Switching to PF


General Discussion (Prerelease)


Hi

I am only new to the Board and PF in general. I actually discovered this while searching for secondhand 3.5 stuff and watching reviews on 4E (I bought the books and HATE the system) any posters of the wizards boards will know me as Katash.

I guess I'm posting to ask about PF in what it offers a 3.5 player/GM.
I have done some reading reguarding backwards compatability and am wondering if this is a system which is going to really take the reins where 3.5 left off.

My main points are- with the new core redo's and feats for PF do they mesh well with the 3.5 splat books eg
I run a Charger type warblade with Grtswrd and ferocious charge (FRCS), run, fleet of foot, power attack, leap attack. Does the new power attack still work with this kind of feat chain?

Do Tome of Battle Chars work with this system? I believe WOTC finally got martial classes right with this book, particularly the Warblade is what the fighter should have been and the Crusader is what the paladin should have been. So is there a place for both the PF Fighter and the Warblade. Is a PF Fighter20 as good or balanced vs a Warblade20?

Also I am a Big Psi fan- does this work in PF, mostly from a balance point?

A big mistake WOTC made with 4E is that EVERY class feels the same and has the same power mechanic. This completely destroyed the unique (re:special) feel that 3.5 classes had. A wizard should not play the same or have the same ability mechanic as a fighter.

I am hoping PF is a viable direction for me (and my group) to take ourselves in. I'll be ordering the books to day.

Also is it compatable with 3.5 FR?

what books do I need besides
PF Handbook
PF Bestiary
PF Chronicles

Cheers.


Welcome, Ardenup. Have you downloaded the Beta (and related downloads) and taken a look at it? I think it's safe to say that the general consensus here is that Paizo is succeeding in its goal of backwards compatibility. I won't tackle you're questions, as all my play-testing has stuck with the core materials, but I imagine others will be along shortly.


It's compatable enough with 3.5. It's a lot like the change from 3.0 to 3.5. They rebalance some of the overly powerful spells and hopefully will improve the ones that were fairly worthless.

All of the Tome of Battle classes will work just fine and since those ones were pretty powerful compared to most, they shouldn't even need any extra help. Most things from 3.x should work but some classes will be terribly weak now.

* PF Handbook - Yes
* PF Bestiary - No but you'll probably want it for simplicity sake (when it comes out)
* PF Chronicles - No but I've heard it's an excellent campaign setting. I'll find out soon enough.


I recently asked a very similar question in this thread and didn't really come away with warm fuzzy answers.

The impression I got from the paizo folks was it shouldn't be too hard to do the conversions and that you can just use the rules you have been using and play through a PF adventure path just fine with no (or little) changes. However, I couldn't really get a grip on what "little" changes really means.

A simple of example of change that I think will make a big difference is that you get a feat every other level now rather than every third level. This means that as the game progresses into higher levels that the power curve would be significantly against the 3.5 character in a PF world... if they are using their feats well, at least. It also means that I would need to go and remove a bunch of feats from every adventure and adjust stat blocks to make up for it... seems like more than a little work to me... but I haven't seen it yet.

The impression I got from the fans who responded though was that all of the splat books where what was wrong with 3.5 and what they meant by backwards compatable is that previous adventures would run just fine, not crunch... but those weren't official answers.

Anyway... read the thread yourself.

As for me, I will buy the core books when they come out and take a look. Additionally I will continue subscribing to Pathfinder for the APs for at least through the Council of Thieves AP which is being written using the PFRPG rules, so hopefully that will give me an idea too.

However, if I have to either teach my players significant rules changes, do a lot of conversion work to change over what we use or do a lot of work reworking adventures, I will probably cancel my subscription and just run what I have then switch to playing other games or running older dungeon stuff I never got the chance to run... that will suck though because the stories that Paizo puts out are the best in the industry.

Sean Mahoney

The Exchange

Welcome to the boards!

I assume Lillith will be here sometime soon with cookies...

My answer for compatibility is that it is generally compatible. Throwing a number out in the air I'd say a good 70-80% of old material is instantly available without conversion (Other than a simple conversion of Spot = perception). The other 15-20 percent will need minor to moderate conversion. There really isn't much that needs large conversion. And yes I have used the Crusader as well as Warblade in PFRPG beside a fighter and they both have their merits.

What it comes down to is if you wanted to plop down as a DM with an old 3.0 or 3.5 module, you could run it just as easily as something made specifically for PFRPG. You might need to make some minor tweaks, like adding one more baddie or increasing their hp a tad, but the rules are essentially the same.

Anyways, my suggestion would be to go download the Beta PDF (it's free on this website, and you've already registered so you have most of the work already done). if you love it, buy the book on the 13th. If you have doubts, buy the PDF for $9.99. If you still don't like it... buy the APs and convert to 3.5 because they're just that good.

As for rulebooks you need, he PFRPG core book and bestiary are all you need. The Chronicles are for the Pathfinder world (Golarion). They are 99% fluff, 1% crunch and can be used for any rulesystem essentially. Seems like alot of people get confused by the Pathfinder world (Golarion) and Pathfinder RPG rules... maybe they should've named the rules something else?

Hope this helps.

Contributor

I've been running a Pathfinder game since last year using the beta as well as the Rise of the Runelords adventure path. Here are my findings:

1. Psionics from the Expanded Psionics Handbook fits perfectly. The core classes from the PFRPG have been scaled up in power so that they match much of what was found in the splats and we had absolutely ZERO problems working in a psionic character.

2. There are very few things that you will need to convert, and those can be done on the fly. CMB (Combat Maneuver Bonus) is very easy to calculate and is what's used when you want your character to grapple, do a bull rush, etc. Yes, you will need to know what it is for NPCs when your characters decide to use these maneuvers, but no, it isn't hard to figure it out on the fly. Second, there are a few spells that changed name and/or function. It wouldn't hurt to keep a list of them handy so you know what to look up, regardless of which way you're converting.

3. I allowed my PCs to take the most powerful player character generation options (ie. best rolling option, having max HP + Con bonus for HP at 1st level) and I felt like it gave them a bit of an advantage at early levels, which it's supposed to, but gave them almost no tangible benefit over NPCs at a later level. Likewise, I didn't notice that my NPCs had a couple less feats than like-characters under the PFRPG would when playing them against characters. On this point, add a feat or two if you really feel like they need it, otherwise, just play them as printed and it will probably be fine.

4. I can't speak too much about Tome of Battle since I don't actually own that one, but the one thing I can say is that the Pathfinder RPG is just as open to having new rules systems dropped into it from other sources as 3.5 was. In other words, I can think of no reason why you couldn't use it.

5. If you look at the previews they've posted, they've made stat blocks more useful by dropping a bit of irrelevant stuff and organizing the information better. Likewise, the changes to monsters appear to be well conceived and just as easy to use as 3.5, if not more so.

I personally consider the Pathfinder RPG to be an alternate new edition of D&D and my experience with the beta has been overwhelmingly positive. I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on the final book and putting it to use.


I have been running a campaign with the Beta and, unless the Final changes something drastically, I don't thing that one needs to increase the power of an 3.5 adventures in PFRPG more than you would normally have to adjust for different parties. I believe that you already should adjust the power of the adventure to match the strength of the party (whether it be from their low or high numbers or a group of optimized characters) than you will have to based on just the difference in edition.


First off Welcome,

To your concerns, like others I'd put Beta at 70 to 80% compatable. Using 3.5 classes in Pathfinder is dependent on one or two things.

Wizards classes did have powercreep, while playing Beta they work fine.
The exception, for me came with OA classes, but thats mainly due to my liking Rokugon versions which were made using 3.0 thinking.

3PP classes is a bit harder. They need a boost, and I've been playing around doing such with the classes I like.

Using older stuff in general is really easy as you'll know right away what you want and what you don't. If your using Pathfinder skills, and you have a book that has equipment that gives a +2 on use rope, well you'll either a. change that or b. drop that pice of equipment.

Adv. are not much of an issue for me as most monsters and challenges ie skill lists, used for one or two nights of gaming, you don't really need to deal with conversions, CMB is easy, and major villians can be rebuilt/converted with little work. Rule of thumb for my old group during Beta was to lower CR by two, sometimes rarely, by three. From what I've seen of the final ruleset I'd say older 3.5 adv. CR's can generally be lowered by one and use them as is.

This is a better solutions IMOP then converting up, just lower CR's. Yes a few things will not mesh but that can be explained by saying, well its a Olger, but one that's just below the norm.

Hope this helps a little, good luck and have fun.

TTFN DRE

Sovereign Court

Ardenup wrote:
Do Tome of Battle Chars work with this system? I believe WOTC finally got martial classes right with this book, particularly the Warblade is what the fighter should have been and the Crusader is what the paladin should have been. So is there a place for both the PF Fighter and the Warblade. Is a PF Fighter20 as good or balanced vs a Warblade20?

Just dealing with this bit. And leaning on the Beta as PFRPG is not out quite yet...

PF has boosted the power of martial classes in various ways and tried to make casters have a longer adventuring day whilst nerfing a bunch of spells. You shouldn't look at the classes in isolation but rather look at them in context of the changes to shape-changing, Combat Maneuvres and spells

Also, most of the classes' capstone powers can compete with ToB.

Your Warblade and your PF fighter can probably hang out together without one feeling inadequate but they will probably still feel different because PF has no fighter mechanic like the ToB classes.

Similarly, the Paladin is still more streamlined than the Crusader but it has had a power boost.


I like what I'm hearing so far, I've downloaded the Beta test and will try to read it and run a few encounters past my group.

One question- if PF chars get a feat every other level should I give extra feats to our 3.5 chars so they got one every other as well?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ardenup wrote:

I like what I'm hearing so far, I've downloaded the Beta test and will try to read it and run a few encounters past my group.

One question- if PF chars get a feat every other level should I give extra feats to our 3.5 chars so they got one every other as well?

It's a function of character level rather than anything to do with the individual classes, so, yes, that's what I'd recommend.


Welcome, Ardy!

Ardenup wrote:


I run a Charger type warblade with Grtswrd and ferocious charge (FRCS), run, fleet of foot, power attack, leap attack. Does the new power attack still work with this kind of feat chain?

I'd say yes. Power attack works a bit differently now: It's a fixed value (-1 to attacks, and another -1 for every 4 points of BAB you have, so -2 at 4th, -3 at 8th and so on; the damage bonus is the penalty x2, or x3 for two-handed, or x1 for offhand).

Ardenup wrote:


Do Tome of Battle Chars work with this system?

They should be. Might have to switch some focus skills around (no more concentration - though you could always put it back in) and the like, but nothing major.

Ardenup wrote:


I believe WOTC finally got martial classes right with this book (...)

Is a PF Fighter20 as good or balanced vs a Warblade20?

ToB classes are nice enough, but for me, they don't replace the other martial characters. Sometimes, I don't want a fighter with spells (and ToB is basically that).

I'd still say the PF fighter can hold his own against a warblade - though I haven't tested this). Weapon and armour training, as well as new feats should make fighters more powerful and interesting.

Ardenup wrote:


Also I am a Big Psi fan- does this work in PF, mostly from a balance point?

It should. The class balance is better in PF: The weaker classes got some nice boosts, so they should be closer to manifesters now.

Ardenup wrote:


A big mistake WOTC made with 4E is that EVERY class feels the same and has the same power mechanic.

I agree. I also think that if anything, PF is even better in that regard than 3.5, because there are now several "power systems" that haven't been there before: rogues get rogue talents, barbarians get rage powers, monks can use Ki for more than just magical strikes, and so on.

Ardenup wrote:


Also is it compatable with 3.5 FR?

It should be. It's supposed to be compatible with everything 3e. The core rules are as open as the 3.5, maybe even more so.

Ardenup wrote:


what books do I need besides
PF Handbook
PF Bestiary
PF Chronicles

You don't even need the Chronicles book. That's the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting. You only need that if you want to run campaigns in the PFC world. If you want to run games in the FR, you don't need that book.

Not that I'm saying that you shouldn't get it. It rocks!.


Well today I bought my first pathfinder adventure books (my local book store is kinda crap- so I didn't know what they were)

This seems an excellent rescource as professionally written ongoing plotlines are bloody hard to homebrew (The only real 'pro books' I have are shackled city and return to the temple of elemental evil)

I have yet to read the adventure book (though it says book one) so Hopefully we can start in a 'new world' -I assume chronicle is set here.

To the previous comments about TOB- basically we pretty well ran Warblades and Crusaders as 'the standard' fighters and paladins in our fr world as the system mechanic was easily explained (divine inspired or special moves) for classes and the only real 'magical' one was desert wind (which was okay as the only char who had access was a Beguiler/JPM so 'magic' link made sense) and simple to use.

I'd like to see how a Core PF fighter would go vs a Warblade....
Fighters always sucked to me cause until Feats like Leap attack, Rolibar's Gambit came out it was bloody hard to optimise one that could out fight a buffed cleric or gish. Even then the only two great chains were
Uberchargers (2Hand Wpn, Ferocious Charge, Power Attack, Run, Fleet of Foot, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper)
Ubertrippers (Gusarme, Combat Ref, Improved Trip, Stand Still, Deft oppurtunist, Rolibar's Gambit, Defensive Sweep)
and these
1. Took at least 5 levels to do
2. Were Great but one dimendional
3. Same chains could be taken by a Warblade or Crusader who could do it better (example: Defensive Rebuke and Thicket of Blades for tripper)

Like I said I haven't looked at the Beta thoughly yet but I'm hoping the Fighter/Paladin will have some cruch to make it worth taking the class for more than 4 levels.....

Liberty's Edge

Ardenup wrote:

To the previous comments about TOB- basically we pretty well ran Warblades and Crusaders as 'the standard' fighters and paladins in our fr world as the system mechanic was easily explained (divine inspired or special moves) for classes and the only real 'magical' one was desert wind (which was okay as the only char who had access was a Beguiler/JPM so 'magic' link made sense) and simple to use.

I'd like to see how a Core PF fighter would go vs a Warblade....
Fighters always sucked to me cause until Feats like Leap attack, Rolibar's Gambit came out it was bloody hard to optimise one that could out fight a buffed cleric or gish. Even then the only two great chains were
Uberchargers (2Hand Wpn, Ferocious Charge, Power Attack, Run, Fleet of Foot, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper)
Ubertrippers (Gusarme, Combat Ref, Improved Trip, Stand Still, Deft oppurtunist, Rolibar's Gambit, Defensive Sweep)
and these
1. Took at least 5 levels to do
2. Were Great but one dimendional
3. Same chains could be taken by a Warblade or Crusader who could do it better (example: Defensive Rebuke and Thicket of Blades for tripper)

Like I said I haven't looked at the Beta thoughly yet but I'm hoping the Fighter/Paladin will have some cruch to make it worth taking the class for more than 4 levels.....

Fighters are buffed, but in a fairly straightforward and possibly unexciting (if you're used to initiate classes) fashion; on the other hand, paladins are massively cooler and can easily stand on their own wthout needing to be replaced by crusaders. (Monk buffs are somewhere in the middle, but I happen to think swordsages work just fine as mystic warriors, so there's no inherent overlap there.) I'd definitely get out the Beta and give it a readthrough - I would also check out the Paizo blog for the previews of the final, however, as there are some new bits that are only just now coming to light.


Your Charger shoudl work with the exception of Power Attack.

Power Attack was slightly nerfed at High level in that you can not Power attack for 20 any more (taking the penalty to your AC intead of to hit). To make up for this it gives a better return, but still will be less than what you are used to. From a straight DPS standpoint, your PF fighter should hold its own against a warblade.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ughbash wrote:

Your Charger shoudl work with the exception of Power Attack.

Power Attack was slightly nerfed at High level in that you can not Power attack for 20 any more (taking the penalty to your AC intead of to hit). To make up for this it gives a better return, but still will be less than what you are used to. From a straight DPS standpoint, your PF fighter should hold its own against a warblade.

Huh? Power Attack was changed so that it was a straight penalty to attack dependent on BAB for a + to damage depending on how big the weapon was, rather than people having to get spreadsheets to figure out the best penalty to take. It did nothing to AC.

Liberty's Edge

Paul Watson wrote:
Huh? Power Attack was changed so that it was a straight penalty to attack dependent on BAB for a + to damage depending on how big the weapon was, rather than people having to get spreadsheets to figure out the best penalty to take. It did nothing to AC.

The AC penalty is a function of the OP's Ubercharger build. It uses the Shock Trooper feat to apply the Power Attack penalty to AC rather than to the attack roll.

As written, Shock Trooper couldn't be used with Pathfinder's Power Attack until 16th level (the point at which you actually get a -5 penalty to your attack). Given the changes to Power Attack overall, though, I'd probably want to seriously consider whether Shock Trooper didn't require a hefty rewrite or deserve to just get chucked entirely, depending on preference.


Nothing else to add for the moment except welcome to our community!


Ardenup wrote:


My main points are- with the new core redo's and feats for PF do they mesh well with the 3.5 splat books eg
I run a Charger type warblade with Grtswrd and ferocious charge (FRCS), run, fleet of foot, power attack, leap attack. Does the new power attack still work with this kind of feat chain?

Do Tome of Battle Chars work with this system? I believe WOTC finally got martial classes right with this book, particularly the Warblade is what the fighter should have been and the Crusader is what the paladin should have been. So is there a place for both the PF Fighter and the Warblade. Is a PF Fighter20 as good or balanced vs a Warblade20?

Also I am a Big Psi fan- does this work in PF, mostly from a balance point?

A big mistake WOTC made with 4E is that EVERY class feels the same and has the same power mechanic. This completely destroyed the unique (re:special) feel that 3.5 classes had. A wizard should not play the same or have the same ability mechanic as a fighter.

I am hoping PF is a viable direction for me (and my group) to take ourselves in. I'll be ordering the books to day.

Also is it compatable with 3.5 FR?

what books do I need besides
PF Handbook
PF Bestiary
PF Chronicles

Cheers.

I think just about all the character options are compatable. Certain prestige class entry requirements will need tweaking (because of skill changes) but i believe you will find general guidelines for that in the new Core Rulebook. Feats should be straightforward, just use them as is unless they have been replaced by a feat of the same name in the new book. They may lose some of their luster as Paizo has sought to increase interest in the core classes again, instead of having players immediately reaching for splat books at character creation. The only real exception is abilities that related to trip, sunder, disarm, bullrush, and the other things that were turned into combat manuevers. This will require some tweaking to fit the new system, but not a huge amount.

The alternate base classes from the splat books you will need to look at case by case. They are compatable, but the ones that didnt suffer from power creep might feel a little weak against the new core classes. The Tome of Battle Classes will not have this problem. I think their powers system will work just fine. We have a character that is a swordsage rogue mix in our beta game and its worked rather well.

Psions should also work fine alongside the base classes as there wasn't huge changes to the power of other 'caster' types. The only thing you may want to think of is giving them a limited use low level additional ability similar to the first level sorceror bloodline abilities (think psionic punch 4+int times a day). This is to allow psions at low level to be able to go as long as their magic weilding counterparts.

I definately agree with you about 4th classes all feeling the same, and Paizo has gone the exact opposite. Just about every class has something mechanically unique to them. Even the lowly fighter now has the crit specialty feats to look forward to at high levels (among other things).


Having given a good look at the fighter and Paladin now I have to say I am impressed. While there is probably still going to be alot of Prc'ing out (as happens with nearly EVERY class) the armor training class featrure does make fighter Uber tanks alot more attractive/possible with a straight build (and possibly still fast/agile since high dex fighters aren't hit by heavy armour dex penalties as much)

Paladin also looks ALOT better. This would be a bit more likely to keep a player to 20 as it's abilities aren't as multiclass friendly as a fighter (but that will happen to a char that gets a feat every level)

Shame about Shock trooper not being usable till 16, (my warblade is crying) but while waiting longer sucks, the AC trade of would still be worth taking at higher levels (for warblades I mean as trading To hit for Damage sucks vs high AC baddies), fighter weapon training plus wpn fcs,Gtr would mean the Attack penalty doesn't hurt much at all so you probably wouldn't want it.

Haven't seen one yet but is there/does Pazio have plans for some sort of CharOP Boards- That was always one of my favorite things on the WOTC site for 3.5. As a DM I encouraged Powergaming as well thought out chars really let the group fell their guys rocked (and It is fairly easy to deal with- just use higher CR Monsters a bit more)

Sovereign Court

Ardenup wrote:

Having given a good look at the fighter and Paladin now I have to say I am impressed. While there is probably still going to be alot of Prc'ing out (as happens with nearly EVERY class) the armor training class featrure does make fighter Uber tanks alot more attractive/possible with a straight build (and possibly still fast/agile since high dex fighters aren't hit by heavy armour dex penalties as much)

Paladin also looks ALOT better. This would be a bit more likely to keep a player to 20 as it's abilities aren't as multiclass friendly as a fighter (but that will happen to a char that gets a feat every level)

Shame about Shock trooper not being usable till 16, (my warblade is crying) but while waiting longer sucks, the AC trade of would still be worth taking at higher levels (for warblades I mean as trading To hit for Damage sucks vs high AC baddies), fighter weapon training plus wpn fcs,Gtr would mean the Attack penalty doesn't hurt much at all so you probably wouldn't want it.

Haven't seen one yet but is there/does Pazio have plans for some sort of CharOP Boards- That was always one of my favorite things on the WOTC site for 3.5. As a DM I encouraged Powergaming as well thought out chars really let the group fell their guys rocked (and It is fairly easy to deal with- just use higher CR Monsters a bit more)

The paladin class is going to be improving (imho) in the final version as well (lay on hands as a swift when used on self, and a new smite mechanic).

The paizo boards have had a rocky start with character optimization, there was a lot of arrogant posting during the playtest with a char-op bent. Hopefully the situation will improve as the char-op boards were a nice place with some fine people on it. I'd suggest using the normal forums and tagging your post with [Char-Op] for now.


I guess I'm posting to ask about PF in what it offers a 3.5 player/GM.
I have done some reading reguarding backwards compatability and am wondering if this is a system which is going to really take the reins where 3.5 left off.

For a player, it offers a lot of interesting new options to the base classes (such as sorcerer bloodline and barbarian rage powers), and players also generally get some kind of "perk" every time they level up. Lots of mechanics have been simplified or expanded, like grappling or turning undead. The core classes have been boosted to roughly match the power level of the splatbook classes, and are worth playing again.

For GMs, it offers compatibility with a wide array of 3.0/3.5e supplements. Lots of people run 3.5e adventures in Pathfinder with nothing more than on-the-fly tweaking. Paizo's adventures and campaign stuff is top-notch: I'm really looking forward to the Kingmaker AP.

Some of the changes alter gameplay a lot. The cleric's channel energy ability can offer healing to multiple character at once, which does a great deal to minimize the 5-minute workday. It seems like they fixed some of the problems that 4e fixed withoug breaking many of the things that 4e broke.

However, it's still based on 3.5e. It still takes a lot of time to put together characters, particularly complicated ones or spellcasters, and prepping the stat blocks of villains and significant NPCs can still take a while.

EDIT

There a thread asking for a Character Optimization forum here, altho I certainly hope they don't put one in.

I have no problem with Character Development. It's the word "optimization" that irks me: it clearly implies that interesting, competent characters created to be interesting to roleplay are inferior.


Goblin Witchlord wrote:


There a thread asking for a Character Optimization forum here, altho I certainly hope they don't put one in.

I have no problem with Character Development. It's the word "optimization" that irks me: it clearly implies that interesting, competent characters created to be interesting to roleplay are inferior.

Ha ha, the term optimization is a successor to "Min/Max" which came to be a dirty word for the same reasons. Whether we like it or not, and by whatever name you choose to call it, there will be demand for this type of exercise. Some people "optimize" first and come up with a convoluted story to explain it afterwards. Others come up with a good idea and then ask for help making the most of it within their self-imposed constraints.

This is precisely why I like PF over 4.0. There is actually room to make interesting (or dare I say optimal) choices. Meanwhile we can choose to shed some of excess that comes along with a very mature system like 3.5.

I think over the next few years Pathfinder will take a different path from the 3.5 PrC creep, while still expanding the number of interesting options for characters.


Okay, First we updated our PC's to pathfinder Chars (extra feats, skill points, races etc.)

We really notice the power boost to the Base classes (keep in mind most of our old PC are optimised and generally only stay in class for 8 levels)

Eg Cleric 8/ Warblade1/Crusader 1/ Ruby Knight Vindicator 10

This is not a bad thing and is still easily managed by me as DM.
The extra feats seem to mean NON-Fighters actually have enough to develop more than one combat tree.

A couple of questions for the Cleric entry. The above build uses the Good and War domains (Swapped from War and Pact). The cleric 'Domain Powers' are listed at certain levels but there description states They are tied to CASTER Level. Would caster levels from a Divine Prc count towards Domain Powers? Eg the above build has the Practised Spell caster Feat so still has Divine CL 20 but only 8 actual cleric levels.

This is significant as the difference (mostly in Free per day spells) can be significant if CL20 counted here he'd have
Holy Smite 3/day
Holy Word 1/day
SM9 1/day
Flame Strike 1/day
Blade Barrier 3/day
PWK 1/day

ATM I'm not allowing it. The above build has 8th level domain Powers, but I'd like to hear the Boards opinion.

Also The war domain 8th level ability- Weapon Master- allows you to grant yourself any combat feat for which you meet the Preq.
Would this apply to TOB feats eg Martial Study, Stance. I'm ruled yes but-

The above build took Cleric 8 at 20th level and At that stage qualifies for 8th level Manuveres. Said char now basically can choose from any 8th level manuvere/stance down he meets the preq for:
Including (what this guy qualified for) Earthquake strike, Swarm Tactics, Mithral Tornado, Lightning Throw, Immortal Fort. He's using it for free manuvers on Tap.
Now The strikes have not been a drama (as he wastes rounds waiting for the manuvere to be granted. I only allowed this as he took adaptive style- otherwise while he may use the domain power to know the move he'd need 5min to ready it otherwise. And when he uses it to gain a stance he can adopt/maintain it rightaway. Again manageable, but goes the ability last 8rds (his true 'cleric' CL) or 20rds (his divine CL)

Aside from that no other issue have presented them selves ATM.

Incidently while Power Attack, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper is not as good as it used to be if you can fit Overhand Chop and Backswing into your build (easily done with the extra feats) the damage is close and still worth it.

We are rolling up some straight PF Base Chars. I'll let you know how it goes. By the way, which is more up to date the Beta Download or the Pathfinder SRD? Barbarian Rage powers work way different between the 2- I prefer the Rage Points system but the SRD doesn't Have it.

Finally we saw that the concentration skill is gone and casters use spellcraft, but what do non-spellcasters use. EG a Warblade using the Diamond Mind Discipline? Concentration Checks were used ALOT.

Cheers.


Arbitus wrote:
I think over the next few years Pathfinder will take a different path from the 3.5 PrC creep, while still expanding the number of interesting options for characters.

What are you refering to when you say 3.5 PrC creep?


Frogboy wrote:
Arbitus wrote:
I think over the next few years Pathfinder will take a different path from the 3.5 PrC creep, while still expanding the number of interesting options for characters.
What are you refering to when you say 3.5 PrC creep?

In the span of just 3 or 4 years - and quite possibly a shorter time frame -, 3.5 racked up just in the "core books" alone I believe over 100 prestige classes. This does not even begin to tally the OGL-based ones...


If you are going to use classes that rely on concentration I recomend putting it back as a skill. Just like certain optional rulesets add a skill. But only include it as it relates to the Tome of Battle classes. Just make sure its clear to players which concentration check they are making (Skill or level check for casters casting defensively).


Turin the Mad wrote:
In the span of just 3 or 4 years - and quite possibly a shorter time frame -, 3.5 racked up just in the "core books" alone I believe over 100 prestige classes. This does not even begin to tally the OGL-based ones...

I don't really mind PrCs that much. They're probably the best idea that DND has ever come up with to create character concepts that don't translate well to full 20 level classes. Sure they used them a lot as filler but I can think of worse things that they could've used.

I doubt that Piazo will go overboard on them as they don't plan on putting out tons of books.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Switching to PF All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion (Prerelease)
Druid / Monk?