|
I disagree. There is no real reason to wait if you want to do it. There is going to be a learning curve no matter what. There are many minor changes, but correcting them on the fly or using a mix of 3.5 and pathfinder because you don't know there was a change isn't that big a deal. Combat manuevers are the big change for melee. Your still low level so the spell differences wont be that bad. I think most of the players will find something they like about their characters now.
The reason I can see to wait is not wanting to change your character.
If your character is focused on a certain thing or two, and when you change over those things suddenly don't work the same, you may find yourself unhappy with it. Maybe your DM is nice like me and allows retraining, but maybe he's not and won't let you change things up.
It's better to finish out the 3.5 game and then build a character with the PF rules in mind. This makes the learning curve less steep as you have to read the rules you want to use before the game starts, rather than cracking them open when it comes up to see how things changed.
My two cents: if you like what you've heard so far, go ahead with the conversion. But as some folks have said, be prepared for a "stealth" rules change to pop up on a semi-regular basis. There are a lot of minor changes that won't be obvious until you have to look up that particular rule.
The question i have is whats the net gain/loss for the rogue changes? It is harder to get into position/set up a sneak attack. That is definately true, and it now favors melee more then it did in 3.5. But the pathfinder rogue also has more hitpoints, (so being in melee is not as dangerous but still is risky ofcourse), and his sneak attack applies to far more targets. So what is the net gain for the rogue do you think? Personally I think they improved, if only because now even if it's harder at least you have a chance to get sneak attack against most enemies, and have something to work for in the combat.
Because it let you make sneak attacks with all of your attacks. Every method to make sneak attacks with all of your iterative attacks at range except Improved Invisibility was dismantled, since early PF beta. If you got sneak attack by tumbling into position and flanking...well, okay, you did get nerfed, because tumble now has DCs based on the CMD of the target, which are often Much Higher than your Acrobatics mod.The better you understood rogues in 3.5, the worse off you are in PF.
Not to mention all the rogue talents they get now...1 every other level...
Makes a huge difference.
You're going to have to explain how +2 from feats offset at least +3 from BAB. In 3.5, the grappler has a greater advantage than in PF.
Because in reality it is a +4 bonus, as I pointed out earlier - you get +2 to offence and +2 to defence, so you have a net +4 advantage. If you make the grapple attempt it is much harder for them to break free of you.
That doesn't put a chicken dinner in your belly, however. The stealth rules are a mess, and it will quickly be necessary to houserule them into some usable shape to play a rogue.
So your argument is that under the current rules with cover in broad daylight in front of the farmer you have to move slowly to have any chance of not being spotted at all and even then the guard dog might smell you, and when you have no cover or concealment at all, in broad daylight, the farmer might see you? Are you for real? Who in their right mind would think this could work?
You can't argue that Paizo have mucked things up by coming up with a situation where you'd have no chance and then complain you have no chance.
The current stealth rules are obviously designed so that rogues might have to, you know, use their heads and try to steal a chicken at night when it's harder to see them ....
I do not call this a train wreck. I call it obviously working.
I find there are more ways now for you to get sneak attack, especially without spells. Feinting works now to get sneak every other round as a full attack. Shattered Defenses allows for a different build. Both of these work well with a group and give your allies bonuses.
As for feint, the rules seem to disagree with you barring some feat I'm not aware of, since a feint only applies to your next attack.
Once again, you are not reading what is written. Caineach stated that you could sneak attack every other round, and that is correct, you can. Caineach never stated that you could full-attack, and each of these would be a sneak attack.
It's important to remember that this isn't just about rogues are better vs. rogues are worse. Lots of little, niggling things are fiddled with all over the place, with lots of poorly-documented changes or new rules that assume you already know the old rules. Take some time to familiarize yourself with the rules very carefully, or you'll find that sessions get derailed by these little gotchas.
Yes, there are lots of little changes ... but once you read them carefully and get the hang of them the game runs much more smoothly.
I would make the change from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
I would suggest that you make the change when you level up. I also suggest that you let all the players re-work/re-do their characters to be more fully in sync with Pathfinder, even if they change classes, race, gender, etc.
I have been using Pathfinder since the alpha came out and still get caught by a subtle change every now and then, so not changing until you have mastered all of the rules is likely to be an error.
Because in reality it is a +4 bonus, as I pointed out earlier - you get +2 to offence and +2 to defence, so you have a net +4 advantage.
While I agree overall with Dabbler, I have to point out this is not a net +4 advantage.
Under 3.5 you used the same grapple modifier for both offense and defense. Thus a +2 to grapple applied to both offense and defense. The reason Pathfinder has worded it as a +2 to each is because they've separated offense and defense, mandating a +2 to each in order to maintain status quo. It does not give the character a +4 net advantage, only a +2 advantage in each circumstance: offense or defense.
Caineach wrote:
I find there are more ways now for you to get sneak attack, especially without spells. Feinting works now to get sneak every other round as a full attack. Shattered Defenses allows for a different build. Both of these work well with a group and give your allies bonuses.A Man In Black wrote:
As for feint, the rules seem to disagree with you barring some feat I'm not aware of, since a feint only applies to your next attack.Once again, you are not reading what is written. Caineach stated that you could sneak attack every other round, and that is correct, you can. Caineach never stated that you could full-attack, and each of these would be a sneak attack
Actually, MiB is correct there, I did mess up. I read greater feint as until the end of your next turn, instead of the beginning. Dazzling Display + Shattered Defenses still makes it easier to get a full attack with sneak alone as a rogue than in previous editions, though there were some cases of chaining things to get feint as a free action, at least 1 prestige class got it.
As for his complaint about the chicken, its now possible to do this in Pathfinder. In 3.5, you couldn't do it, as they added the ability to bluff to get cover to not be observed. They made mundane stealthing more powerful.
Once again, to the OP, I recomend converting your characters over and giving Pathfinder a try, if your players are up for it. Make sure to read over your abilities, because there are some changes to some of the staples. Lvl 4 is not so far that you will have problems, especially if you stuck close to core 3.5. A couple builds got hit, but most were vastly improved. If you were using a lot of expansion books, I would say stick with 3.5 though until your next campaign.
Interesting discussion going here while I was away.
I have decided to wait with switching until the party is at some stable location. Right now they're out on a long quest in Xen'Drik and that is not the time, I feel, for radical changes. It'll also give me time to read up on the new rules.
Alot of the advantages of pathfinder has been expressed already, including going back to a core ruleset. As conversions are never easy, I would agree to just start from the beginning again. You can use alot of flavor from pre-existing 3.5 books, and update 3.5 source material once you have experienced a few pathfinder levels to note the changes.
But if you are starting from the beginning and are not afraid of trying something new, then 4E did continue the eberron setting, and even after reading what people don't like about it, the system can stand on its own and is fun to play. But you will loose out on the majority of feats and other mechanics offered by 3.5 books.
Finding a computer character tool will definitely help with you endeavors which ever direction you choose.
We have tried 4E, but didn't really like it. My main complaint was that because of the unified system every attack essentially felt the same. The wizard didn't feel like a wizard. The rogue didn't feel like a rogue.
Secondly, because every class was already pre-defined to a very high level it leads to an absurd amount of classes that don't really make sense outside of perhaps a video game. What I'm saying here is that the classes in 3.5 are all different because they kindof match realistic expectations of a fantasy world. We have fighters (soldiers, warriors), rogues (thieves, highwaymen, muggers, thugs), wizards etc. etc...
All the classes are grounded in "realistic" and classic concepts. Now look at the warden or the avenger. These are not grounded in classic concepts. These feel like video game classes. They feel like WoW.
The problem is essentially that the original DnD took classic character concepts and turned them into character classes, while it feels like DnD 4E creates lots of abilities and then creates new character archetypes (not grounded in the classics) to fit these abilities.
DnD Pre 4E: Character concepts are made into character classes. You can play a monk or a rogue or whatever depending on which archetype you like.
DnD 4E: A bunch of theme-related abilities are created and then assigned to a character class given some named to fit the theme of the abilities.
This is why I also dislike many of the prestige classes in 3.5...
Of course we still had fun playing the short 4E adventure that we did, but even the fighter in our group seemed to prefer 3.5.
Once again, to the OP, I recomend converting your characters over and giving Pathfinder a try, if your players are up for it. Make sure to read over your abilities, because there are some changes to some of the staples. Lvl 4 is not so far that you will have problems, especially if you stuck close to core 3.5. A couple builds got hit, but most were vastly improved. If you were using a lot of expansion books, I would say stick with 3.5 though until your next campaign.
I have decided to wait with switching until the party is at some stable location. Right now they're out on a long quest in Xen'Drik and that is not the time, I feel, for radical changes. It'll also give me time to read up on the new rules.
It sounds like you've made up your mind, but I thought I'd just add my testimony since many folks like affirmation.
Waiting until you hit a spot for an interlude is a solid idea. Even if this is still a level or two ahead of where the party is at right now, a mid-game conversion at a logical stopping point really isn't traumatic. While you are reading-up on the rules, you might suggest that your players look at how they'll rebuild their characters while adhering to their spirit. That will get them excited/interested and they might go on to familiarize themselves with additional rules (which may come in handy as I'll mention below).
I converted my group from 3.5 to Pathfinder at 11th level and all those characters had +2 level adjustments and other junk on top of that. For the players it was pretty much a no-sweat change, particularly with me helping them rebuild while I pointed out changes. All of them were excited over the class changes, and skill simplifications. In terms of demographics, my players are all college-aged. Most are fairly weak in math, terrible spellers, and have the attention span of squirrels. (I'm about 10 years older than they are.)
From the DM side of things, naturally I appraised them of major changes that came to mind: CMB/CMD, skill consolidations, etc. I also made certain to read thru the book so that if the players tried to do something in play that seemed different than I recalled, my intuition would go, "Hmmm, I think this might be different now." Likewise, since players tended to read up on their own class abilities and spells, sometimes they would recognize when something might have changed. In such an instance, we then take a short, typically 5-minute break, to look up the rule, go over it to bring everyone up-to-speed. We then rock on with it. Once the players have been updated on a given issue, it doesn't come up again.
Handling changes in-line like this has worked just fine for us. The worst-case scenario is that no one (myself included) realizes that something has changed and we just do it the way we did in 3.5. No one ends up being any worse for it since both characters and opponents would get treated the same way.
Lastly (and I consider this a good measure of the improved ease-of-play vs. 3.5), one of my long-time players has finally taken up DMing! My one player who is actually good at mathematics was always intimidated by 3.5, but found that CMB/CMD eliminated most of his anxieties since he now understands how to resolve such attacks. (The improved monster stat blocks also help.) He's been doing a great job and we're still handling those niggling little rule changes as we do in our regular game without any problems or ill-will.
Good luck with the course you have decided upon and let us know how it goes when the time comes! :)
The book has arrived.
I like what I see so far, though there are some odd mistakes (typo and ommission) in the book. Is there any place to report these?
I notice that they forgot to add a text description for the scythe weapon in the equipment chapter, for example.
|
I would just like to reiterate the sentiments shown in these posts...
To the OP, the conversion is fairly simple. My advice is talk to your players an show them some of the class differences, streamlined skills, etc and get their input before making your decision.
I recommend converting if people are interested in it, but I wouldn't force anyone to (for our group, I required that it be a unanimous vote, too).
My advice is to talk with your players about it, describe how Pathfinder has changed compared to 3.5 and why you feel it may be a better ruleset. Address how their characters may change, especially if they have a particular shtick (like tripping an opponent and then disarming them with the free attack, now gone in PF).
If your players seem interested and are willing to put in the time, effort and money to convert, see whether they wish to convert in this camapign, or when you start the next campaign.
Whilst PF may be considered to have improved 3.5, converting potentially means everyone having to purchase new book, read that 576 page book, learn all the little differences, go through a learning process in play and dealing with little inconsistencies and GM rulings when using 3.5 material (never mind converting their characters).
If every agrees that the time, effort and money is worth it then go for it, however if the gains are not seen to be worth the cost, then stick with 3.5.
I play in a weekly group where two GMs converted to Pathfinder. I personally wasn't too happy with this as I was happy with 3.5 - but it was the GMs call. Now I have just purchased the PF core book off Amazon (for only £23) and previously bought the PDF (unfortnately it didn't render quickly on my Eee PC so I either had to keep sharing books or buy a hardcopy). For me money isn't an issuem but for your players it might be.
Nevertheless, I don't know the rules enough and am not willing to read them again (I will just reference the books), so my level of system mastery is diminished (and with it some of the fun of playing), plus a few of the feats I wanted for my Fighter were nerfed in PF so despite the Fighter having been "improved" I would have preferred to have played in 3.5. I also cannot use SORD, the HTML Sovelior Sage SRD, any of the crib sheets and spell lists I created, and I am not comfortable using 3.5 material in a PF game in case my GM interprets theings differently in conversion. if I ever run an Eberron game with the group I will run using 3.5 and I expect to have to deal with a lot of confusion with people now having to keep two very simialr rulesets in their heads.
So, rant over. But in summary make sure everyone is onboard for the ride - if not you may frustrate some of your players even if everyone does believe PF is a superior set of rules.
It was because of this "brilliant" move by WotC that pushed me to the Pathfinder switch.
Ironically it was seeing the way in which PF was going that encouraged me to try out 4e, I only play PF because my GMs run it, I would happily have stayed with 3.5 or go 4e; Pathfinder is the middle ground where it changes enough to make me not know the rules and have to double check everything, but not change things enough to resolve some of the fundamental problems with 3.5 - IMHO at least.
At the top of the page under the Pathfinder logo it read "3.5 Lives!" However, "lives" had been crossed through with a red slash and replaced with the word "thrives!" As Stan Lee would say...'nuff said!
Nuff said indeed, it was that advert (actually the poster) that really pissed me off. Pathfinder is not 3.5, if anything it is making finding a 3.5 game even harder so I don't think "3.5 thrives" is actually a good tagline "3.5 evolves" or "Pathfinder thrives" would be much better IMHO.
I gotta recommend trying 4e too. If you are like me (and many others), you'll find the experience about as appealing as stabbing yourself in the eye with a rusty fork, but you'll be better able to expalin why you think 4e sucks.
I have seen that the OP has tried and not liked 4e, so fair enough, but just to say for the benefit of other readers of this thread...
If you are like me (and many others), you'll find the experience of 4e interesting and exciting in many ways, though not without its flaws, but you'll be better able to identify what you like about 3.5, Pathfinder and 4e and what you don't - and hopefully choose the right system for the right sort of campaign.
I have seen that the OP has tried and not liked 4e, so fair enough, but just to say for the benefit of other readers of this thread...
If you are like me (and many others), you'll find the experience of 4e interesting and exciting in many ways, though not without its flaws, but you'll be better able to identify what you like about 3.5, Pathfinder and 4e and what you don't - and hopefully choose the right system for the right sort of campaign.
I have to agree. I played a 4E game, and would again if someone in my group were to run one (though i would do my best to discourage it). I had fun, but like you say it helped me identify what i really liked about 3.5 and by concequence pathfinder, because its what i found lacking in 4E. There is nothing wrong with 4E, it has value in and of itself, I just dont think it follows the path that I want for a gaming system.