Help Convince a Skeptic on Pathfinder

I recently picked up the Pathfinder book, and I am trying to get some skeptical friends interested in trying Pathfinder over 3.5.

We have only glanced at things so far, and I think it looks great. However I am trying to assemble a good list of reasons to "sell it" to a skeptical friend.

I don't remember his exact issue, but he had some concern with skills. It may just have been a "if its not broke no need to fix it" type of thing. Can anyone help explain why Pathfinder skills work out better, if they do?

A general issue he had with 3.5 is that it always seemed so easy to get attack bonuses, and it was much harder to get a stronger defense. He took one look at fighter in pathfinder and frowned since he gets even more ways to easily hit now. In general to the system, has offense and defense buffs been changed or balanced out at all?

We had a concern about cross-classing not having any penalties anymore and the way you get +3 on skill checks to your class skills. It seems really easy for someone to just take a couple levels in various classes and then just have +3's to skills around the board.

Those are all the semi specific concerns I remember my friend having. Any additional information that might help convince a skeptic would be appreciated. Thank you for your input!

1) Favored Class now grants 1 skill point or 1 hp per level.

This means that sticking with a class will net you more in the long run than not. Multiclassing will broaden your abilities, but you fast become jack of all trades master of none.

2) AC problems were mitigated slightly in that Medium and Heavy armor went up a point of AC.

The reason fighters were given more to hit, was that they had nothing really going for them. Weapon and Armor training makes fighters more likely to stock up on heavy armor, as after while it won't affect them at ALL. Bonus feats, do not a class make, and Paizo decided to take that to heart.

3) Classes lacking any real Capstone ability were finally given one.

This means classes like the rogue and fighter, who got nothing at all for sticking with it were fixed. Now you have a reason to "go to 20" rather than multiclass out every opportunity. It changed Fighter from dip class to something you consider going the distance with.

4) Melee was given tricks to keep up with Casters.

While this considerably narrows the gap, its still present, in that wizards and clerics still have a dominating presence on the battlefield. Part of the reason why Clerics lost heavy armor proficiency. Other things done were revising the old spells, giving no save and suck/die saves, and making save or suck or save or die less beastly.

As for the multi-classing, the answer to that is simple. If you multi-class you slow down your progression in your base class abilities, and in PF higher level abilities are more significant than they were in 3.5

Also, PF skills are better because now nobody has any skills that just plain aren't worth the required investment. In PF you could have a stealthy fighter, or one who can actually spot, or both. Heck, you could have full stealth and spot ranks on a fighter, with 10 int, and have one skill to spare for favored class (1 more beyond that if your human of course)

Regarding skills:

Personally, I feel that the way skills work is actually better than in 3.5 because your class should determine your prior training, not your possible future training. In 3.5, classes limit your options drastically. In Pathfinder, they provide you with some basic abilities which you are then able to expand on via skills.

Remember that just because one can potentially have every class as a class skill, that doesn't mean that one can be any good in all those skills. A rogue with a very high INT might manage it, but rogues have almost all the skills as class skills anyway. Also, the +3 only applies if you have a rank in the skill, and the maximum number of ranks is equal to your character level. Also, sticking with only one class gains you an extra rank or hit point per level. Finally, I like having a Fighter who's capable of sneaking around without having to take multiple classes.

Regarding the Fighter:

The Fighter is actually a class worth taking all the way to level 20 now. Between the extra Fighter only feats and the Fighter's extra abilities, he is capable of dishing out damage on a par with a monk, if still not on a par with a spell caster.

Final note:

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of 3.5. I rather like the changes that have been made, because they provide the flexibility for me to customise my character considerably further than 3.5 rules would allow me to, and I'd say that this is one of the only two d20 game that I would seriously consider using for anything other than a quick dungeon crawl. Your friends might not be convinced, so my suggestion would be to run a quick mid-level adventure in the core rules, if you have them, or the beta rules which are still free to download, so that your friends can try things out before making any final decisions.

I recently picked up the Pathfinder book, and I am trying to get some skeptical friends interested in trying Pathfinder over 3.5.

We have only glanced at things so far, and I think it looks great. However I am trying to assemble a good list of reasons to "sell it" to a skeptical friend.

I don't remember his exact issue, but he had some concern with skills. It may just have been a "if its not broke no need to fix it" type of thing. Can anyone help explain why Pathfinder skills work out better, if they do?

A general issue he had with 3.5 is that it always seemed so easy to get attack bonuses, and it was much harder to get a stronger defense. He took one look at fighter in pathfinder and frowned since he gets even more ways to easily hit now. In general to the system, has offense and defense buffs been changed or balanced out at all?

We had a concern about cross-classing not having any penalties anymore and the way you get +3 on skill checks to your class skills. It seems really easy for someone to just take a couple levels in various classes and then just have +3's to skills around the board.

Those are all the semi specific concerns I remember my friend having. Any additional information that might help convince a skeptic would be appreciated. Thank you for your input!

Hi there Travis. What I can tell you is that there are many changes that simplify and balance 3.5 in pathfinder, but its possible your player isn't going to want to change systems, because he is comfortable in system he knows. I suggest you ask him to try it out, and see how it plays. There are going to be a bunch of things that play differently, and its going to take a little bit of getting used to, I imagine.

That said, Skills got changed mostly to make it easier for people to write up NPCs and make investing in cross class skills not feel like a "waste of points". If you multiclass, the skills you get from both classes are "class skills", and you can spend points in any of them. For the most part, its just a change of emphasis. Instead of worrying about "cross-class" skills, you can spend the points wherever, and get a "class bonus" in skills that your classes are good at.

As far as I know attack bonuses and defenses haven't changed much, but someone more knowledgeable might be able to fill you in further. Fighters in the Beta version of the rules got a class feature that give them AC bonuses to certain armors, but that got taken back. Some people house-rule it back in though.

Multiclassing has it own disadvantages in the new system. A lot was done to make the classes interesting for all 20 levels. The Favored class rule was also changed so that it no longer is mechanic of what race you are, but that everybody chooses a "favored class" and gets +1 HP or +1 skill point each level in the class. So if yo stay in one class you get a benefit.

What I think is a great boon about this system over 3.5 is that a lot of people spent a lot of time testing out these changes, adding new material, balancing every aspect, and adding more depth/more options, etc. I think that if can convince your friend to play, he will find a new appreciation for this version of DnD.

Easiest way I've found...

... just start playing.

Easiest way I've found...

... just start playing.

I agree. Everything that you can list as a good thing for PathFinder is what is going to make someone else hate it, or not want to try. Skills, Grapple, and CMB are three prime examples.

Travis Friedrich:
The +3 on skill checks if you have at least one rank in a class skill is also likely because you now only get 1*skill ranks at 1st level, not 4*skill ranks - but the ability to succeed at skill checks needs to still be roughly on par with what they were in 3.5.
(Although synergy bonuses for ranks in 'related skills' have for now disappeared, which will penalise some of the uber-Diplomacy builds that were around that used five ranks in each of Bluff, Sense Motive, and Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty) for a pile of +2 synergy bonuses to Diplomacy checks.)

You might find this thread helpful where some of the posters in these parts consider/discuss what has/hasn't changed: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/paradigmShiftOrNotPathfinderAndDDTraditions

Edit:
And welcome to posting on the Paizo messageboards. :)

"We're playing Pathfinder. You in?"

It's not perfect, but that's not the point. It is recognizably D&D3, with all 3e's warts and idiosyncracies. The deck chairs have been reshuffled a bit, but it's essentially the same game.

1) reasons to "sell it"

2) "if its not broke no need to fix it"

3) has offense and defense buffs been changed or balanced out at all?

4) then just have +3's to skills around the board.

1) 3.5 isn't being supported and there will never be new content for 3.5 again. This alone is the primary reason to move to 4E or 3.p edition. This (3.p) is more like 3rd and feels like the next D&D edition, so it gets my vote.

2) Skills were broken. I'd spend more time on skills than the other entire process in building characters. The new system is quick, easy, and clean.

3) The favored class gives you +1 HP per level, which is nice. Offense is always better than defense, but frankly getting 30 to 55 AC is far too easy in 3.5/3.p both that you either worry about defense or you mostly ignore it. I think offense is more important than defense.

4) You only get the +1 if you spend a skill point in there, so you only have so many skill points (even less than in 3.5 games) so you can't just "be mediocre at everything" unless you have massive INT and 8+INT classes or something.

On the concrete end I'm going to say the revision in the skill system is one of the major selling points. It was one of the larger and more robust discussion sections during open alpha and came to a very good compromise between speed of use and customization. The fact that there is a thread on this forum alone pondering the idea of a pure Fighter 5/Shadow Dancer 2 or more based character is example enough.

While I can appreciate the concern over cross-classing skills, in the end I found that it was often a moot point in the face of a skilled min/maxer and more often an impediment. There are really advantages to burning the old cross-class system, and not just the PrCs options it can open up. Take for example trying to build a guerilla warrior in 3.5. Fighter was even a possible option because they received almost no skill points and had all the key skills as cross-class. In Pathfinder you can a party that is a full stealth group without having to do crazy multi-classing to get the skills high enough. Same goes for key skills like Healing, which in my games at least I've never seen the party cleric take. Why would they, they have spells that do the same things but better and faster. In Pathfinder you may very well see a Rogue or even maybe the Fighter with Heal as a skill.

On a joking end I'll leave you with this, something that is still give me no end of merriment just thinking about it...

Only in Pathfinder: A high level Paladin can destroy the forces of evil using only their own decor as his weapon.

There really isn't an equivalent in Splatbooked 3.5, let alone Core, that allows a high level paladin in hell or the abyss to create a +5 Holy Speed chair that does 2d6/ 19-20x2 for damage.

On the concrete end I'm going to say the revision in the skill system is one of the major selling points. It was one of the larger and more robust discussion sections during open alpha and came to a very good compromise between speed of use and customization. The fact that there is a thread on this forum alone pondering the idea of a pure Fighter 5/Shadow Dancer 2 or more based character is example enough.

On a joking end I'll leave you with this, something that is still give me no end of merriment just thinking about it...

Only in Pathfinder: A high level Paladin can destroy the forces of evil using only their own decor as his weapon.

There really isn't an equivalent in Splatbooked 3.5, let alone Core, that allows a high level paladin in hell or the abyss to create a +5 Holy Speed chair that does 2d6/ 19-20x2 for damage.

And add twice his level to those damage rolls (multipliable with crits) against the big fiends he runs into down there :D

I don't remember his exact issue, but he had some concern with skills. It may just have been a "if its not broke no need to fix it" type of thing. Can anyone help explain why Pathfinder skills work out better, if they do?

Can you confirm what levels you tended to play at?

Because it did indeed tend to break down into the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' at mid to high level play.

I don't remember his exact issue, but he had some concern with skills.

My first game with the pathfinder rules consisted of 2 experienced D&D 3.5 players and one new player who has only played computer games like neverwinter nights. Funny enough I had more trouble explaining the new skill system to one of the 3.5 players than I did the new player! simply put the system now is much easier to manage when creating characters because of the changes. this is also a huge boon for creating high level NPCs with class levels.

The skill system in play also works alot better. For the first time in years players had taken things like craft skills and knowledge skills (even the fighter!). Having a single stealth and perception skill drastically reduced the dice rolling at the table as well and almost everyone had a good chance at one or the other since they only had to invest 1 point.

We had a concern about cross-classing not having any penalties anymore and the way you get +3 on skill checks to your class skills. It seems really easy for someone to just take a couple levels in various classes and then just have +3's to skills around the board.

This may seem like a good idea but in doing so your players will suffer in the long run. Perhaps your like one of my groups where in the 10 years + of playing D&D they have never gotten to play higher than 9th level, in this case players dont see just how important high level spells and high BABs are more. Its more important than having every skill in the game. If you play pre-made adventures and find characters multiclassing too often (or prestige classes) the resulting level dips leave a pre-made adventure without the needed abilities to bypass hazards.

For example: I once did an adventure that required dispel magic to get past a magical door but the party wizard was trying to go for a mystic theurge and hadnt aquired the level to cast dispel magic yet!

Lastly if you want to teach your players the strengths of Pathfinder, then run a single encounter that utilises the CMB/CMD rules. give them premade characters (plenty available in the modules or from the paizo blog) and use creatures that can disarm, trip, or grapple, like wolves.

Pair this agaisnt a matching 3.5 encounter and let the players decide which they prefer.

Lastly I would suggest offering them a test adventure. Run the Crypt of the Everflame for them with 100% pathfinder rules (no 3.5 splat books or house rules) and when the adventure if finished decide as a group if pathfinder is right for you. This adventure is 1st level and full of uses for the changed rules.

I don't remember his exact issue, but he had some concern with skills. It may just have been a "if its not broke no need to fix it" type of thing. Can anyone help explain why Pathfinder skills work out better, if they do?

I suggest a practical demonstration: Let him stat up a fighter 5/rogue 5/duellist 5 under 3e.

Then, let him stat up the same level spread under Pathfinder.

That alone should convince him:

3e: "Well, I'll have to decide what class I start on, as that will determine what class will get the x4 skill points at 1st level. Now, I have to figure out what skills I want, and how high I can advance them at each given level, because I have to take into consideration when they become a class skill for my character (so I figure out when I can buy level+3 ranks instead of (level+3 )/2 ranks) and when they are class skills for the class in question (because I need to know when I need to spend 2 skill points for a rank and when I need only one), now how many skills can I max out? how many can I max out when I want to pay with, say, fighter skill points for my hide and move silently?"

Pathfinder: "So, I think I go with maxed out stuff as far as I can! Fighter has the least skill points - 2+int per level, so I can max out 2+int skills to 20 ranks each. Now, duellists get 4+, two more than fighters, so I can have 2 more skills that have 15 ranks - since I won't be getting points for them out of my fighter levels. Finally, I get 4 more skills for my rogue levels, so I can get 4 more skills that only get 5 ranks. That was fast! Now I just have to look which of the skills I chose are class skills for any of my classes, which makes them class skills for me and give me that +3"

Sure, it's not quite that bad for players, because they tend to create characters at low levels and make everything up as they go along, but every GM who wants to have multiclassed NPCs with full stats will appreciate the new system.

And even when I'm a player, I highly appreciate the new system.

So one thing about the new system is that it's a lot easier. It's easier than stealing a child's candy, and doesn't have the petty villainy stain to boot!

The other thing is that you can now pick cross-class skills and not suck at them!

In 3e, your max rank in a cross-class skill was (level +3)/2, e.g. 7 for an 11th-level character (compared to 14 if it was a class skill).

In Pathfinder, your max rank is 11 if you're an 11th-level character, regardless of class skill status - the only difference is that you get a +3 bonus if you have ranks in a class skill (which brings us back to the old value of 14).

That's a +4 value right there!!

A general issue he had with 3.5 is that it always seemed so easy to get attack bonuses, and it was much harder to get a stronger defense. He took one look at fighter in pathfinder and frowned since he gets even more ways to easily hit now. In general to the system, has offense and defense buffs been changed or balanced out at all?

I must say that I had more than a few instances where characters became nearly untouchable. "Your AC is WHAT????" Was not that rare.

Still, there have been some changes here:

A general issue he had with 3.5 is that it always seemed so easy to get attack bonuses, and it was much harder to get a stronger defense. He took one look at fighter in pathfinder and frowned since he gets even more ways to easily hit now. In general to the system, has offense and defense buffs been changed or balanced out at all?

It works pretty much like it always has in 3e, because defense scales irregularly and offense scales with level with extra, irregular bonuses. Specifically, you hit most of the time, unless the defender specializes in AC somehow. 3.PF adds some new PC-oriented defensive specializations, but mostly you hit a lot. It's hardwired into 3e that you just plain hit a lot, and you'd have to rip out of a lot of the spine of the game to fix that.

Lastly if you want to teach your players the strengths of Pathfinder, then run a single encounter that utilises the CMB/CMD rules. give them premade characters (plenty available in the modules or from the paizo blog) and use creatures that can disarm, trip, or grapple, like wolves.

Then, if you'd like to show them the weakness of the CMB/CMD rules, give them premade characters who would want to disarm, trip, or grapple their opponents. The rules are only marginally more streamlined, but maneuver specialists are now much weaker, especially against the all-rounder foes you used to want to grapple (like outsiders and BBEG-class NPCs) although curiously less so against brutes (giants and big critters).

It's just hard for me to get too angry about this, because the 3e maneuver rules have always been Really Bad. In 3.PF, they're still really bad but now the players don't force them on me because they're obvious newbie traps. I'm not sure if this is an improvement or not.

And, since I'm Captain Counterpoint here...

• Races' abilities have in several cases be brought closer to what they are supposed to be good at (like elves, being good with magic, especially wizardry, now getting an Int bonus and a bonus to overcome SR)

Races have been fiddled with. Generally, the base races are now on par with bad +1 LA races: for example, humans are +2 to one stat, +1 feat, +1 skill point per level. Elves in particular get free buffs if you want to play a wizard. Half-orcs still suck, hah.

• Classes have been re-balanced (read: A lot of the weaker ones got a nice boost and will now appeal even to those who don't want to play weak characters), options have been added, and the classes have generally been made more desirable even at higher levels

Melee classes get some extra damage, usually kicking in around 6th-ish level. Paladin smite and fighter Generic Damage Ability whose name I can never remember are fairly decent, while barbarian rage gets a bunch of random cosmetic stuff but still doesn't scale upward on a reasonable timetable.

Everyone gets a bunch of random abilities to fill in "blank" levels, but most of them are more like Resist Nature's Lure than Wild Shape, if you take my meaning.

• A lot of great new feats to give you exciting new options and tactical options, and to shore up the numbers of high-level options for fighters and other classes

A good number of these new feats are old feats split in two, or mutually exclusive. All of the Improved Trip/Grapple/Disarm feats are now two feats with half the benefit (and some are weaker than the 3.5 version after you have both feats). There's also some weird fiddling; apparently Power Attack got nerfed (can't figure out why),

Most of the feats are in the Spring Attack style: specifically, a new option for your standard attack action, but this option is exclusive of other options. For example, there's Vital Strike, which makes a single standard attack action that does an extra 7 or so damage if it hits (with later versions being more damage). Several older feats, like Cleave (which was admittedly buffed), are now a standard action to use.

There's a new family of "When you get a critical hit, something happens" feats, which start at 11th level (and the first good ones are at 15th level). Decent idea, but far too late to matter too much in the game. Also, wasn't the point of 3.PF to eliminate save-or-loses?

Don't let anyone tell you fighters got a bunch of new and exciting feats. There's two feats to ignore some DR, a feat that gives you +1 AC if you have a shield, a feat that lets you AOO if someone flubs a defensive cast in melee with you, and a feat to apply two of those crit feats instead of just one. That's it. They're about as exciting as Greater Weapon Specialization ever was, there's just more of them.

• Rules for Trip, disarm, grapple, and a couple of other things have been unified under the rules of Combat Manoeuvres, making the whole process easier to remember, and a lot faster.

...and also a lot less likely to succeed.

• Weak classes are no longer weak (see above)

Except for paladins, most classes still have all the same problems they ever did. Fighters do more damage and have a little more AC and still completely lack tools for solving level-appropriate challenges that don't involve hitting people who are standing still to be hit, barbarians still multiclass out of their weak class after 5 or so levels tops, bards are still unfocused and lacking in central concept, sorcerers are still strictly weaker than wizards, rogues still suffer from the fact that spells negate challenges and skills don't, etc. etc.

I mean. It's still 3e.

• Classes that were too powerful (clerics and druids) cut down to size to bring them in line with the rest (but they did get new stuff, too, making them less monolithically powerful but more versatile)

Divine Power was nerfed and clerics lost heavy armor.

Cleric domains now grant two powers comparable to the one power each domain had before, worshiping a god now gives a cleric a bunch of random free abilities, and clerics get a free weapon proficiency (which sometimes even includes exotic weapons).

I'll leave it to you to decide if clerics were nerfed.

As for druids, wild shape was nerfed hard, animal companions were nerfed fairly hard, and the Summon Nature's Ally chain was nerfed across the board. Unlike clerics and wizards, druids got back basically nothing for this.

• Clerics no longer need to blow most of their spells on healing

Turn undead was replaced with a wave-of-healing effect.

• Bards and especially paladins are now more capable healers, too.

Lay on Hands was buffed. I admit I don't really care enough about bards to have figured out anything about their healing, and since bardic music is now a bookkeeping nightmare I don't think I'm going to start caring.

• Polymorph/Wild shape has been redesigned to address the old balance problems (if you followed 3e development, you have probably seen no less than three thousand different official rulings on polymorph - and that number is probably low!)

It's been nerfed to oblivion (which is not a bad move IMO). You only get abilities off of a short list, and the stat mods are small and applied to your own base stats. Now, the spells are merely interesting utility buffs, although playing a druid is STILL an exercise in dumpster diving through monster books and doing your taxes. (Why do you still have to find a monster and use its natural attacks?)

• There are now options for characters who don't want to just stand there doing a full attack.

They mostly aren't better than standing there and doing a full attack, though.

• Diseases, poisons and the like are now a threat at all levels, and repeated exposure to poisons now can be really nasty.

Remove Poison and Remove Disease have a chance to fail, and there are now a bunch of high-level poisons.

• Animal companions (and, by extension, paladin's special mounts and arcanists' familiars, which now use the animal companion rules, albeit with some modifications to fit their unique status) have been brought into line, and no matter what sort of companion you choose, it should be more balanced now. Plus, you can now choose any type of companion available as soon as you gain the ability, and the creatures grow with you - literally!

The rules are unified and the stats are fixed; basically, rather than being monsters on Team Goodguys, they're weak player characters of Class: Animal Companion. The upshot is that animal companions (and the pally mount is an animal companion now) are weaker than in 3.5 (and just like before the good animals are still a lot better than the bad ones, there's just fewer of them), but you can replace them with either a flat buff to the entire party or with more spellcasting or with turning any weapon you hold into a magic weapon for a short duration depending on your class.

Familiars are still so weak that you'll relish the opportunity to replace them with a useful class feature, which is for wizards a free spontaneous spell of any spell known (just in case sorcerers were starting to catch up with wizards) and is for sorcerers one of several bloodlines (which are mostly random abilities chosen from the list of Prestige Class Abilities Nobody Actually Cares About like claws or small elemental resists or low-level spell-like abilities).

Quijenoth wrote:

Lastly if you want to teach your players the strengths of Pathfinder, then run a single encounter that utilises the CMB/CMD rules. give them premade characters (plenty available in the modules or from the paizo blog) and use creatures that can disarm, trip, or grapple, like wolves.

Then, if you'd like to show them the weakness of the CMB/CMD rules, give them premade characters who would want to disarm, trip, or grapple their opponents. The rules are only marginally more streamlined, but maneuver specialists are now much weaker, especially against the all-rounder foes you used to want to grapple (like outsiders and BBEG-class NPCs) although curiously less so against brutes (giants and big critters).

It's just hard for me to get too angry about this, because the 3e maneuver rules have always been Really Bad. In 3.PF, they're still really bad but now the players don't force them on me because they're obvious newbie traps. I'm not sure if this is an improvement or not.

Newbie traps? How come?

What they did for classes alone is worth it. Many people point out the sorcerer bloodlines which are great. But so are the rogue talents, the barbarian rage powers and what they did for the bard

I won't even start with the usual polymorph and grapple changes

A Man In Black wrote:

It's just hard for me to get too angry about this, because the 3e maneuver rules have always been Really Bad. In 3.PF, they're still really bad but now the players don't force them on me because they're obvious newbie traps. I'm not sure if this is an improvement or not.

Newbie traps? How come?

Because the feat investments into them are a bad idea because large swathes of enemies are still basically immune to them, and they succeed less often.

In 3.5, if you're designed to grapple or trip, you basically win every grapple or trip attempt. This meant that it was worth it for PCs to specialize in this, because despite the fact that many things are ungrappleable or untrippable, the ones that aren't are going to end up grappled/tripped. The flip side of this is that you spent a lot of time prone whenever you had to fight wolves and that any monster with Swallow Whole or Constrict was going to get to Swallow you Whole or Constrict you unless you had Freedom of Movement or something.

In 3.PF, the fights with the specialist NPCs are lot less annoying because you have a fighting chance against them. However, it also means that specializing in a maneuver as a PC is a mug's game because it costs more feats and works less often, especially on enemies like outsiders (who have silly high base stats and thus high CMDs). Add the various completely immune enemies (can't really grapple a shadow or a fire elemental) and the fact that spiked chains got nerfed and there's no reason to bother with grappling or tripping as a melee-focused PC when you can just hit people instead.

Neither situation is terribly elegant.

I disagree. I like the 3.5 version of all manuvers better, with the singular exception of Sunder, which we house ruled as Pathfinder does now anyway. In my opinion, and I understand that other have had troubles with them, I think Grapple, Trip, and most other manuvers worked pretty much as they should have in 3.5, and do not work well at all in Pathfinder. Again, singular exception being Sunder.

Being that many manuvers either take up all your attacks, or have much reduced effects if successful, there is just to little point in attempting them vrs just dealing damage (much easier and also has the same exact end effect). Also, the smaller your party is, many of the manuvers might be completely pointless, now.

I don't remember his exact issue, but he had some concern with skills. It may just have been a "if its not broke no need to fix it" type of thing. Can anyone help explain why Pathfinder skills work out better, if they do?

Give them a level 20 character. Tell them to pick their skills using both systems. Guaranteed even without knowing the rules fully the Pathfinder version is faster and easier.

A general issue he had with 3.5 is that it always seemed so easy to get attack bonuses, and it was much harder to get a stronger defense. He took one look at fighter in pathfinder and frowned since he gets even more ways to easily hit now. In general to the system, has offense and defense buffs been changed or balanced out at all?

No, although some overlap with stat-boosting items has been prevented (so no gloves of dex AND belt of giant strength) which alleviates some problems indirectly.

We had a concern about cross-classing not having any penalties anymore and the way you get +3 on skill checks to your class skills. It seems really easy for someone to just take a couple levels in various classes and then just have +3's to skills around the board.

To me this is a legitimate complaint about the system, but have them look at the full 20-level progression for the core classes. There will be less temptation to multi-class.

If someone is multiclass just for skill boosts, they will miss out on much more.

Also remember that the +3 is to compensate for not having 4 ranks in it. Multiclassing for a lot of +3's in not all that easy, and is going to leave you in about the same place as 3E did, with a lot of low skills. Pathfinders skill system is just a lot easier to go about it.

For me, one reason I like the skills in PF better is because Move Silently and Hide are now one skill, as are Listen and Spot. I understand that quite a few people like them separate so you can model different levels of perceptive ability. But from a practical standpoint, every time someone was being stealthy, you pretty much needed to make 2 opposed checks - one for hiding, one for moving silently. Operationally, a single stealth check is MUCH better.

As far as building up attack bonuses faster than defense, try to convince him that it's the extra attack bonuses you get that make feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise as well as tactics like fighting defensively worthwhile. That's why I always like excess attack bonus, I can bleed it off for other effects (like my own defense).

We have only glanced at things so far, and I think it looks great. However I am trying to assemble a good list of reasons to "sell it" to a skeptical friend.

I'm a 3.5 player, and I don't think PF has offered anything that is that much better than 3.5 to influence a shift (over just tossing in a few houserules into 3.5) for myself. Your friend might be similarly minded. Having said that, Paizo did not make the same mistake that 4e made. They have provided a way for someone that has no interest in investing in the game to still play it with their friends that are. That is by using the Pathfinder Reference Document.

If you are willing to run a game ask your friend to use the PRD to make his character. This way you can still game with your friend and he doesn't feel like he is having his arm twisted to purchase an entirely new set of core books.

Zmar wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

It's just hard for me to get too angry about this, because the 3e maneuver rules have always been Really Bad. In 3.PF, they're still really bad but now the players don't force them on me because they're obvious newbie traps. I'm not sure if this is an improvement or not.

Newbie traps? How come?

Because the feat investments into them are a bad idea because large swathes of enemies are still basically immune to them, and they succeed less often.

In 3.5, if you're designed to grapple or trip, you basically win every grapple or trip attempt. This meant that it was worth it for PCs to specialize in this, because despite the fact that many things are ungrappleable or untrippable, the ones that aren't are going to end up grappled/tripped. The flip side of this is that you spent a lot of time prone whenever you had to fight wolves and that any monster with Swallow Whole or Constrict was going to get to Swallow you Whole or Constrict you unless you had Freedom of Movement or something.

In 3.PF, the fights with the specialist NPCs are lot less annoying because you have a fighting chance against them. However, it also means that specializing in a maneuver as a PC is a mug's game because it costs more feats and works less often, especially on enemies like outsiders (who have silly high base stats and thus high CMDs). Add the various completely immune enemies (can't really grapple a shadow or a fire elemental) and the fact that spiked chains got nerfed and there's no reason to bother with grappling or tripping as a melee-focused PC when you can just hit people instead.

Given the sheer number of ways to enhance your CMB, and the far, far fewer ways to enhance your CMD, this has not been my experience, either in actual play or mathematical testing. It may be true that some maneuver targets are no longer auto-wins - I'm not sure how a 3.5 maneuver specialist picked her targets, so I can't say for certain - but it does seem to be the case that there really aren't as many targets that are simply unfeasible to make an attempt on (i.e., giants, dire tigers, etc.).

Travis Friedrich wrote:

I don't remember his exact issue, but he had some concern with skills. It may just have been a "if its not broke no need to fix it" type of thing. Can anyone help explain why Pathfinder skills work out better, if they do?

I suggest a practical demonstration: Let him stat up a fighter 5/rogue 5/duellist 5 under 3e.

Then, let him stat up the same level spread under Pathfinder.

That alone should convince him:

3e: "Well, I'll have to decide what class I start on, as that will determine what class will get the x4 skill points at 1st level. Now, I have to figure out what skills I want, and how high I can advance them at each given level, because I have to take into consideration when they become a class skill for my character (so I figure out when I can buy level+3 ranks instead of (level+3 )/2 ranks) and when they are class skills for the class in question (because I need to know when I need to spend 2 skill points for a rank and when I need only one), now how many skills can I max out? how many can I max out when I want to pay with, say, fighter skill points for my hide and move silently?"

Pathfinder: "So, I think I go with maxed out stuff as far as I can! Fighter has the least skill points - 2+int per level, so I can max out 2+int skills to 20 ranks each. Now, duellists get 4+, two more than fighters, so I can have 2 more skills that have 15 ranks - since I won't be getting points for them out of my fighter levels. Finally, I get 4 more skills for my rogue levels, so I can get 4 more skills that only get 5 ranks. That was fast! Now I just have to look which of the skills I chose are class skills for any of my classes, which makes them class skills for me and give me that +3"

Sure, it's not quite that bad for players, because they tend to create characters at low levels and make everything up as they go along, but every GM who wants to have multiclassed NPCs with full stats will appreciate the new system.

And even when I'm a player, I highly appreciate the...

Math is hard, m'kay.

As long as you get max hps at first level you'll still have to decide which class to take first anyway.

Math is hard, m'kay.

As long as you get max hps at first level you'll still have to decide which class to take first anyway.

The point is, you're no longer forced to choose between (8+INT)x4 vs (2+INT)x4 skill points, and having Weapon Finesse and another bonus feat at 1st level. And it's only a difference of 2 HP, now that Rogues have been bumped up to a d8.

I recently picked up the Pathfinder book, and I am trying to get some skeptical friends interested in trying Pathfinder over 3.5.

We have only glanced at things so far, and I think it looks great. However I am trying to assemble a good list of reasons to "sell it" to a skeptical friend.

I don't remember his exact issue, but he had some concern with skills. It may just have been a "if its not broke no need to fix it" type of thing. Can anyone help explain why Pathfinder skills work out better, if they do?

I'm not sure who the GM is but my suggestion is to give him the option of using the old skills system with his character. You can easily mix/ match the two without affecting balance in any way.

Personally... good riddance to the old system. My 17 INT rogue can actually be good at all his rogue skills and catch a couple other skills also.

Given the sheer number of ways to enhance your CMB, and the far, far fewer ways to enhance your CMD, this has not been my experience, either in actual play or mathematical testing. It may be true that some maneuver targets are no longer auto-wins - I'm not sure how a 3.5 maneuver specialist picked her targets, so I can't say for certain - but it does...

In 3.5, if you could hold it, you could probably grapple it, especially if you played with Complete stuff.

In 3.PF, it's not brutes that you can't grapple, but instead it's things with huge natural stats like outsiders and stuff. Try doing a same-level test with demons or devils or something.

In 3.PF, it's not brutes that you can't grapple, but instead it's things with huge natural stats like outsiders and stuff. Try doing a same-level test with demons or devils or something.

Leaving aside whether it's possible or not for the moment, why would you want to grapple something with Teleport at-will?

A Man In Black wrote:

In 3.PF, it's not brutes that you can't grapple, but instead it's things with huge natural stats like outsiders and stuff. Try doing a same-level test with demons or devils or something.

Leaving aside whether it's possible or not for the moment, why would you want to grapple something with Teleport at-will?

So when it does teleport you can still kill it before you die in the hellhole it teleported you to lol.

So when it does teleport you can still kill it before you die in the hellhole it teleported you to lol.

You don't get teleported with the creature. For one thing, teleport only works on willing targets. For another, the at-will ones usually specify self+gear only.

Being that many manuvers either take up all your attacks, or have much reduced effects if successful, there is just to little point in attempting them vrs just dealing damage (much easier and also has the same exact end effect).

That's all fine and dandy if your campaign is all about killing every single opponent in every single battle you're in. I haven't played in any campaign for about 20 years now where that has been the case.

Beckett wrote:

Being that many manuvers either take up all your attacks, or have much reduced effects if successful, there is just to little point in attempting them vrs just dealing damage (much easier and also has the same exact end effect).

That's all fine and dandy if your campaign is all about killing every single opponent in every single battle you're in. I haven't played in any campaign for about 20 years now where that has been the case.

What if you need to bring someone back alive? What if actually harming said someone would mess up the diplomatic aftermath (thus you can't just knock him below 0 with the sharp edge of your sword, NOR with the flat side)? Then there's the party member who's possessed, dominated, confused and about to walk off the edge of the cliff... Oh, what about the nigh untouchable demi-god who draws his powers from the big scepter of Ugga-Bugga he's holding?
Combat Maneuvers can add a lot to an encounter and just because they're not automatic successes anymore (although they can actually be fairly easy anyway, as mentioned above it's easier to boost CMB than CMD) - like concentration checks now - doesn't make them useless.

That's actually exacly what I mean. Dealing Nonlethal damage (or outright killing them) accomplishes Grapple, Trip, Disarm, Bull Rush, and most of the others a thousand times better over all than the feats themselves, because the target suffers the effects long enough to actual have the group do something important about it, like tie them up, or get rid of that Vorpal sword before they just spend their next action to pick it right back up. Style of campaign has nothing to do with it.

That's actually exacly what I mean. Dealing Nonlethal damage (or outright killing them) accomplishes Grapple, Trip, Disarm, Bull Rush, and most of the others a thousand times better over all than the feats themselves, because the target suffers the effects long enough to actual have the group do something important about it, like tie them up, or get rid of that Vorpal sword before they just spend their next action to pick it right back up. Style of campaign has nothing to do with it.

Methinks you didn't read Gentlegiant properly. Dealing non-lethal damage to someone is still harming them. Just ask anyone who just got punched by Mike Tyson. Sure, laying your buddies out when they've been dominated or are otherwise dangers to themselves or others is fine, they'll forgive you. Are you really going to uppercut the dominated pregnant lady/toddler/old geezer? Unless you're the King of Sparta, attacking diplomatic envoys isn't generally a good idea either, but you might get away with restraining them.

In 3.PF, it's not brutes that you can't grapple, but instead it's things with huge natural stats like outsiders and stuff. Try doing a same-level test with demons or devils or something.

Sure. Pick one.

As long as you get max hps at first level you'll still have to decide which class to take first anyway.

Yep. That's why I house ruled your maxed hit die to be retroactively the largest single die you have. Not difficult, even if you're rolling after 1st level. Also, favored class is whichever base class you have the most levels in... even easier, since no numbers ever have to change.

Voila! There's no longer any reason to care about the order in which a character's levels and features were acquired. A few other tweaks are needed here and there (mostly class-specific) but Pathfinder provided most of the framework: the new skill system, retroactive skill points, and the new multiclass system are far bigger changes which my house rules rest upon.

Easiest way I've found...

... just start playing.

+1. I am trying to convert some non 3.5er's in about 2 weeks.

A Man In Black wrote:

In 3.PF, it's not brutes that you can't grapple, but instead it's things with huge natural stats like outsiders and stuff. Try doing a same-level test with demons or devils or something.

Sure. Pick one.

Colossal Monstrous Scorpion vs 12th level fighter or barbarian

Voila! There's no longer any reason to care about the order in which a character's levels and features were acquired.

Not strictly true - as an example:

Rogue(5)/Fighter(5). Average of 5+int skill points/level.

But if he took his Rogue levels first, he wouldn't have been able to max out 5+int skills.

That's actually exacly what I mean. Dealing Nonlethal damage (or outright killing them) accomplishes Grapple, Trip, Disarm, Bull Rush, and most of the others a thousand times better over all than the feats themselves, because the target suffers the effects long enough to actual have the group do something important about it, like tie them up, or get rid of that Vorpal sword before they just spend their next action to pick it right back up. Style of campaign has nothing to do with it.

They're situational, but style of campaign has as much to do about it as anything else. There's plenty of story elements that can give rise to use of these feats, by npc's or pc's. If the DM throws chances for the feats to be useful into the campaign then they can be extremely useful in many fights, if not then obviously they're less so. You could look at it like taking Skill Focus: Swim, if you're never around water its gonna be absolutely useless to you, but put that same character in an environment where they can put that feat to good use and they will have a better chance to shine than a character without it. Arguably the combat maneuver feats will be more useful in many situations (combat being fairly common in D&D) than Skill Focus: Swim for the very reason that combat is more common than rescuing a drowning dwarf family* (old joke).

*in most campaigns

Just as a side note to the discussion and since it was brought up, I've never cared much for the grapple option. Sure, its good to have as an option when you need it, but I've never understood why it seems to be a prevalent route for attack (at least that's how most boards I've read seem to show it, very commonly used). In situations where someone needs to be pinned and held or one on one situations where one combatant is a good grappler and the other isnt, I can see its use being very valuable. But, in battlefield situations where you have large groups, or perhaps just small squad situations, it seems fairly useless. Sure, you take one person out of the fight while you roll around on the ground, but you're both opened up almost completely to anyone that wants to come along and put a sword/dagger/arrow through you while you're doing it. Or am I missing something?

Shisumo wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

In 3.PF, it's not brutes that you can't grapple, but instead it's things with huge natural stats like outsiders and stuff. Try doing a same-level test with demons or devils or something.

Sure. Pick one.

Colossal Monstrous Scorpion vs 12th level fighter or barbarian

See if you can figure out why I'm not going to take you up on that.

And what precisely would it prove, anyway? We have already established that there are ungrappleable foes. How is this different in PF?

The deck chairs have been reshuffled a bit, but it's essentially the same game.

I think the expression refers to deck chairs on the Titanic. Was that intended?

3e: "Well, I'll have to decide what class I start on, as that will determine what class will get the x4 skill points at 1st level. Now, I have to figure out what skills I want, and how high I can advance them at each given level, because I have to take into consideration when they become a class skill for my character (so I figure out when I can buy level+3 ranks instead of (level+3 )/2 ranks) and when they are class skills for the class in question (because I need to know when I need to spend 2 skill points for a rank and when I need only one), now how many skills can I max out? how many can I max out when I want to pay with, say, fighter skill points for my hide and move silently?"

QFT

Assigning skill points has never been easier, but the system still retains the flexibility other dumbed-down version of skill points lack.

The skill point change in Pathfinder was the biggest relief for me. Skill points are so much easier to assign, and it's easier to build a character that matches the concept you have in mind.

I think the expression refers to deck chairs on the Titanic. Was that intended?

The point is that the problems the OP's friend has aren't fixed but neither are they new to PF.

What if you need to bring someone back alive? What if actually harming said someone would mess up the diplomatic aftermath (thus you can't just knock him below 0 with the sharp edge of your sword, NOR with the flat side)? Then there's the party member who's possessed, dominated, confused and about to walk off the edge of the cliff... Oh, what about the nigh untouchable demi-god who draws his powers from the big scepter of Ugga-Bugga he's holding?

Respectively: Some bruises and a headache aren't dead. Knocking someone down or grabbing them and slamming them into the ground or whatnot is just as obnoxious; this is what social skills are for. He won't begrudge the migraine. The GM has created an arbitrary situation simply in order to show off the rules, and by replacing "disarm/sunder" with anything you can say anything is good (Knock isn't versatile and useful because of "What about the nigh untouchable demi-god of locked doors who draws his power from that magically locked door?"). All of these are really contrived, and most of them favor the use of non-lethal damage, not combat maneuvers.

The GM can certainly go out of their way to make the maneuvers useful, but that's the only way they would be useful without a significant feat investment. As this feat investment is also more situational than it was before, because the higher inherent defense of the CMB/CMD system makes such maneuvers less reliable, it's a trap: you're spending feats in order to put maneuvers on par with hitting people, the maneuver you get for free that works on nearly everything.

But, in battlefield situations where you have large groups, or perhaps just small squad situations, it seems fairly useless. Sure, you take one person out of the fight while you roll around on the ground, but you're both opened up almost completely to anyone that wants to come along and put a sword/dagger/arrow through you while you're doing it. Or am I missing something?

Well, most GMs don't throw a lot of enemies at a party at a time because that's a lot of work. Plus, grappling is is seen as a way melee characters can be effective against spellcasters, which works for a while until casters get Freedom of Movement or non-somatic teleporting. On top of this, by the time you're really specialized in grappling, attackers generally just hit, so impairing an attacker's ability to attack is worth sacrificing some relatively worthless AC.

Someone challenged me to do some maneuver testing. I'll start a thread for it sometime when I have the time to do the math.

That's actually exacly what I mean. Dealing Nonlethal damage (or outright killing them) accomplishes Grapple, Trip, Disarm, Bull Rush, and most of the others a thousand times better...

Methinks you didn't read Gentlegiant properly. Dealing non-lethal damage to someone is still harming them. Just ask anyone who just got punched by Mike Tyson. Sure, laying your buddies out when they've been dominated or are otherwise dangers to themselves or others is fine, they'll forgive you. Are you really going to uppercut the dominated pregnant lady/toddler/old geezer? Unless you're the King of Sparta, attacking diplomatic envoys isn't generally a good idea either, but you might get away with restraining them.

I agree that dealing non-lethal damage should count as harming them, but the rules have never backed that up. Lay someone out, and a minute later, they're up doing starjumps.

Any visit to Accident & Emergency, after chucking out time on Friday night, will show a queue of people who've been injured in brawls, and quite a few who may be in danger of dying. Obviously not all of these people have been beaten by trained martial artists (Improved Unarmed Attack), so any rules which state it's impossible to kill someone with non-lethal damage should always be taken with a huge pinch, if not a bag of salt.

It's too easy to avoid accidentally killing someone, which makes those Vow of Peace-style restrictions meaningless. Any blow hard enough to hurt someone should be dealing partial real damage (maybe 50:50?). Other games make this assumption.
So if you really are pulling your punches, to avoid real damage, you're not hitting them hard enough to slow them down or KO them.
So if your opponent has 10hp, and you want to give them 10 slaps for [1hp stun:0hp lethal] each, good for you, you've adhered to your oath of non-violence, but you shouldn't be able to wind up and put your whole body strength into a neck-snapping 40hp [ie 20:20] punch, without driving their nose through their brain.
"Honestly, officer, I never hurt him! He's just lying down, having a rest!" leads to "Honestly judge, how was I to know that focussing all my ki at a lethal pressure point would cause an injury?" or "He's not dead, your honour, he's a dirty faker/just pining for the fjords.".

And as far as Tyson goes, I'd say he had actually got Improved Unarmed Strike, and Weapon Focus (Bite), and wasn't afraid to deal lethal damage.

Any visit to Accident & Emergency, after chucking out time on Friday night, will show a queue of people who've been injured in brawls, and quite a few who may be in danger of dying. Obviously not all of these people have been beaten by trained martial artists (Improved Unarmed Attack), so any rules which state it's impossible to kill someone with non-lethal damage should always be taken with a huge pinch, if not a bag of salt.

In fact, this has been changed in Pathfinder.

PRD->Combat:

"NONLETHAL DAMAGE:
(...)
Staggered and Unconscious: (...)If a creature's nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage. This does not apply to creatures with regeneration. Such creatures simply accrue additional nonlethal damage, increasing the amount of time they remain unconscious."

Threadjack off.

In 3.PF, it's not brutes that you can't grapple, but instead it's things with huge natural stats like outsiders and stuff. Try doing a same-level test with demons or devils or something.

For interest's sake, here are three specialized grapplers. All of them have Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple and Greater Grapple, and the fighter has Weapon Focus (grapple).

Barbarian (base Str 18 at level 1)

Fighter (or monk, if you prefer, with base 18 Str at level 1)

Druid (with base 14 Str at level 1)

Demons/Devils

Results: The hardest to grapple is the Ice Devil (with unholy aura on) -- the fighter's CMB of +26 vs. the CMD of 40 means he has only a 35% chance of succeeding, the druid has a 40% chance, and the raging barbarian has a 45% chance (rising to 95% if he uses Strength Surge, however). The easiest to grapple is the Hezrou -- the fighter and the druid have a 90% chance of succeeding and the barbarian only fails on a 1.

Note that any short-term or conditional bonuses like flanking, Haste, Enlarge Person, bardsong, etc. are not included in these numbers.

In fact, this has been changed in Pathfinder.

PRD->Combat:

"NONLETHAL DAMAGE:
(...)
Staggered and Unconscious: (...)If a creature's nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage. This does not apply to creatures with regeneration. Such creatures simply accrue additional nonlethal damage, increasing the amount of time they remain unconscious."

Threadjack off.

Thanks for that. I'm working my way through the book, but it's a slow business in between prepping my regular 3.5 game.

All I can say is, 'It's about time'.
Though, I'd still prefer if some of the damage were lethal, before you got to the KO point. What percentage, I don't mind, just so long as punching and kicking someone was classifiable (legally, morally & ethically) as Actual Bodily Harm, rather than 'tickling them to sleep'.

Thanks for that. I'm working my way through the book, but it's a slow business in between prepping my regular 3.5 game.

All I can say is, 'It's about time'.
Though, I'd still prefer if some of the damage were lethal, before you got to the KO point. What percentage, I don't mind, just so long as punching and kicking someone was classifiable (legally, morally & ethically) as Actual Bodily Harm, rather than 'tickling them to sleep'.

You could go for something like 'Every dice of damage when subdual does 1 hp of actual damage'.