baduin's page

I think the relatively simple melee classes are a good point to discuss the basic problems of compatibility and balance.

The Pathfinder RPG is to be compatible with D&D 3.5 edition. In what aspects it can, and in what it cannot be compatible?

First, we take as granted that the Pathinder won't do "4th edition". The "imagined world" of the game will remain the same. All spells, magic items and monsters will remain, even if their rules change. With that assumption, what parts of D&D 3.5 will remain compatible with Pathfinder RPG - if it is properly balanced?

The answer is:
1) Settings
2) Adventures - without any conversion to Pathfinder.
3) Monsters
4) Properly designed basic non-core classes and the prestige classes designed for them - the prestige classes only if they are taken mostly as intended, that is to the end of class. Here I think of such classes as beguiler, binder, factotum, warblade, crusader, swordsage, dread necromancer, warlock etc.

What parts of D&D 3.5 will be incompatible or will require DM to check and approve them?

1) Prestige classes, especially for core classes
2) Feats.

What is the reason for this? Properly created Pathfinder rules will retain the same power lever. If the adventure is properly balanced for a D&D party of 10 level, it should be properly balanced for the Pathinder party of 10 level. Moreover, it should be balanced as is, without any conversion. There should be no need to replace the D&D fighter with Pathfinder fighter in the published adventures. Yes, D&D fighter was weak and Pathfinder fighter will be perhaps stronger. But the designer of the adventure in question, if he was any good, put there the weak fighter consciously.

As long as the Pathfinder party is balanced for the enemies of the same Challenge Rating and Encounter Level as the D&D party of the same level, the change in the character creation rules don't matter at all. In D&D you could (at least in theory) replace the party of Rogue, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard with a party of Beguiler, Factotum, Warblade and Favored Soul and play the same adventure. Similarly you could use the party of Pathfinder Rogue, Pathfinder Fighter, Pathfinder Wizard and Pathfinder Cleric to play the same adventure.

Similarly, the change in rules, mostly Combat Maneuver Bonus, shouldn't change things too much. CMB (if properly balanced) can make some enemies weaker, some a bit stronger, but the medium point should remain the same. The changes in the spells should be similar. Only most powerful spells should be weakened in a decisive way, and those were exactly the spells which were not often used by typical NPC wizards.

This ground rule is easiest to see with melee classes. The melee class, independently from its internal construction, has only some characteristics which interact with the opponent: movement, Attack Bonus, average damage per turn, Armor Class, hitpoints and saves. From time to time also grapple, now replaced with Combat Maneuver Bonus. Some very specialised rules could have also some tricks (eg tripping), but that doesn't change much - provided that they are balanced against the typical melee. As long as those number remain in the proper brackets. It doesn't matter whether the given character or monster deals a lot of damage because of sneak attack or because of massive strength and size. Similarly unimportant are the sources of hitpoints, AC, or attack bonus.

It can be seen that here I speak only about the most basic part of balance - the numerical characteristics. The second, much more difficult and important part, consists of special abilities (a pair of spells-Fly and Protection from Missiles are enough to defeat a strongest melee combatant). That part will be evident when balancing the wizard. But before we can consider the fancy radars and stealth abilities, we must have a solid chassis to put them on.

How to determine the required AC, Attack bonus etc? The best way is by considering the possible opponents. Not all opponents can be used as yardsticks. There are some enemies who have enormous numerical abilities, but can be easily defeated when using basic tactics available at their level. The tarrasque is the best example of that kind of enemy. But there are opponents that a fighter is expected to fight mano-a-mano with at least equal chance of victory.

Starting with them, it should be easy to create a table which would show the proper AC, Attack Bonus, Hitpoints and average damage per level. Such a table is a basic element without which any attempts to create a balanced figher, paladin or whatever are hopeless. Starting with such a table, we can consider eg the rules for stacking modifiers, the iterative attacks, whether to give characters some kind of basic defense bonus which grows with level etc. Without such a table, any attempt to balance the game is only a shot in the dark.

And as I have shown, without the proper balance it is meaningless to talk about compability.

So, I think it would be helpful if somebody would suggest what enemies the fighter/barbarian/paladin is expected to fight hand-to-hand at each level with an equal chance of succes. According to CR rules at pg 291 Pathfinder, it seems that an enemy which have an equal chance to defeat a fighter of level X, will be an average encounter for a fighter of level X+4.

Recently, there has been evident a certain controversy regarding the Fighter class. Some of the participants demanded far-reaching changes to the class, and the opposite side thought the class should remain as-is. There is no need to discuss the arguments of both sides, since they have been extensively, ably and repeatedly presented both at this board, on the old Character Optimization board on Wizards site, and elsewhere.

In order to justify my proposed compromise solution of that controversy, it will be however useful to summarize the most important points of both sides:

The defenders of the Fighter class defended usually one of the following, positions. It is important to note that those propositions differ widely as to the facts, but agree as to the proposed course of action - ie changing nothing.

1) The Fighter class is perfectly balanced as is. Some thought that it is equally or more powerful than wizard. Ohers agreed that the wizards might be a bit stronger, but thought this a reason to weaken the wizards, not to change the fighers.
2) The Fighter class is weaker than wizards - and there is nothing wrong with that. According to that opinion, there is no reason why different classes should be equally powerful. Some people are stronger, some weaker. In a high-magic setting powerful magicians should be powerful, and that is nothing wrong with that. Players who play fighters are competitive at lower levels. At higher levels they can roleplay weaker characters - this is equally interesting. Anyway, the Fighter has important roleplaying benefits which wizards don't get - they can be kings, they can mobilize armies, etc.
3) The Fighter is equally powerful to the Wizard if the Wizard and Cleric play fair and use their spells to help the Fighter.

The opposite side is, to be honest, not so creative and is reduced to repeating over and over that they would like to play a fighter which can contribute to the fight at high levels by himself. They also spitefully claim that wizards and clerics can buff as well eg druid's animal companion or an animated undead.

There is however one argument that the proponents of changes in the Fighter class cannot refute:

1) The Fighter represents a medieval knight, of course grown to legendary proportions, but ultimately unmagical and more or less realistic. The wizards and clerics can do the impossible, because they use magic which allows them to do so. The Fighter is an non-magical class, and it can do what can be imagined a super-strong super-skilled medieval knight could do. Even if the Fighter can do more, he can do more of the same kind of things.
On the other hand, proposed changes generally give fighters abilities which seem somewhat supernatural.

There is also a second even simpler irrefutable argument:

2) Any changes in the Fighter class would make Pathfinder incompatible with D&D 3.5 ed.

Paizo, confronted with this thankless task of squaring a circle, proposed giving the fighter some numerical bonuses to abilities. This was welcomed by some and protested by others. It didn't end the discussion, and as a disadvantage, it was not fully compatible with D&D 3.5 ed.

My aim is to satisfy all the sides.

1) First of all, the traditionals who are satisfied with D&D 3.5 fighters, either in itself, or for purposes of compatibility:

When looking at the NPC classes in Pathfinder rulebook, we see one class which is nearly never used: I mean, of course, the Warrior. My proposal is simple: to replace the Warrior with the Fighter, exactly as described in SRD. This is no loss: even if in some adventure there is a statblock of a Warrior, it can be used as is, since it has no special abilities. If an adventure suggest using a Warrior of eg 2 level, a fighter can be used instead - he certainly won't prove too dangerous!

2) For those who like the Pathfinder Fighter, the solution is equally simple. It can be seen that the fighter class features are roughly equivalent to feats. It would be therefore easy to change Bravery, Armor Training, Weapon Training etc into feat trees, and add the following note to the Fighter NPC class:

"The Fighter class can be used also for player characters. In that case, the Fighter receives a bonus feat each level, instead of each even level. Before a player takes the fighter class, he or she should consider the fact that according to some opinions the Fighter is weaker than other classes at high levels."

3) For those who want a fighter-like class with class features comparable to the classes commonly considered powerful: a wizard, cleric or druid, I suggest creating a new class. Such a class should from the beginning include the reason why it can compete with obviously magical classes in special powers - something which can be hardly expected from a medieval warrior. (As an aside, when abstracting from the concrete rules and considering the world which those rules purport to describe, it can be easily seen that a 20 level wizard could take over any modern state in a day, and a fighter - he could fight, I suppose).

There are two obvious sources of power which could be used by such a warrior:
a) He could be magical by himself - an einherjar from Valhalla, a demigod or a legendary hero with supernatural powers.
b) He could be exceptionally proficient in using the magical items and technology produced by wizards. The wizards can cast spells, but such a character is much better in using magical items than the wizards themselves. Similarly, modern pilots or soldiers are much better at flying or fighting than the engineers who create their planes or guns.

The first possibility seems better fitted to a barbarian, so I would propose that we develop the second.

Since the names of the basic classes are generally single words, I would call such a class eg. Warmaster. The particular features of such a class would need to be developed and playtested, of course. Below I want to suggest not so much concrete features, but ideas which would justify giving to a fighter-like character some basic magic-like powers.

The Warmaster would be a master of all weapons and tools of war, no matter whether they are swords, bows, exotic weapons or magical tools such as wands, scrolls or staves. He would be proficient with all weapons and armor. At lower levels he would gain class features which would allow him to fight proficiently both with close combat and ranged weapons (which would be equivalents of the relevant feats such as Combat Expertise, Power Attack, Precise Shot etc.)

At higher levels he would gain class features which would allow him to use scrolls etc, even if in full armor, to recharge wands, staves and scrolls at lower price, to create magical items etc. Finally, he would learn how to build some basic utility magical spells (Dimension Door, Plane Shift, Restoration, True Sight etc) into his gear, so that he would be able to use them eg once per day.

The basic features of the class could be:
Warmaster
Alignment: Any.
Hit Die: d10.
Class Skills
The warmaster’s class skills are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Diplomacy(Cha), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Heal (Wis), Knowledge (all) (Int), Perception (Wis), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), Swim (Str), Sense Motive (Wis), Spellcraft (Int) and Use Magic Device (Cha).
Skill Ranks Per Level: 6 + Int modifier.

BaB: Good (1/1)
Saves: Fort: Good, Reflex: Poor, Will: Good.

Class Features:
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Proficient with all simple, martial and exotic weapons, and with all armor (heavy, medium, and light) and shields (including tower shields).

It seems that many of the posters are so accustomed to looking at things from the point of view of DM that they are unable to change their perspective to that of a game designer.

A DM when confronted with a player who tries something which is certainly "broken", unfair, unrealistic etc either uses "Rule 0" and forbids it outright, creates a homerule forbidding it, or invents or deduces some balancing factor. Eg when the player abuses planar binding, DM can either forbid it or allow eg a friend or a master of the bound creature to attack player, or some other tactic. Similarly, when the player tries to "rule-lawyer" an imprecisely worded rule to his benefit, DM interprets in the balanced fashion, not troubling too much about the exact wording.

Unfortunately, when the same problems are mentioned here on the forum, most of the answers are EXACTLY THE SAME as if they were answers of a DM to the player in the game. Unfortunately, this is a completely wrong attitude. Since the aim of Pathfinder is to create better, new rules, the posters should look at the rules from the point of view of game designers, not of DMs.

Accordingly, when we see some rule that can be expoited, the answer "DM can rule in such a way as to neutralize the exploit" is all right were DMing or advicing the DM, but not when designing and playtesting the rules. In fact, such an attitude makes the playtest useless, since it does not report the potential problems, which have been avoided thanks to DM. The better reaction would be:

1) Note the problematic rule, the problem posed by it, and the solution used by DM.
2) propose either change in the rule, to make the DM intervention unnecessary, or
3) if in some case such a change would be either impossible or too casuistic, propose some advice for DMs how to solve the problems posed by the rule (Such advice to be part of the rulebook).

The rulebook should be enough to DM, without the necessity of searching for obscure posts on Internet or creating rules on the spot. Additionately, when something is clearly mentioned in the rulebook, it serves to avoid the potential conflict between DM and players, since the problem has been solved by an independed authority.