habit of double checking the little things or keep a player familiar with PF around to "keep you honest", if you actually care; most of those little things are easily glossed over and might be considered table quirks by

2.) Have you ran into any issues with the Pathfinder system that didn't already exist in 3.5e?

YMMV on whether it's an issue, but multiclassing in Pathfinder is a much iffier prospect than in 3.5. Paizo specifically designed classes to incentivize you to stay in them from 1-20, where by my understanding 3.5 is much the opposite; most characters are expected to be multiclassed to gain greater power.

This means a new player can very easily screw themselves by multiclassing without knowing what they're doing.

On the whole, the role of Prestige Classes and multiclassing has been replaced by skilled use of Archetypes, alternate variants of classes with slightly different abilities.

As a quick example, there is little reason to do a Fighter/Barbarian multiclass, where once it might have been considered if you wanted a few extra Bonus Feats and Rage as a toggle for greater power sometimes. Instead, you could play a Fighter with the Viking archetype, trading some of your class features for Rage and Rage Powers, without sacrificing the scaling of your Fighter abilities. This holds true for most classic hybrid class options; there's either already a class that does that, or an archetype that accomplishes the goal well enough.

3.) Which "families" of available classes play well together? (Core, Base, Alternate, Hybrid, Unchained, Occult, Prestige Classes etc.)

Pretty much everything plays well with everything else. The main stickler here is the Unchained classes.

The Unchained Rogue was designed as a REPLACEMENT for the Core Rogue. It is a pure and simple upgrade to the Rogue class. No abilities are lost, and some abilities are gained or buffed. You would do well to essentially ban the Core Rogue (arguably the weakest class in the game) and direct players to the Unchained Rogue at every opportunity.

The Unchained Summoner is the opposite; it was designed as a straight nerf to the Summoner class. While technically more balanced, it's also significantly less fun for the player, highly constricting what customization elements the Summoner is allowed to apply to their Eidolon, which is kind of the whole point of the class. IMO you should use the common houserule; players may play the standard Summoner (with the Master Summoner archetype banned) but use the Unchained Summoner SPELL LIST which tweaks the frankly overpowered standard Summoner spell list into a standard 6 level caster one (previously the Summoner list was essentially just a full caster list on a 6-caster chassis, gaining key spells such as Teleport a whole level before a Wizard gets them).

The Unchained Barbarian is intended as a SIMPLIFICATION of the Core Barbarian; if a player has issues with the math of the regular Barbarian (converting a temporary Str bonus into raw attack/damage buffs) or balks at the idea of Sudden Death Syndrome, allow them to play the UnBarbarian. It's roughly equivalent in power, though weaker in some corner cases and stronger in others (if you need to make a Str check in combat, their untyped bonus to attack/damage doesn't apply, and it's multipled by 1.5 with 2H weapons, but on the bright side applies perfect well to ranged attacks, making an archer Barbarian quite viable). Basically, allow it as an option; having a Barbarian and an UnBarbarian in the party is not likely to cause issues.

Similarly the UnMonk is intended as...an entirely new class, honestly. It is a full BaB pure martial combatant version of the Monk. I hold the Core Monk as my favorite class, but it certainly can't be argued that it's a strong contender for weakest class as well (particularly without archetypes). An UnMonk is one thing above all: EASIER TO BUILD than a Core Monk, doing everything you'd expect a Monk to do out of the box. If your players are not highly familiar with the Pathfinder ruleset, I would suggest banning the Core Monk and only allowing UnMonk, unless they REALLY know what they're doing (there are reasons to play the "weaker" class, but you need a very high level of system mastery to make use of them).

All other classes work well together, even Alternate classes; the main thing I'd say is if someone wants to play a Ninja, allow them to play an "Unchained Ninja" that gets the new UnRogue abilities. Also Occult classes are very...wordy. I would not suggest them for new players.

So basically: Core, Base, Alternate, Hybrid classes should be available at all times, Unchained Classes should be taken ona case-by-case, and Occult classes left to more advanced players who have a good grasp of the ruleset already because it's easy to become overwhelmed by their very long abilities and different casting style (they ARE balanced though, so if a particular player knows enough to make use of them, there is no danger in allowing it in a game with the other class types).

And yes, Prestige CLasses mostly suck. There's some diamonds in the rough, like the Evangelist and Horizon Walker, and the big popular ones like Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight are still pretty okay, but generally, as mentioned, an archetype or other class will get you there just as well; why play an Arcane Trickster when you could be an Eldritch Scoundrel UnRogue, Arcane Archer if you could be an Arrowsong Minstrel Bard, or an Eldritch Knight if you can play a Magus or Bloodrager? There are legitimate answers to the contrary but they're fairly niche in an average game rather than just playing the out of the box option for no muss or fuss.

4.) Which variant rulesets do you think work well/should be incorporated? (I'm particularly interested in hearing people's views on the Unchained rules.)

From Unchained, besides the classes, I particularly like Automatic Bonus Progression. It's a fairly elegant fix for the Christmas Tree Problem/everybody spending their money on Big 6 items only.

5.) I will mention that I do run E6 almost exclusively these days; my intent would likely be to do the same in Pathfinder ("P6") should I make the transition. Are there any glaring issues I might run into with this fact in mind?

People have played E6 in PF since as long as I've played it with seemingly no issues, though I've never dabbled in it myself. I will say Pathfinder classes have, on the whole, a LOT more abilities than 3.5 classes, so you're actually missing out on a lot of fun stuff if you're stuck at low levels.

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone.I was just curious if there were any major mechanical reasons for the groupings on the d20pfsrd site. (I.e. do any of the "families" feature systems that play radically differently or have the potential to interact in an odd manner like psionics & spellcasting in 3.5e)

They pretty much just denote what book each class came out in. The Core classes are from the CRB, Base classes are from the Advanced Player's Guide*, Hybrid classes are from the Advanced Class Guide, Unchained Classes are from Pathfinder Unchained, Occult classes are from Occult Adventures, and Alternate classes are from...Ultimate Combat I believe, as sort of slightly beefed up archetypes (Ninjas are Rogues, Samurai are Cavaliers, and Anti-Paladins are Paladins, basically).

*The Vigilante and Shifter are exceptions here, coming out in Ultimate Intrigue and Ultimate Wilderness respectively. The Omdura I think comes from some weird alternate setting book, but I constantly forget it exists; it's basically a single class that can be a pseudo-Warpriest, Paladin, or Inquisitor depending on how you build it...it's weird and it's a class I wouldn't necessarily consider banning but would certainly ask my player "Why would you even want to?" if they said they were going to play one.

Kurald Galain

2021-01-02, 11:07 AM

certain races (Human, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, and any other race that counts as Human for race) can usually get extra spells known instead of +1 HP or +1 skill point. This is one change that buffs spontaneous casters into the "seriously worth considering" territory.
That, and getting free spells from your bloodline, and affordable items that add to your low-level spells known. Oh, and you get a bunch of spell-like abilities from your bloodline, too; some of those are very good.

Gnaeus

2021-01-02, 01:54 PM

CHA seems more viable for builds in PF, largely for casters. Pathfinder X to Y (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=4369.msg90055#msg90055). It's quite possible to play a Half-Elf Sor with the feat Noble Scion (Scion of War) to get CHA instead of DEX to initiative..

It is, but not really for that reason. Noble Scion is very rarely game changing (because that Sorc also probably enjoys reflex saves, AC and to hit with rays, there will rarely be more than an 8 point difference between Cha and Dex. At Dex 12, Cha 20 it’s just Improved initiative.) But in general, the Cha classes, (Sorcerer, Paladin, Favored Soul/Oracle) are probably the most improved. Something like Paladin 2/Sorcerer 4/dragon disciple 10/sorcerer 4 is a much stronger critter in PF than in 3.5, because all 3 classes get flat upgrades.

Kitsuneymg

2021-01-02, 04:51 PM

It is, but not really for that reason. Noble Scion is very rarely game changing (because that Sorc also probably enjoys reflex saves, AC and to hit with rays, there will rarely be more than an 8 point difference between Cha and Dex. At Dex 12, Cha 20 it’s just Improved initiative.) But in general, the Cha classes, (Sorcerer, Paladin, Favored Soul/Oracle) are probably the most improved. Something like Paladin 2/Sorcerer 4/dragon disciple 10/sorcerer 4 is a much stronger critter in PF than in 3.5, because all 3 classes get flat upgrades.

Don’t forget prestigious caster and/or eclectic/esoteric training.