Reasonable 3.5 classes?


Homebrew and House Rules


I've been wondering if anybody has found a reasonable list of classes that can "work" pathfinder, without being too unreasonable.

There are certain prestige classes that arent too problematic:

Knight Phantom (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20050706a&page=4); vitually identical to an eldritch knight, it's a fair exchange for the usual EK powers.

However, having never played 3.5, I'm really not familiar with them. I'm looking for regular & prestige classes, mainly to give more options to martials. Any knowledge to share?


Highly recommend the Tome of Battle classes.


First of all, you must remember that 3.5 classes are less loaded with abilities than Pathfinder ones and non-caster classes are in general tend to be weaker, which means that porting them to Pathfinder might require adding abilities or improving existing abilities to keep them competitive with PF classes.

Another thing to remember is that Pathfinder ties BAB and HD (with deliberate exception of dragons, barbarians and dragon disciple), and have a minimum HD of d6.

Prestige classes are more complicated as they often contain much more abilities than 3.5 base classes.


Drejk wrote:

First of all, you must remember that 3.5 classes are less loaded with abilities than Pathfinder ones and non-caster classes are in general tend to be weaker, which means that porting them to Pathfinder might require adding abilities or improving existing abilities to keep them competitive with PF classes.

Another thing to remember is that Pathfinder ties BAB and HD (with deliberate exception of dragons, barbarians and dragon disciple), and have a minimum HD of d6.

Prestige classes are more complicated as they often contain much more abilities than 3.5 base classes.

So would those prestige classes actually "work" in pathfinder? That's what I'm wondering. I mean, a fighter gets so friggen little witht he value of feats.

@Zhaine: If you could recommend a few (specific) classes, and why you think they work, I'd be interested in knowing. I dont have access to any old D&D books (just wikis), so just a book is rather inconveninent


They're the Crusader, the Swordsage, and the Warblade.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I played a Factotum in a Pathfinder game with the only change in the conversion being to make the dodge bonus apply vs. everyone. It worked out pretty well.


If I recall correctly, Tome of Battle is being redone by Dreamscarred Press, the same guys that did psionics.


The 3.5 Beguiler is almost Pathfinder ready in term of balance, only need some of the class customization tools that are allowed to other full-casters.


Odraude wrote:
If I recall correctly, Tome of Battle is being redone by Dreamscarred Press, the same guys that did psionics.

It's being redone poorly by Paizo, last I heard, including crappy daily resources and alignment mechanics ... so, they redid it by siphoning out the awesome and replacing it with unadulterated suck.


Zhayne wrote:
Odraude wrote:
If I recall correctly, Tome of Battle is being redone by Dreamscarred Press, the same guys that did psionics.
It's being redone poorly by Paizo, last I heard, including crappy daily resources and alignment mechanics ... so, they redid it by siphoning out the awesome and replacing it with unadulterated suck.

Uh, Paizo has nothing to do with the Path of War book coming out. What are you talking about?


Odraude wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Odraude wrote:
If I recall correctly, Tome of Battle is being redone by Dreamscarred Press, the same guys that did psionics.
It's being redone poorly by Paizo, last I heard, including crappy daily resources and alignment mechanics ... so, they redid it by siphoning out the awesome and replacing it with unadulterated suck.
Uh, Paizo has nothing to do with the Path of War book coming out. What are you talking about?

Apparently, my information about its source was incorrect. I'm surprised Dreamscarred would F it up like that, I suppose, after their wonderful update to psionics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only 3E classes not already in PF that would be overpowered in PF are Archivist and Artificer - just as they're OP in 3E.

There are plenty that would suck royally in PF, though. To expand on what Drejk said, not only are many of the noncaster splat classes severely lacking in a 3E game as it is and would likewise suffer in a PF game...the big problem for noncasters of all stripes in PF is that often what cripples them is not the words within the class description, but the general combat/skill/etc... rules of PF as a whole.

Think how the maneuver feats got split up and bonuses halved and now need BAB +6. Think of the horrific nerfs to tumbling. Think of how "class skill" means almost nothing now. Think of how grapple went from "replaces individual attacks/AoOs and can't autofail" to "standard action, can auto-fail, and have to give up full attack to maintain (which can also auto-fail)". Think of how splash weapons are no longer considered "weapons" (such as with Quickdraw). Think of how you can no longer sneak attack with those splash weapons. Nor can Blinking grant you ranged sneak attack. Think of how PF decided Imp. Natural Attack doesn't appl to unarmed strike anymore. Just seriously...the entire rules chassis. This is why "take some stuff from 3E and port it to PF!" never works that well.

The rot in PF isn't in the modular pieces like classes (generally speaking...they did a pretty good hit job on the Monk and Rogue both IN-class *and* outside the classes)...it's the underlying rules themselves. It's much more effective to take classes you like in PF and port them to 3E, and causes far less problems.
If you try to take a perfectly fine 3E non-caster like the Swordsage into PF, you often will have problems. In the SS's case, he's a squishy "melee specialist" who relies upon skirmishing with single strikes to survive and contribute in combat. Works in 3E. In PF, the tumble nerf means that style of play is impossible/suicidal. The Scout, another 3E splat class widely praised as being decent, is annihilated by this even WORSE.


Zhayne wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Odraude wrote:
If I recall correctly, Tome of Battle is being redone by Dreamscarred Press, the same guys that did psionics.
It's being redone poorly by Paizo, last I heard, including crappy daily resources and alignment mechanics ... so, they redid it by siphoning out the awesome and replacing it with unadulterated suck.
Uh, Paizo has nothing to do with the Path of War book coming out. What are you talking about?
Apparently, my information about its source was incorrect. I'm surprised Dreamscarred would F it up like that, I suppose, after their wonderful update to psionics.

Well, if you're going to insult and belittle a company, it's a good idea to make sure your sources are correct. Lest you look the fool.


Thanks for your candidness Stream Of Sky, what you mentionned was exactly what I was afraid of. I guess I'll hold off for the moment.


Zhayne wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Odraude wrote:
If I recall correctly, Tome of Battle is being redone by Dreamscarred Press, the same guys that did psionics.
It's being redone poorly by Paizo, last I heard, including crappy daily resources and alignment mechanics ... so, they redid it by siphoning out the awesome and replacing it with unadulterated suck.
Uh, Paizo has nothing to do with the Path of War book coming out. What are you talking about?
Apparently, my information about its source was incorrect. I'm surprised Dreamscarred would F it up like that, I suppose, after their wonderful update to psionics.

Hi!

For natural reasons, I'm interested in hearing what you felt was "unadultered suck" and what the "awesome" was that we siphoned out of it?

The playtest is still underway and it is by no means over, so we are always looking to improve.

Looking forward to your answer! :)

Andreas Rönnqvist
Dreamscarred Press


Andreas Rönnqvist wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Odraude wrote:
If I recall correctly, Tome of Battle is being redone by Dreamscarred Press, the same guys that did psionics.
It's being redone poorly by Paizo, last I heard, including crappy daily resources and alignment mechanics ... so, they redid it by siphoning out the awesome and replacing it with unadulterated suck.
Uh, Paizo has nothing to do with the Path of War book coming out. What are you talking about?
Apparently, my information about its source was incorrect. I'm surprised Dreamscarred would F it up like that, I suppose, after their wonderful update to psionics.

Hi!

For natural reasons, I'm interested in hearing what you felt was "unadultered suck" and what the "awesome" was that we siphoned out of it?

The playtest is still underway and it is by no means over, so we are always looking to improve.

Looking forward to your answer! :)

Andreas Rönnqvist
Dreamscarred Press

Last I heard, you added alignment mechanics and restrictions and daily resources, which is what I consider 'the suck'. The encounter-based/recharge stuff, and no alignment issues, was 'the awesome'. IMFAO, of course.

This may have changed since I was last informed, as I've not kept up since I heard that. 'Alignment mechanics? I'm out.'


I haven't looked at the docs much lately, due to being busy with other things, but as far as I remember all the alignment-based things were secondary expansions, things like prestige classes, extra disciplines beyond POW's core, and optional setting additions like organizations, order memberships, and individual units. I don't remember any alignment-based rules to the cores of the three POW classes or the basic maneuver disciplines.

If that's your complaint, you're basically griping about an optional expansion that you could easily ignore. (Or just use while ignoring the alignment prereqs. I personally like alignment so it's nice to have there, but it's easy just to cross out that particular line or two and forget it's there.)

I don't recall 100% about the daily resources thing admittedly, and I'm AFB at the moment so I can't doublecheck.


Zhayne wrote:
'Alignment mechanics? I'm out.'

The crusader already had alignment mechanics. There's an entire alignment-themed martial school.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Reasonable 3.5 classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules