Has anybody else read the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Conversion Guide (OGL) PDF besides me? Time & time again, I see posters IGNORING the guidelines for conversions. The biggest culprit? Ignoring the established convention of BAB & HD are tied together. This is a KEY part of PFRPG compatibility.
Most posters are busy trying to rewrite classes, when it is recommended not to. I can see eliminating defunct abilities and substituting, or creating, new ones. Filling in dead levels is fine, as well as giving a class a capstone. Remember, if you have a player wanting to play a certain class, then he probably wants to play something he read, not your new creation.
I've read the PDF and I agree, it basically only recommends changing the HD/BAB and Feats that deal with Turn/Command Undead... oh, and for PrCs, if they require a 'x' skill level, just subtract 3 from it. Otherwise, they don't recommend additional customization. Of course, that's where houseruling conversion would come into play.
|
Interestingly enought the core classes have had completly new things added to them, which would kind of contradict their own conversion rules. Just wanna make clear that I have nothing against the new core classes abilities (in fact i love them) but i think that to some extent adding some tweaking to base classes than need it (warmage comes to mind) shouldn´t be out of the question.
Interestingly enought the core classes have had completly new things added to them, which would kind of contradict their own conversion rules. Just wanna make clear that I have nothing against the new core classes abilities (in fact i love them) but i think that to some extent adding some tweaking to base classes than need it (warmage comes to mind) shouldn´t be out of the question.
The idea was to add new features to the core classes to make them more competitive with later material. Adding stuff to the material that core was bumped up to be competitive with is a losing game.
|
|
I´m not defending bumping for the sake of it, but specifically talking about splat book classes that weren´t mechaniclaly rewarding to play with (damn dead levels).
So I guess it come sdown to judging what classes should or shuld not get stuff beyond just a HD change. I was just saying that limiting the changes to just that in every case is not always necesary.
I´m not defending bumping for the sake of it, but specifically talking about splat book classes that weren´t mechaniclaly rewarding to play with (damn dead levels).
So I guess it come sdown to judging what classes should or shuld not get stuff beyond just a HD change. I was just saying that limiting the changes to just that in every case is not always necesary.
The conversion guide actually says something about eliminating dead levels. There is no problem with that. I just have a porblem with the posters that either A) Haven't read the PDF, or B) Read it and are ignoring it. Either of those is a WRONG approach to conversions. With the boost to the core classes, which was done to bring them in line with most of the newer stuff in splat books, there should be little need for the splat book stuff to get much of a conversion. I said already, tweaking/replacing obsolete mechanics is a different story. One of my points, if you take a class from 3.5e that has a d8 HD & full BAB, then boost it to d10s, look at the class then. Quite a few classes like that will only need that. If you add a bunch of stuff, then keep d8s to justify your 'conversion', then you are wrong. The FIRST thing is the new HD, then look at what else MIGHT need tweaking. If the class seems broken like that, then more than likely, it was broken before. Now you can rewrite the whole thing, but STILL follow the guidelines.
The conversion guide actually says something about eliminating dead levels. There is no problem with that. I just have a porblem with the posters that either A) Haven't read the PDF, or B) Read it and are ignoring it. Either of those is a WRONG approach to conversions. With the boost to the core classes, which was done to bring them in line with most of the newer stuff in splat books, there should be little need for the splat book stuff to get much of a conversion. I said already, tweaking/replacing obsolete mechanics is a different story. One of my points, if you take a class from 3.5e that has a d8 HD & full BAB, then boost it to d10s, look at the class then. Quite a few classes like that will only need that. If you add a bunch of stuff, then keep d8s to justify your 'conversion', then you are wrong. The FIRST thing is the new HD, then look at what else MIGHT need tweaking. If the class seems broken like that, then more than likely, it was broken before. Now you can rewrite the whole thing, but STILL follow the guidelines.
Agreed, for the most part. Some of the classes will never see official conversion, due to the lack of OGL on the books they came out in, so I do see the need for more than straight conversion (dead levels need filling, and those abilities have to come from somewhere), but people aren't even using the base conversion rules in the process.
Further, there are so many ways to utilize the current PF mechanics, that many classes (Ninja thread, I'm looking at you...) are not entirely necessary for conversion. And as stated, several of the classes already convert over quite well (Ninja, Scout, Knight, etc) but just need slight ability boosts, 20th lvl captsones, and the standard HD/skill conversion. But people seem intent upon reinventing the wheel...
Edit:
Another thing that people seem to be missing/forgetting, is that when filling dead levels, they don't necessarily have to create brand new abilities. WotC actually made quite a few alternate class features, and class specific feats, even for the non-core classes. These can actually be used to great effect for filling in gaps or boosting the power levels slightly, as can some of the mods from UA.
|
Has there been any discussion yet about capstones and dead levels in the general sense? (i.e. when capstones are necessary, what constitutes a dead level, etc.) Perhaps this is something that was touched on during the playtest?
A group will settle on what they feel is "right" for a conversion.
We all know there is a difference in credibility between "core" class balance and things you find in houserules, forums, etc.
The conversion guide is a tool, but I don't think it matters if people use that tool to arrive at the class they want.
Some people are adamant that there is no need for new classes to cover concepts like "ninja". While you may not like having such things in your game, the paladin, bard, and ranger could all be considered concepts potentially achieved through multiclassing — but sometimes you just want a new class.
If you think more people should read the conversion doc, link to it wherever you feel it could be helpful. There's no sense in picking on other people for not adhering to it.
Has there been any discussion yet about capstones and dead levels in the general sense? (i.e. when capstones are necessary, what constitutes a dead level, etc.)
In my opinion, dead levels are any class where the player receives so little benefit they may decide to multiclass. I don't think we need to abolish every blank class ability line on every class progression table. If it is clearly worth taking a level of a class, then it is not a dead level.
Capstones are a similar redress to the threat of multiclass temptation, but I think they are much less useful. They're fun to think about, but in 95% of games (maybe more) people never reach these levels. I tend to think of capstones as arch-villain NPC abilities foremost.
|
|
The coversion guide is a good place to START AND NOT STRAY MUCH FROM, but it should be at least somehow maleable.
However I agree that reinventing a class is not part of the coverting process, updating mechanics (sometimes powering up and sometimes down, look at paladin and druid) and getting rid of dead levels should be the priority.
Has there been any discussion yet about capstones and dead levels in the general sense? (i.e. when capstones are necessary, what constitutes a dead level, etc.) Perhaps this is something that was touched on during the playtest?
** spoiler omitted **
Hmm... Good question, something we could probably use this thread to discuss. Maybe get some guidelines going for the Conversions forum (assuming there aren't some already that I just don't know about).
+++
It seems to me that full casters don't get as powerful capstones, or as many overall abilities (and when they do get abilities, they seem to come at lvls where new spells lvls aren't being awarded)
Cleric, Sorcerer, Druid and Wizard all display this pattern.
Cleric: Though it gets a utility boost with the channel energy, and gets 4 domain based abilities, it lags behind in raw number of class abilities, and has no real capstone.
Wizard: Similar to Cleric, in that it gets a few abilities, but nothing major for a capstone.
Druid: more abilities, but many are just expansions on a single themed ability (shapeshift), which in a way is much like getting more dice on channel energy for a cleric. The capstone is useful, but not as overwhelming as some others, and the druid pays for it in a somewhat more limited spell list (though it is admittedly better at damage spells than the cleric)
Sorcerer: Much better and more flavorful than before, but highly limited in spell versatility. Capstones are extremely solid for the most part however.
So, from what I can tell, full casters don't get much. Casters with more limited spell versatility are allowed to have decent capstones, and more variety in their class abilities. Non-casters get powerful capstones and extremely useful abilities that let them conceivably balance out with the high level spells that casters get.
The coversion guide is a good place to START AND NOT STRAY MUCH FROM, but it should be at least somehow maleable.
However I agree that reinventing a class is not part of the coverting process, updating mechanics (sometimes powering up and sometimes down, look at paladin and druid) and getting rid of dead levels should be the priority.
That is true, unless said class has a few of those uber-abilities that could stand with a few dead levels to compensate.
Agreed, for the most part. Some of the classes will never see official conversion, due to the lack of OGL on the books they came out in, so I do see the need for more than straight conversion (dead levels need filling, and those abilities have to come from somewhere), but people aren't even using the base conversion rules in the process.
Further, there are so many ways to utilize the current PF mechanics, that many classes (Ninja thread, I'm looking at you...) are not entirely necessary for conversion. And as stated, several of the classes already convert over quite well (Ninja, Scout, Knight, etc) but just need slight ability boosts, 20th lvl captsones, and the standard HD/skill conversion. But people seem intent upon reinventing the wheel...
Edit:
Another thing that people seem to be missing/forgetting, is that when filling dead levels, they don't necessarily have to create brand new abilities. WotC actually made quite a few alternate class...
The Guide is really for the players, not official. That being said, I agree with the lack of need to convert everything. I am making that statement on the Ninja & Samurai thread.
In my opinion, dead levels are any class where the player receives so little benefit they may decide to multiclass. I don't think we need to abolish every blank class ability line on every class progression table. If it is clearly worth taking a level of a class, then it is not a dead level.
I like this definition. I'm going to steal it. Thanks!
Well slightly off topic but I think the samurai and ninja are far from having uber abilities. At any rate I see them not being good candidates for conversion for flavour reazons, but mechaniclaly they need some love.
I don't think either class needs conversion at all. Just trash bin them and use the rogue/ fighter with a small set of alternate class features. The ninja in particular could easily be created with a few alternate rogue talents.
Well slightly off topic but I think the samurai and ninja are far from having uber abilities. At any rate I see them not being good candidates for conversion for flavour reazons, but mechaniclaly they need some love.I don't think either class needs conversion at all. Just trash bin them and use the rogue/ fighter with a small set of alternate class features. The ninja in particular could easily be created with a few alternate rogue talents.
Conversions are a bit different than creating something whole-cloth. With conversions you avoid some of the "which concept are you using" issues, as well as having mechanics already in place to work with. Yes, you can probably fold in some of the old classes to the new pf core classes, but the others do add a certain variety that is appealing, and they take care of the people that won't take "a ninja is a rogue" for an answer.
Converting stuff like that, which really requires very little work, seems worthwhile, at least imo.
I'd be fine with this thread if this was about people doing things like making classes with d4 hit dice (yes, I know classes don't get this any more) and a good attack bonus. It seems that the thread is more about bashing on people who want to try there hand at making something new or bring in something they liked from 3.5. So what if some one wants to update something like Beguiler or Scout for their game, make changes, or even has a different concept from the original and post them for feedback. If it's not something you like, it's not like it's getting into your game. If someone thinks a class belongs in their game, they have every right to post the conversion even if it is vastly overpowered. Hopefully by posting the class other posters who are interested can get them to tone it down.
Further ranting: Must we resurrect the whole Ninja/Samurai thing in yet another thread. I cast Inprison on it!
I'd be fine with this thread if this was about people doing things like making classes with d4 hit dice (yes, I know classes don't get this any more) and a good attack bonus. It seems that the thread is more about bashing on people who want to try there hand at making something new or bring in something they liked from 3.5. So what if some one wants to update something like Beguiler or Scout for their game, make changes, or even has a different concept from the original and post them for feedback. If it's not something you like, it's not like it's getting into your game. If someone thinks a class belongs in their game, they have every right to post the conversion even if it is vastly overpowered. Hopefully by posting the class other posters who are interested can get them to tone it down.
Further ranting: Must we resurrect the whole Ninja/Samurai thing in yet another thread. I cast Inprison on it!
There is no bashing. We want people to realize that classes with d4 HD are NOT Pathfinder. They don't exist anymore as PFRPG compatible. If YOU want it fine, but just don't expect people to NOT comment on the fact that, by definition, you creation is NOT Pathfinder compatible. You can post it, but you will be picked apart for NOT following the Pathfinder Rules. Under those rules, if HD & BAB are not properly linked, then it is NOT a Pathfinder compatible class. The Guide SPECIFICALLY states, to bring you favorite class from 3.5e into PF, you MUST do these things. To me, and others on here, and the Paizo staff (meaning by their definitions in the Guide, not actual opinions), those classes are still 3.5e classes. The HD & BAB were tied together in an effort to keep them from being separated in the name of a balance mechanic. You want to rebalance a class with d6 & full BAB, then it gets d10s & full BAB; or, d8s & med BAB. The mechanic should be looked at as one mechanic, not 2 that are linked. Call it Combat effectiveness. Poor = d6/half BAB, Med = d8/Mid BAB, Good = d10/full BAB. d12s belong ONLY to classes that had d12s before, such as the Barbarian.
What I want from this is for the posters to please quit ignoring the game conventions. Unfortunately, the whole HD & BAB mechanic is the most obvious nitpick we have. There are others, but this does illustrate the point very well.
As for the Beguiler & Scout, since you mentioned them, the PF Rogue killed the Scout & stole his stuff. The Beguiler? I could see somebody making a good conversion out of it.
Further ranting: Must we resurrect the whole Ninja/Samurai thing in yet another thread. I cast Inprison on it!
Yes, PUHLEEEEEZZZEEEE, no more about the whiny Ninjas & Samurai. LMAO
As for the Beguiler & Scout, since you mentioned them, the PF Rogue killed the Scout & stole his stuff.
Errr... no, he didn't. The PF rogue is nothing at all like a scout. The two classes bear only a passing resemblance to each other (medium BAB, 8 skill points, light armor, precision based damage ...... that's it).
As for the rest, why does it matter to you if someone chooses to give nonstandard HD to a class they're converting? Why must you go out of your way to berate them for doing so? They aren't affecting you in even the slightest manner; conversions are of necessity entirely a house rule. Why must you play badwrongfun police?
As for the Beguiler & Scout, since you mentioned them, the PF Rogue killed the Scout & stole his stuff.Errr... no, he didn't. The PF rogue is nothing at all like a scout. The two classes bear only a passing resemblance to each other (medium BAB, 8 skill points, light armor, precision based damage ...... that's it).
As for the rest, why does it matter to you if someone chooses to give nonstandard HD to a class they're converting? Why must you go out of your way to berate them for doing so? They aren't affecting you in even the slightest manner; conversions are of necessity entirely a house rule. Why must you play badwrongfun police?
I agree that scout is still viable, I actually have a player wanting to use one in an upcoming game.
I will say however that it is problematic when people have no conventions for making conversions (and ignore the few that exist), and not to mention irritating when people come on asking for help then ignore the advice they are given and don't bother reading the base rules for conversion provided for the game.
That said however, my entire point in coming on these boards was to work with other people to make SOLID, BALANCED, rules VALID conversions of prior material, and would prefer to use this space to agree upon some standards for doing so.
People are free to make classes with d4's and full BAB, make ridiculously overpowered mergers of other classes, or whatever they like, but that doesn't mean that they are somehow within the suggested guidelines, or in the realm of "balanced" for the game as it has been designed. And consistently doing that, rather than using agreed upon standards, or those provided by the game designers, clutters the entire process and gets in the way of actual progress (for example, how much of the Ninja/Samurai class was spent merely trying to get people to define what they were looking for, and what their ideas of "balance" were?)
You know, thinking of the whole Ninja/Samurai thing, the question you should ask yourself when approaching a class is this: Am I converting, or am I creating something new? Answer those questions first. You see, I harp about the Ninja, because NOBODY on that thread was listening to the ones that were talking about the rogue. If you want to convert the existing material, well it really isn't necessary, with the present setup. NOW, that being said, I saw a REALLY good Ninja class on the WotC Boards called the Shinobi. I liked it mainly because it was different. I have searched & found a number of others there, but I can't find that one I saw before. I believe I found it, but it was eaten by their re-org lately.
See, if you want to do something NEW, state that up front & it will probably cause less grief on the thread, as long as the basics for the game are followed. They are there as a balance guideline for the game. I really say the main gripes on the threads were the people not listening when their ideas were not new, but fit directly into existing structures of another class. If that is the case, then the 'new' class is better off as options for existing classes.
There is no bashing. We want people to realize that classes with d4 HD are NOT Pathfinder. They don't exist anymore as PFRPG compatible. If YOU want it fine, but just don't expect people to NOT comment on the fact that, by definition, you creation is NOT Pathfinder compatible. You can post it, but you will be picked apart for NOT following the Pathfinder Rules. Under those rules, if HD & BAB are not properly linked, then it is NOT a Pathfinder compatible class. The Guide SPECIFICALLY states, to bring you favorite class from 3.5e into PF, you MUST do these things. To me, and others on here, and the Paizo staff (meaning by their definitions in the Guide, not actual opinions), those classes are still 3.5e classes. The HD & BAB were tied together in an effort to keep them from being separated in the name of a balance mechanic. You want to rebalance a class with d6 & full BAB, then it gets d10s & full BAB; or, d8s & med BAB. The mechanic should be looked at as one mechanic, not 2 that are linked. Call it Combat effectiveness. Poor = d6/half BAB, Med = d8/Mid BAB, Good = d10/full BAB....
I think you're working under the misconception that people have to, under penalty of death, follow these guidelines. Yes, they are a great help, but I can guarantee Paizo's offical stance would be "we suggest you follow these, but ultimately it's your game, do what you want". So if some one wants deviate from these when making their conversion, that's their business, though they should expect this to be brought up in their post. These are conversions of WotC classes, so it's not like you really have to worry about Paizo publishing them anyways.
As for why people feel the need to convert Scout, Ninja, Beguiler, or a host of other classes, it simple: Some people want them in their games. I, for one, don't like Scouts or Ninjas as classes, and I loathe Warlock but I'm not going on these threads and saying I don't like these so no one should have them in their games. The "Monk's pals, Ninjas and Samurai thread, the one I think you're talking about, the poster who started it stated the (s)he was trying to make those classes because both DM and Players wanted them. What the poster got was a lot of "just use Fighter and Rogue". If some one feels the need for it in their game, why question it if you aren't playing it? We can keep going back in forth with the whole "Scouts should be done with rogue/ranger" or "then you should only play using cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard" that get thrown around on all these posts or we can move past it and either ignore it or provide constructive critism.
You seem to be getting a misconception from me. They are guidelines, but parts of them are SOLID. You can create all of the wild abilities you want. Make all of crazy options you want. The main thing ANYBODY needs to keep in mind, this is NOT 3.5e. Compatible yes, but NOT it. To be PATHFINDER you HAVE to follow a few, VERY few, concepts. Combat traits are linked now. PERIOD. Aside from that, Most here really do not care what you do. The Guidelines SPECIFICALLY state a few things. They are guides to keep you between the lines. Stray from the lines, & you are not in the same game. For your home game, knock yourself out. Just don't expect the people here to do much of anything but pick your posts apart.
Analogy: You walk out onto a rugby field dressed for American rules football. Don't you think MOST people are going to give you a hard time? Yes, the games look similar, superficially, but they are, at heart, different.
To be PATHFINDER you HAVE to follow a few, VERY few, concepts. Combat traits are linked now. PERIOD. Aside from that, Most here really do not care what you do. The Guidelines SPECIFICALLY state a few things.
So Paizo's going to send the Brute Squad to ransack my house if I convert a character with low BAB and d8 HD?
You seem to be getting a misconception from me. They are guidelines, but parts of them are SOLID. You can create all of the wild abilities you want. Make all of crazy options you want. The main thing ANYBODY needs to keep in mind, this is NOT 3.5e. Compatible yes, but NOT it. To be PATHFINDER you HAVE to follow a few, VERY few, concepts. Combat traits are linked now. PERIOD. Aside from that, Most here really do not care what you do. The Guidelines SPECIFICALLY state a few things. They are guides to keep you between the lines. Stray from the lines, & you are not in the same game. For your home game, knock yourself out. Just don't expect the people here to do much of anything but pick your posts apart.
Analogy: You walk out onto a rugby field dressed for American rules football. Don't you think MOST people are going to give you a hard time? Yes, the games look similar, superficially, but they are, at heart, different.
So what your saying is that if some one is using the Pathfinder rulebook, makes a class that deviates a bit from Paizo's guidelines, and trys to use them both, the Pathfinder rulebook will magically change to PHB and DMG 3.5?
See my whole problem with this thread is that you could easily accomplish your goal by just posting the link when you came across some one violating the paizo conversion guide if it matters that much to you. Really this is just another flame for "I don't want to see it". No one's twisting your arm to use their material. It's sad when someone is looking for ideas for adding a class to their game and decides after getting 1/2 the posts on the thread be "GYARR! Your stupid if you use those classes" to just leave and do what (s)he was going to do anyways. I don't start getting on the many Warlock threads and start spouting off "just use sorcerers! Warlocks suck!", I just don't bother with them.
So what your saying is that if some one is using the Pathfinder rulebook, makes a class that deviates a bit from Paizo's guidelines, and trys to use them both, the Pathfinder rulebook will magically change to PHB and DMG 3.5?
See my whole problem with this thread is that you could easily accomplish your goal by just posting the link when you came across some one violating the paizo conversion guide if it matters that much to you. Really this is just another flame for "I don't want to see it". No one's twisting your arm to use their material. It's sad when someone is looking for ideas for adding a class to their game and decides after getting 1/2 the posts on the thread be "GYARR! Your stupid if you use those classes" to just leave and do what (s)he was going to do anyways. I don't start getting on the many Warlock threads and start spouting off "just use sorcerers! Warlocks suck!", I just don't bother with them.
Really, it isn't like that at all. Its simply being on the same page, and defining your terms. "I'm going to CONVERT (insert class) to PF Rules" is different from "I want to CREATE a new class that covers (insert concept)" or "I want to CHANGE some classes, but not use PF rules". ALL of these occurred in Ninja/Samurai (not saying any of them are wrong btw), and thus the arguments became more about defining things, and arguing over which approach was better. Clear definitions, and goals, would have helped that thread, and the people on it.
The char op boards from WotC had guidelines, standards of discussion, etc., and they were one of the highest quality online projects I've ever seen. All because they had standards of discussion.
I don't think the argument here is "never create new stuff" or "never break the rules" but rather that if that is the direction you want to go in, clearly state it, and your goals for it (to use Ninjas again, people did make it clear they were in it to CREATE a new class, not convert, but they didn't state their goals, such as the archetype they were shooting for). Clarity and the ability to work from the same page are the goals here. At least as I see it.
Sad thing is, the Guidelines a very loose. Never said not to creat something new. Never said anybody was an idiot. Never called anybody names. But I will say that if you aren't following the Pathfinder conventions, then all you are really doing is making a standard 3.5e class/PrC. If you are CONVERTING something to PFRPG, do you use Star Wars SAGA edition rules? Do you use d20 Modern base classes? NO. You may start there, but you bring the class in line with the rules set that you want. Otherwise, you relly aren't converting anything.
Guys, I like an argument like the next guy, but I really am not arguing. Never threatened the "PFRPG Brute Squad" on anybody. Just stating some facts. This rules set was Beta tested, and the rules are considered solid, for the most part. Not everybody is agreeing on everything. Can't happen anyway. My main gripe, and quite a few others' gripe, is that people claim to be converting (all the more power to them), but seem to be using old rules. Again, that is not converting anything. You would be better off using the old 3.5e books & buying the Trailblazer PDF. If this was a forum for all d20 RPGs, then I wouldn't say anything but, "Are you combining multiple rules?" Then I would probably try to help you pick & choose what works best for your style of playing. I used to do that with the Arcana Evolved Rules. Unfortunately, this is a Pathfinder Roleplaying Game set of forums we are talking on here. They rules discussed are those. YES, there are Houserules. I have said before, if you are HOUSERULING something, post it under houserules & STATE, UPFRONT, that the class being made is full of houserules. If you are CONVERTING. then use the Conversions forum, but PLEASE actually convert to the standard Pathfinder RPG conventions. If I make something that is a deviation from standard, then I will say so, and post in the appropriate forums. I do use ALLOT of hoserules, at least I did in the past. Believe it or not, most, not all, of my old houserules are stuff that are in PFRPG. Some houserules don't apply because the new rules made my reasoning invalid. Sad thing is, I am not a rules lawyer. Always looking to improve my game, But when I post material, I make clear when I deviate from the established rules.
See my whole problem with this thread is that you could easily accomplish your goal by just posting the link when you came across some one violating the paizo conversion guide if it matters that much to you. Really this is just another flame for "I don't want to see it". No one's twisting your arm to use their material. It's sad when someone is looking for ideas for adding a class to their game and decides after getting 1/2 the posts on the thread be "GYARR! Your stupid if you use those classes" to just leave and do what (s)he was going to do anyways. I don't start getting on the many Warlock threads and start spouting off "just use sorcerers! Warlocks suck!", I just don't bother with them.
Sorry you feel that way, but I did not start this as a flame war saying, YOU SUCK at anybody. I don't use warlocks, from your example above, but i know many that like them. I don't criticize & say a thing about anybody wanting to convert them. I can see both sides. Thing is, most of those threads that I peeked into were using the guidelines.
You see, I have never been a huge fan of psionics. Buy the books mainly because I usually have at least one player who would like to play one. I really think my problem with it was twofold. Not enough product support, and I don't really think psionics are really in flavor with most D&D style games. That being said, have no problems with the Psi conversion here. Actually downlaoded that one that is in PDF form. Think very highly of it, as it adapted PF style conventions into the existing XPH.
Anyway, I don't belittle anybody for wanting something. I did say that the ninja & samurai (yes, here we go again, lol) could be modeled using existing classes. The posters there were just as guilty as anyone about bashing when they were saying, "No way. You can't. I mean, it's a NINJA...NINJA, did ya hear. They are magical, supernatural wonderdudes. They can't be like a rogue, NO FREAKIN WAY!!" You see, the bashing is on both sides. People ask for advice. Just as often they really mean: "This is my way. It is the right way. I want to hear all of you say so."
So, returning to the original topic of the post:
Do people feel that, when implementing conversions, it is more appropriate to create new class features to fill dead levels, or to use existing feats and class abilities from other classes to fill those levels.
For my part, I prefer the later, simply b/c the rules are already there, and they allow people to use info they already have when interpreting the character's abilities.
If you feel otherwise, is there a guideline for when you would create a brand new ability?
So, returning to the original topic of the post:
Do people feel that, when implementing conversions, it is more appropriate to create new class features to fill dead levels, or to use existing feats and class abilities from other classes to fill those levels.For my part, I prefer the later, simply b/c the rules are already there, and they allow people to use info they already have when interpreting the character's abilities.
If you feel otherwise, is there a guideline for when you would create a brand new ability?
Actually. it is NOT the original topic, since I was the one to start this post. That being said, I can go either way. Some classes it is better to use existing rules ti fill dead areas. Sometimes that includes rules for classes not yet converted, but are still compatible. Sometimes, it is helpful to create a new feature. If you do this, try to model it after existing features.
Example: The Dervish PrC (Which is being played around with in another thread). This is one that could go either way. You could pretty much leave it as written, but change the class skills. The other way, is to try and make the Dervish Dance ability match the existing Rage abilities in form. The original was like this, so it makes since to try it here. Is one better than the other? Who cares? The question is: Is it playable? Either would work.
Actually. it is NOT the original topic, since I was the one to start this post.
The original topic being "conversions" and appropriate/inappropriate ways to go about making them.