I'm not convinced its going to be that much better than 3.5. I like 3.5 and heavily houseruled it but I think I'm going to go with a hybrid Pathfinder/3.5 system with elements fomr 4th ed and 2nd ed. I liked alot of 4th ed but fee l they went a bit to far with skill consolidation and remvig non combat spells and I'nm not a huge fan of the powers either but theres alot of good stuff in there. I showed Pathfinder to one of my playes and his comment was "Its 3.5 but they've powered everything up including the casters. Heres some tweaks I'm going to make to 3.5./Pathfinder.
1. Unified saves. At level 1 you get you +2/+0/+0 or whateve but after that its gonna be +1/+1/+1 at level 2,4,6 etc. In 2nd ed save or dies sucked due to the way saves worked. Save or dies aren't really the problem but saves are to swingy.
2. Limit wildshaping to basic animals only. No dire animals or dire bears.
3. Ban dumb overpowered feats. natural Spell, and Divine Metamagic come to mind.
4. Ban broken spells (shapechange/polymorph, timestop etc) and some of the overpowered ones (Divine Power, Greater Invisabilty, Black Tentacles etc)
5. Use 3.5 skill ranks with Pathfinders skill list.
6. make a Pathfinder Template for monsters. +2 con, +2 to one ability score, CR adjustment +0 to reflect powered up Pathfinder PCs. Our Pathfinder lvl 7 Dwarven Fighter has a AC of 28.
7. Use 3.0 Power Attack or maybe 4th ed. Don't really like Pathfinder one.
8. Change some spells back to 2nd ed equivilents (Timestop), errata or rewrite some of the other ones (Evards Black Tentacles, Divine Power, Improved Invisability.)
Allow me to comment on your points.
1. Not much of a fan of this one. It basically gets rid of different saves as there are only small differences between the different saves for different classes.
3e/Pathfinder has differences between saves, so you have real strengths and weaknesses. I like that.
2. Why? Dire animals are natural creatures, too. Plus, they even get elementals, so dire animals aren't that out there.
Plus, with the new way wildshape works, it's a great lot harder to exploit monster stats. Why ban dire bears over other large bears if both just give you +4 Str, -2 Dex, and +4 natural armour?
3. Natural spell isn't that overpowered I'd say.
Divine metamagic cannot be banned by Pathfinder, because it's not open content, and they cannot even mention it, not anymore than they could ban the use of Vampire: The Masquerade Flavour Text.
4. Banning is bad. Making better is good.
Shapechange/polymorph has already been altered and should cause a lot less problems.
Timestop isn't that bad I think.
Divine Power has been changed as well, for the better I think (for one thing, it doesn't stack with haste or divine favour any more)
Greater Invisibility is okay as it is if you ask me. Invisibility isn't impossible to counter.
Black Tentacles I cannot say
5. No. The Pathfinder ranks system is so much better than 3.5, not to mention easier.
6. I have used alpha rules for some time and found that monsters played right still can trouble players.
As for high numbers: Powergaming will be powergaming. Dwarven fighters will be dwarven fighters. Can't really blame the game if someone gets a dex 12 fighter with full plate and large shield, some magic items and a new class ability.
7. On that one we kinda agree. I don't care for PF power attack.
Does 4e even have power attack? I thought they exiled it because it made people who can't do simple math sad, and apparently, they think all their fans are like that.
8. Kinda covered above
|
7. On that one we kinda agree. I don't care for PF power attack.
Does 4e even have power attack? I thought they exiled it because it made people who can't do simple math sad, and apparently, they think all their fans are like that.
Yup, 4e version lets you take a -2 attack for a +2 to damage. It advances every ten levels after 1st.
I'm not convinced its going to be that much better than 3.5. I like 3.5 and heavily houseruled it but I think I'm going to go with a hybrid Pathfinder/3.5 system with elements fomr 4th ed and 2nd ed. I liked alot of 4th ed but fee l they went a bit to far with skill consolidation and remvig non combat spells and I'nm not a huge fan of the powers either but theres alot of good stuff in there. I showed Pathfinder to one of my playes and his comment was "Its 3.5 but they've powered everything up including the casters. Heres some tweaks I'm going to make to 3.5./Pathfinder.
I'm also likely to mix and match Pathfinder with 3.5 (I don't think the skill system is really an improvement; same with Power Attack). But I would make sure to carefully read through the rules before making specific criticisms. For instance, quite a few spells have been changed (i.e., nerfed), including several that you have named (Evard's Black Tentacles, Shapechange, Polymorph, Divine Power); it's not clear whether you're referring to the 3.5 version or the Pathfinder version when you say they're overpowered.
Yup, 4e version lets you take a -2 attack for a +2 to damage. It advances every ten levels after 1st.
Waste of feat.
Power Attack is ok in 4th ed and its one of th few ways to deal extra damage with a feat.
I was refering to the 3.5 brokenness of some spells when mentioned Divine Power etc.
That's the best option in general. Join the Pathfinder game and use the rules that best suits you! Kuddos for that!
I was refering to the 3.5 brokenness of some spells when mentioned Divine Power etc.
So are you planning on banning Polymorph, or using the Pathfinder version? Just curious. The Pathfinder version has one or two faults (I don't think that Beast Shape IV should allow you to use an androsphinx's roar or a gorgon's breath weapon), but otherwise it looks alright to me.
I'm also likely to mix and match Pathfinder with 3.5 (I don't think the skill system is really an improvement; same with Power Attack). But I would make sure to carefully read through the rules before making specific criticisms. For instance, quite a few spells have been changed (i.e., nerfed), including several that you have named (Evard's Black Tentacles, Shapechange, Polymorph, Divine Power); it's not clear whether you're referring to the 3.5 version or the Pathfinder version when you say they're overpowered.
The skills system is set up so you can more or less take it or leave it. Keep the classic system, or even give your players the option. I do think the consolidation is a good idea though and will definitely stick with the consolidated skillset.
The skills system is set up so you can more or less take it or leave it. Keep the classic system, or even give your players the option. I do think the consolidation is a good idea though and will definitely stick with the consolidated skillset.
I think a couple of the consolidations are pretty good (Disable Device + Open Lock, Hide + Move Silently) and most are dumb (Listen + Search, Tumble + Jump, Forgery + Speak Language, Concentration + Spellcraft).
The skills system is set up so you can more or less take it or leave it. Keep the classic system, or even give your players the option. I do think the consolidation is a good idea though and will definitely stick with the consolidated skillset.I think a couple of the consolidations are pretty good (Disable Device + Open Lock, Hide + Move Silently) and most are dumb (Listen + Search, Tumble + Jump, Forgery + Speak Language, Concentration + Spellcraft).
I tend to agree with you on Search but the whole Listen/ Spot and Hide/ Move Silent thing was a bit irritating. "I want to sneak up on them" should be something easily resolved with one opposed roll.
Forgery and Speak Language don't make much sense but Forgery is so situational that no one would take it by itself. Tumble+Jump... I'm on the fence on and can see it either way.
Concentration... well that all depends on your group. Mine never used it for anything other than interrupting spells so it won't be missed much. I know many groups used it for more than that and I'm pretty ambivalent about whether it stays or goes. If it sticks around I do think clerics and sorcerers should get an additional skill point though.
Forgery and Speak Language don't make much sense but Forgery is so situational that no one would take it by itself.
So make it Craft (forgery) instead; there are tons of Craft skills that nobody takes, one more can't hurt.
Concentration... well that all depends on your group. Mine never used it for anything other than interrupting spells so it won't be missed much. I know many groups used it for more than that and I'm pretty ambivalent about whether it stays or goes.
Removing Concentration completely would be a better option than adding its functions to the Spellcraft skill.
(I'll stop threadjacking now. :-)
I will probably ban the polymorph range and replace them with the various polymorph type spells in the Spell Compendium that turn you into specific creatures.
|
Waste of feat.Yup, 4e version lets you take a -2 attack for a +2 to damage. It advances every ten levels after 1st.
Not quite. It's quite a good feat for two-handed weapon users (since the bonus increases to +3 when used with a two-handed weapon) and it works wonders for Fighters using reaping strike (which deals damage even on a miss) and reliable powers (which aren't expended on a miss).
Besides, feats in general have been toned down in 4e and they are more plentiful in general, so very few feats are actually just wastes of space.