|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Steve Geddes wrote:
Sure, but that still doesn't mean it's limiting. Look at the paladin for example: the class had been, up til 4e, only about smiting evil. Anything outside of evil didn't count. Ever. That was a bad mechanic that the developer fixed. The Favored Enemy should be applied more broadly so it's utilized more because the DM isn't going to count every monster in a given campaign to figure out what option a player should go with. Espe in sand-box style adventures where monsters are often generated randomly.
Given that all humanoids is now a choice, I wonder what sort of campaign you'd be in where you don't get significant mileage from that choice.
It's the only choice that will likely see the most mileage in any given campaign, which makes it the "Go-To", something 5e has done a pretty good job paring down until now. Now specific campaigns, like the Curse of Strahd, will see a good mix of both Undead and humanoids and maybe monstrosities here or there but that's knowing the genre going in. I still don't see anyone picking fey or beasts the majority of the time outside specific character personalities.
And then there's Celestials which have been the antagonist for how many published campaigns? None that I recall. As for selections like Dragons, sure it's helpful since they're powerful and scary but to make a permanent choice of a feature when you might fight a handful over a 20-level character span...I just don't see it.
Ugh, again with the "Favored Enemy". It's a dumb mechanic and here's why: There's no guarantee that you'll come across your favored enemy in any specific session or even campaign. It was a dumb idea in 3.5 and it's a dumb idea even now.
There was a guy over on the now-defunct WotC boards who created a "Favored Enemy" mechanic that was both unique AND applicable to many more situations. If I remember correctly you could pick a lot of monsters but they worked also within the setting. For example if you pick Kobolds as your favored enemy you'd get good at fighting smaller targets (kobolds, goblins, human children, etc.) AND you were particularly good at disabling / finding traps because Kobolds love building traps. If you picked Dragons then you were adept at fighting flying things (dragons, wyversn, drakes, manticores) and had resistances to elemental effects. If you picked Giants then you were good at Fighting large bi-pedal monsters (Trolls, Giants, Golems, etc) and the list continues. Not only did it make fighting specific monsters better but it made the circumstances that you face with similar monsters better. Think of it, If I pick Beasts and the party encounters a 4-legged undead creature that was perhaps once a beast then I suddenly lose my bonus against a creature that is exactly the same except that it's unliving? Just sounds silly and at best, will be used occasionally.
I think it's pretty simple. Some people like a Thing. Some other people like a different Thing that's similar to the previous Thing. Sometimes the first group says their Thing is better than the other's Thing.
Then there's a third group who likes the first Thing for specific reasons and likes the second group's Thing for other reasons. And often play BOTH (or MULTIPLE) Things on a regular basis.
Plainly put Pathfinder is tailored to a group of players who like what Pathfinder provides. These reasons are varied but often involve a familiarity to a ruleset that's been around for over 15 years, extreme depth of character customization, the setting, a full use of their system mastery, a good amount of well-written adventure paths, isn't worried over much about class balance, ect.
D&D 5th Edition is tailored to a group of players who don't like a LOT of rules muddling the waters, has a fair amount of customization but isn't staggering, is fine with more balance across classes, less numbers and less math, a larger amount of campaign settings, and letting the DM set the tone of the campaign with what options are allowed (Races, Classes, Feats, etc).
Different strokes for different folks
Well I definitely see the benefits of Rage/Pounce, it's one of the first Barbarians I made (back in 3.5 days) that was pretty darn amazing. As PF came out and it became more common-place, I guess to me it sort of lost it's "ohhh....ahhh" luster. And I'd never punish players or even look down on ones that go for the usual build. I have a rather warm spot in my heart for Halfling Cavalier/Paladins because I once played a Mounted Human Paladin who sunk many of feats into his Class feature and was almost always denied it's uses because of tight spaces and dungeons/buildings. Shame really.
Hm, sorry this answer is a bit late but here's what I've come up with....
In addition to their own special qualities, all familiars grant their masters the Alertness feat, the benefit of an empathic link, and the ability to share spells with the familiar.
As far as I can tell, the creature itself confers no other special bonus like a Toad giving you 3 extra HP or a Cat giving you +3 on Move Silently checks.
God the time it would take to calculate all that if you were facing 3 enemies! Or worse if you were dual-wielding weapons.
And you still can't more more than 5-feet.......lame
I'd allow it because the limitations of Polymorphed are pretty clearly spelled out. It's not that you can't cast spells due to Polymorph, it's because the forms you change into don't have the requirements. Remove the restrictions on casting spells (Verbal, Somatic, Focus, etc) and you now can. I'd allow it, but mainly because it requires a secondary element (Sorcery Points) to perform and is thus, limited in scope.
I think the only thing that I'd probably want to transport from Pathfinder/3.5 into 5e is Item crafting, including mundane AND magical items. The 5e Action Economy is great, allows for a lot more versatility for weapon-based classes unlike PF's Full-Attack/Standard Attack and the minimalist approach to things like the Bonus Action and Concentration help to limit spell abuse.
We started a Planeswalker campaign last night for 5e and it was a lot of fun. Now at first glance that sounds like a crazy, overpowered campaign from the get go but it really wasn't. The homebrew Planeswalker class is quite clever and utilizes a different spellcasting system that is unique AND has a Magic: the Gathering feel.
First point is to figure out which classes don't need spellcasting so they don't need to be bothered with. The Barbarian, Fighter (Champion and Battle Master), Monk (Open Palm), and Rogue (thief) aren't spellcasters at all, so we wouldn't have to worry about Colors or spells for them to have access to. That leaves a good portion of the rest.
Colors: In the Planeswalker class, each Color has their own spell list and Cantrips. The trick is to figure out which class gets access to what color and spells. There's quite a bit of overlap between many of the spells, so some classes are going to lose a bit of identity when you look at what spells they'll have access to. The way I'd do it is:
Bard - White and Blue
Now the color only really determines your spell list and Cantrips if you have access to any.
Mana/Gathering: The Planeswalker class has a distinctive spell casting system that's both intriguing AND fun but there are significant limitations. First is the Planeswalker (or in this case, spellcasting's class) ability to Gather mana to them. Each turn, after the First Round, using a bonus action they can Gather 1 point of mana to them. This is cumulative per round and occurs for 1 minute. This mana can be stored OR be used to cast spells at a 1 mana = 1 spell level ratio. Meaning in turn 2 of Gathering you can cast a 1st level spell. Turn 3 you can cast a 2nd level spell OR a 1st level spell and etc. The balance point is that normally you won't be able to cast more than 1 spell a turn anyways barring unique class features. Additionally on each turn you're previous mana is replaced if you use it, sort of like "Tapping" and your "Untap" step. So in 3 rounds I'll have 3 mana to use however I see fit. When 1 minute is up, your spell pool is depleted and you have to take a short or long rest to cover the Gathering feature.
Spellcasting/Spells Prepared: Here's the fun part. At each level you have a specific die called a Spell Pool die. It starts off at a d6 and progressively gets larger the higher level you are. This means you can prepare a number of spells equal to the die (in this case, 6 at 1st level). You can prepared the same spell more than once or 6 different spells of your choosing. The benefit of preparing the same spell more than once is that it increases the odds you'll "draw it". IN other words, the spells prepared are gained randomly! Assign each spell a number from 1-6 and that remains the order until a short or extended rest.
On the first round of Gathering you roll a # of d6's equal to your spellcasting stat (Int for Blue; Cha for Red and Black; Wis for White and Green). For example my 3rd level Blue Wizard has prepared 1. Charm Person (1st) 2. Command (1st) 3. Ice Knife (1st) 4. Invisibility (2nd) 5. Blur (2nd) 6. Hold Person (2nd). Now I could've prepared multiple Blurs OR 6 Blurs but that would be kinda silly. Now on my initial turn I start to Gather. This opens up my mana pool with 0 points and I roll a number of d6's equal to my Intelligence modifier (say she has an Intelligence 17, so +3). I would then roll 3d6. I get a 2, 5, and 5. This means that for the turn I have Command, and two Blurs ready to go. On my next turn, I use another Bonus Action to gather mana (this time adding 1 point to my mana pool) and I can CAST Command; however the spell is lost to me until I roll another 2. Each turn after the 1st round I roll just 1d6 to "draw" a new spell.
So, to help illustrate how this works i'll do a quick example of a few turns using my Blue Planeswalker: Kaden Rath.
Kaden has an Intelligence of 17 and can cast up to 2nd level spells Blue spells. The Save DC and spell attacks are exactly the same as D&D. He knows 3 Cantrips from the Blue List (Mage Hand, Ray of Frost, Minor Illusion). Additionally, he's prepared the following List:
On my first turn of combat, I could begin gathering mana as a bonus action, at which point I roll my spell dice of 3d6. Remember it's 3d6 because I have an Intelligence modifier of 3. If the results are 3, 5, and 6, then when I have enough mana to pay for them, I will be able to cast Ice Knife (1 mana), Blur (2 mana), or Hold Person (2 mana). This numbers represent my Hand.
At the start of my next turn, I would roll another d6 and add the result to my Hand (let's say the result is another 3); I could then use a bonus action to Gather (meaning increase the capacity of my Mana pool to 1 and gain 1 mana (though I do not have to). I could then immediately use my action to expend that 1 mana and cast the spell Ice Knife.
On my next turn, I would roll another d6 to add to my Hand (let's say the result is a 4); If I then use a bonus action to add to my mana pool I could then cast Blur or Hold Person with the 2 mana I have OR cast Ice Knife and keep that mana in reserve for the following round or maybe a spell with an Immediate Action.
The draw back is that 1) you don't have the spells you want right away and at your finger tips. A 6th level spell takes a bit of time to obtain. But the bright side is that your spellcasting isn't really limited by spell levels or slots per day. You could cast many more high level spells in a single encounter than some Wizard could cast all day, but you have to make it 5 or 6 rounds to do it in.
I don't disagree with any of these. These are also problems that relate to C/MD. They're bigger factors than the full-attack, sure, but that doesn't mean that a full-attack vs. standard attack isn't a problem either. Especially in lower-level games where by 6th level wizard's spells are becoming more prevalent per encounter and now the Warrior's efficiency is starting to decline.
Like I said, it's one of the reasons, not THE reason or even the biggest reason.
Personally, I"m OK with Quicken Spells in PF and 3.5 because you're getting a 1st level spell at 5th level and while low-level utility spells are nice, I personally don't think they're worth a 5th level spell slot. As for Summoning, I really hate the rapid-casting of those spells, which is supposed to be a big factor in their balance. Remove that and all of a sudden the board is flooded with tons of creatures, all getting their own attacks and what-not.
Regardless, I think we can agree that the full-action attack is more of a hindrance to melee-based characters than anyone else and they're more penalized because of it instead of allowing them their full attacks per round.
I honestly don't think I could play and enjoy Pathfinder WITHOUT the Path of War supplement. Sort of like how I really don't enjoy martials without the Tome of Battle of v3.5. It's really THAT good of a book!
personally I don't believe in 1-action alignment changes unless it's extreme or drastic. A lawful good Paladin who, for an unknown reason, decides that today is they day he randomly burns down an orphanage or slaughters everyone in his path gets the alignment-change. But 1 action of threatening people for their own good in an attempt to stop a bigger problem isn't worthy of an alignment change.
the feats in Ultimate Feats were pretty redundant with Feats later published in most of 3.5's splat books. Some were in the PHB, some in later version that were basically better (Arcane Strike in UF is dreadful compared to either Arcane Strike in the Complete Warrior AND Smiting Spell in PHB2, which resembles the feat in UF).
Basically there's a lot of crap in the book with just a few gems hidden here and there amongst the 250+ pages. The worse part is the reprinting of most, if not ALL, of the 3.0 feats from the PHB that were updated with 3.5 but not in this book (Spell Focus in UF is still +2 to DC instead of +1). So you can't even look at this book as a giant collection of up-to-date feats or a one-shop source of them.
I mean, if someone were to ask me about a feat in there or a couple I'd look them over and then cross-reference them with actual feats in 3.5 to see if there were any reprints/errata then either OK it or ban it.
As for allowing feats from 3.5 into Pathfinder, were I to DM pathfinder then I'd probably allow it. In fact I even encourage some cross-contamination between the two, especially with some of the later feats like the Reserve ones from Complete Mage and most of the Tome of Battle (Path of War is good too though).
Seventh Seal wrote:
True, it's more of a D&D thing than a specific system but highlighting different settings and places isn't a Pathfinder thing.
Grey Lensman wrote:
True, usually fun for a group who's never played the game but if I were to start a new adventure, I'd probably hope it starts at 3rd level and go from there. I really don't need a tutorial intro, which is what 1st and 2nd level 5e feels like.
Well that's the thing, is someone who's gone through basic training in the military considered 1st level? In d20 modern, apparently not. STARTING basic is practically 1st level and by the time you get out.....4th or 5th level? Maybe Strong Hero 1/ Fast Hero 3/ Soldier 1 if you're going for more of a Sniper guy and Strong Hero 2/ Tough Hero 2/ Solider 1 if you're going for more of a on the front lines + hacking away with your chain-sword sort of deal.
Not specifically Pathfinder but 3.5 there was Thaalud Stone Armor
Heavy armor; cost 2,800 gp; armor bonus +12; max Dex bonus +0; armor check penalty -8; arcane spell failure 40&; speed 30 ft./20 ft., 20 ft./15 ft.; weight 180 lbs. This was for medium sized creatures.
Description: stone plates held together by rivets and hinged joints.
3.5 but not Pathfinder things....
• Specific settings or jumping between settings. Jumping from Greyhawk to Faerûn to Dragonlance to Sigil/Planescape
• Tome of Battle...learn to love it
• allow/utilize lots of crafting items but make use you make them use the XP cost
• Power Attack is WAAAY better in 3.5, utilize it! As in give monsters/allow players Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush and Shock Trooper (complete warrior) and maybe Pounce to get a full-attack with full power attack AND not take any penalties to-hit.
• Divine Meta-magic (complete divine)!!! Probably the single-best feat for any cleric in 3.5, especially combined with Quicken Spell, Persistent Spell, and nightsticks (Libris Mortis).
• Got to have at least a few monsters with Grapple and watch as the players squirm under the terrible, convoluted grappling rules.
• Accept that Prestige Classes are often, but not always, more powerful and plain ol' better than base classes. Supplements really help in this regards, especially Complete Champion, Complete Mage, and a handful of other splats. Couple that come to mind: Planar Shepard (Eberron setting), Abjurant Champion (Complete Mage), Frenzied Berserker, and just look up Cheater Of Mystra.
• Theere's going to be less healing. Clerics don't have the easy ability to heal all their allies with Channeling that PF Clerics/Paladins do. Might want to make sure PCs know that and be sure to grab things wands of Cure Light Wounds or wand of lesser vigor.
• Oh, combat maneuver/tactical feats were pretty fun. Tripping was one of the biggest ways a Fighter could actually be good in 3.5. Not to mention allowed them to trip, attack, Attack of Opportunity to trip and attack, and things like Stand Still (you don't move anywhere!) and Knock Down (I'll do 10 damage, free trip, attack).
• Reserve Feats (complete Mage and Champion) were pretty cool, especially for vancian-style classes.
• ALL sorts of different kinds of Familiars AND the extreme penalty casters faced when their familiar dies.
That's all I can really think of at the present moment.
Well the first problem is attempting to use crappy d20 modern system. Plainly, it sucks. The "classes" are almost entirely useless and there's a reason why a lot of people simply just start with the Advanced Classes as base classes, like Soldier for instance. The premise was, if I remember correctly, to take an ordinary guy/gal from our modern world who most likely isn't trained in anything and then level them up to a point where they're now a Somebody. It's dumb but not entirely unlike 5e's "beginners" stage of 1st and 2nd level.
Want to be a Colonial space marine? Start at 5th level (I'd suggest Strong hero 2/ fast 1/ soldier X).
That's a good point too. One option is to just nix multiclassing altogether. There are, quite frankly, MORE than enough base classes to cover anything multiclassing would accomplish and also remove things like level-dipping. You'd have to rate PrCs based on a number of factors to figure out where they would progress though
Maybe Slow vs. Fast is too great a disparity. As for standard gold and gear, it would mess with the Wealth By Level but that's not exactly something everyone adheres to anyways. I mean, I only made some nods towards it when I DM 3.5/PF and I never really encountered problems with the early levels. Also, maybe gear and the like can be more geared towards the respectable characters?
But if the alternative is to mess with class features, I'm thinking the Fighter needs more ways to impose status effects. Some of the best wizard builds take creatures out of the fight or stop their actions, thus making them MUCH easier to handle than just churning through their Hit Points by attacking AC. A Fighter should be able to daze, stun, dazzle, nauseate, blind, etc. monsters with specific weapon attacks in addition to dealing damage.
We don't always see eye-to-eye but this was a VERY impressive list Aelryinth.
This one made me think, you could introduce Pathfinder's own slow/normal/fast XP progression based on classes. Full-Casters (wizards, summoners, clerics, druids, etc.) would progress Slowly, Half-Casters (Bards, Paladins, Rangers, Magus, etc.) would progress normally, and non-Casters (Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, and Rogues) would advance on the fast pace. This might level the playing field a bit. But it would wreak havoc on the CR system because it would be harder to judge how difficult an encounter would be if you had a Level 8 Fighter, Level 8 Rogue, level 5 Cleric and Wizard.
I dunno, thoughts?
Grey Lensman wrote:
It's true, and very unfortunate. The Fighter should have no less than 4 + Int. modifier skill points and at least two good saves. Further I'd say 3rd/3.5/PF haven't really been kind to any weapon-based class compared to spellcasters.
Having 1 attack would be bad, terribly so, for weapon-based users. I mean they're already significantly nerfed as it is in Pathfinder and this would pretty much bury them altogether. Honestly I think the entire premise that you subtract from the attack roll on your iterative attacks is a pretty terrible one. Getting multiple attacks should be a good class feature, not overly penalized for....I don't really know why? Hell I'd be willing to sacrifice an entire 4th iterative attack if I could keep the same bonus over the course of a 20 level progression. A warrior-type (full BAB) could get a second attack at 6th and a final attack at 12th and be done, all with a total BAB = to level.
Probably my favorite is the one I've been playing since we started Pathfinder with the v3.5 to PF conversion of Rise of the Rune Lords. At the time he was a Rogue 3/Swashbuckler 3/ Swordsage 4 but was re-made fully into Pathfinder with Rogue 6/Stalker 3/Shadow Dancer 1. Still adds Dex to damage via Path of War, has maneuvers and stances, can shadow-jump, and is a LOT of fun to play. Dealing 6 or 7d6 per attack (two-weapon fighting, of course) + Dex with two shortswords is a LOT of fun, especially if I can get 4 to 5 attacks per turn. Plus my DM has allowed 3.5 Skill Tricks, which getting me into position and deal SA a bit easier.
Hm, I never realized how terrible it was. So the feat is probably worth taking.
So, in other words: "Fighters can't have nice things."
All of this right here is great advice.
As for the other issues magic users, I sense that this was a result of a misunderstanding of the rules. Wizards, for instance, have a plethora of spells, but must carefully select them daily so that they can predict the challenges ahead. Sorcerers, by contrast, have a limited spell selection but can call on it all and with more slots (by way of spell points). Your friend MIGHT have done better to be an Arcane Trickster, a Ranger, or a Warlock, since their spell repertoire is more geared towards being subtle and clever (especially the Warlock) rather than to have an arsenal of spells. Really, a wizard is anything but subtle.
True, still I find that the Wizard isn't nearly as penalized as he was in 3e/PF when looking at the spell selection aspect. A 5e wizard still has a lot of versatility even with spells selection, allowing them to use spell slots to cast Prepped spells instead of having a very specific number of prepped spells to go by.
This is one of those things that's sort of been a "wishful thinking" on most players of both D&D and Magic: The Gathering. Though the problem usually entails attempting to emulate Mana and the different areas (swamps, mountains, islands, etc.) into the magic system of D&D and the two don't really mesh well in that regard.
But once you read some of the M:tG books it's really not that hard if you pretty much ignore the differences in magic systems. Most of the books don't really touch upon it, only in that the "casters" and characters of the books just feel and draw from their environments to cast their magic. If they're not close to their source, their magic is a bit more limited. Can this be used in a D&D/M:tG crossover? Sure. Does it have to be though? No, not really.
When Ravnica came out, I really wanted to use that as a D&D setting. The factions, the differences of races and their role in the society, and the possibilities were pretty awesome. I thought 4e's system lent it self to be better used with that setting as compared to 3.5 or Pathfinder. The 4e Power Sources, the plethora of classes and playable Races (Minotaurs, Shades / Shadar-Kai, Tree-like beings, and Vampires) are all integrated into the setting on some level. What I did was take each of the 10 guilds and split up the classes into those specific guilds along with a key-race that was emblematic of that guild. For example Minotuars are Red/White often enough with Ravnica, thus their race were of the Boros Guild. Vampires (the class) and Vyrloka (the race) were Black/Blue, making them apart of the Dimir Guild. Eladrin were Simic while Elves were Selesnya and so on.
It actually was a LOT of fun and I even used monsters and spells from M:tG as creatures, spells, and items in our 4e game. Good times!
From an ICD viewpoint it makes sense to optimize. This is because most characters understand the world they live in. A Fighter, for example, is going to attempt to be the best Fighter (s)he can because they know they're walking into situations where life and death literally can hang in the balance. So because combat is so perilous, preparing for it in the most optimized way possible gives someone a better chance of survival.
The problem is that after AD&D, the alignment restrictions don't justify their perceived power level. They're no longer "Fighter plus Extra". Fighters, especially in Pathfinder, have a TON more options that also make them powerful. Especially with the myriad of options in later supplements. It's not to say that the Paladin isn't powerful, it's to point out that so are other classes that DON'T have nearly the same level of forced role-play requirements.
Clerics, Druids, Wizarsds, Summoners (not the Unchained one), and a few others would largely disagree.
Powerful compared to whom? Cleric, Druids, and Wizards?
I think the biggest problem that crops up is that a player's expectation for what's evil and the DM's is sometimes very different, regardless of context and the character suffers a significant setback. Is killing a tyrant of a nobleman in his bed chamber murder if you have proof he's evil and actively causing harm? One DM might say no and the other yes. Can a Paladin torture a creature of the lower planes of hell to extract information so he can save hundreds or thousands? One DM might say yes because it's for a good cause AND because the creature is pure evil and the other DM might say No and recite old adage "road, hell, paved with good intentions" blah blah...
When I play paladins I usually defer to killing the evil subject on two merits:
1. Is it a humanoid creature? If yes, then chances are they can be redeemed or punished by some other means other than death. Subdual damage is the way to go here unless continued resistance, then kill it. Some creatures of this type are more difficult than others, like Ogres, Giants, and Trolls. These might get the sword because they're too dangerous to bring to captivity.
2. Is it a monster? Pretty much all Abberations, Chromatic Dragons, Evil Fey, evil Magical Beasts, Monstrous humanoids, Outsiders, Undead, and Vermin. If yes, smite it and hope it dies quickly.
IMPROVED TRIP (v3.5)
If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.
So using Full-Attack:
Trip (if successful) lands you a second attack with the same weapon as if you hadn't spent your turn tripping. If not successful you can continue with your off-hand attack.
On topic: I think the first 3 are easier to measure, especially Strength. Intelligence can also be measured in a number of ways. But Wisdom and Charisma are pretty damn hard. How does one really justify an 8 or an 18? I was one of 4 co-captains on my football team but that doesn't mean I'm super Charismatic. The "popular" kids in any given social environment don't all have 18's, comeliness aside. And shy or quiet doesn't necessarily mean their Cha is low. It's one of those stats that really didn't make much sense overall IMO.