|
One thing that I noticed about PF verses 3.5 the other day whilst making a PFS character was that the lack of 4x skill points at first level means that you really miss out on the chance to put a rank in Trained only skills at 1st level - and as Knowledge skills haven't been condensed as much as skills like Stealth or Perception, it really hampers some concepts if the character is to start at 1st level.
Of course a simple solution is to start at 2nd or 3rd level, something I would routinely do anyway (though obviously not an option for organised play). So it wouldn't necessarily have affected my decision to stick with 3.5 but I can see how it could be a factor for some.
|
|
Is there any reason you could not put half a rank in a skill at first level? Thus you could double your number of trained skills at the price of only having a +3 before mods instead of +4?
I'm not following you? As an example I was creating a CLeric for PFS and because PF does not have 4x skill points at first level I only had 3 skill points to place into skills. I imagined him as a lorekeeper for Osirion, a scribe, historian and also one who has studied the engineering of the Pharoahs' tombs. I wanted to have at least 1 rank in the following knowledges: History, Nobility, Engineering and Religion, as well as a rank in Linguistics.
Unfortunately I had to settle for Engineering, Religion and Linguistics, which means as a historian he isn't actually trained in History :( I will wait until 2nd level to put a rank into those skills.
|
In 3.5, the rules for cross-class skills were half a rank per skill point spent. While having half a rank in a skill did not give you any bonus to the roll, it DID allow you to use trained-only skills.
Thus, in Pathfinder, I would allow your Cleric to put half a rank into six skills instead of 1 rank into 3. Each skill would get the +2 class skill bonus for being trained, but no bonus from ranks. At 2nd level you could put another half rank in each to bring them up to 1 full rank.
I do not know if there is anything specifically prohibiting such a thing, other than the relevant text being omitted.
Edit: Reading the skills section again, I would say it's not allowed. Since you have to have 1 rank in a skill for it to be trained, half a rank will not allow you to use trained-only skills. It would grant you the class skill bonus, but since there is no wording saying 'you may put half a rank in a skill', obviously you cannot spend half ranks. Still a good houserule to allow first level characters to be more versatile than focused.
At 1st level, a character may put one-half a rank into any skill. While this does not grant a bonus on skill checks as a full rank does, it allows a character to make checks with a trained-only skill. If the skill is a class skill, the character gains one-half of the class skill bonus, for a total of +2 to skill checks. At 2nd level, the character must increase all half ranks to full ranks.
|
|
Uh, this thread's for why folks stayed with 3.x, not switched to Pathfinder.
You are quite right. That will trech me to come on this board when I'm lacking sleep. As I said before if I had not had to sell of my 3.5 books I would have stayed with 3.5. Pathfinder adds new things I like yet also keeps the things I dislike about 3.5. I'm also noticing that the devs are going out of their way to overbalance some of the newer rules. I thought Wotc did that too much yet some of the new PF rules options are just not worth taking imo. Espcially if they take something from 3.5 and swtich it over to PF and it's weaker than the 3.5 version.
I had two reasons to switch to PF. A lack of 3.5 books and wanting another option instead of 4E which I still like. Yet truth be told if someone were to ask me if they should make the switch to PF from 3.5 my response would always be to ask that person of their happy with 3.5. If not switch. If yes stick to 3.5.
|
|
Thus, in Pathfinder, I would allow your Cleric to put half a rank into six skills instead of 1 rank into 3. Each skill would get the +2 class skill bonus for being trained, but no bonus from ranks. At 2nd level you could put another half rank in each to bring them up to 1 full rank.
Gotcha, but I agree it is probably not allowed as the double cost for cross class skills has gone.
Anyway, its not a biggie, just another thing against starting at 1st level in PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry if I'm late to the party, I just started coming back to this forum.
After playing in several different PF games recently, trying a few AP's, playing several of the new classes such as Inquisitor, Magus, etc. I have an opportunity to return to an old gaming group for a new game using 3.5 rules, so I happen to be thinking about this very subject...
For me, it's familiarity. It's the artwork, the page layouts, the real D&D lore, not just another company's version of it. In my opinion, PF definitely has the superior ruleset, but it's still not D&D; it's Pathfinder. I'm fine with that, I just view playing it as playing a different game altogether.
It's the act of removal that matters. It shows the total lack of regard for the weakest 3.5 class. Next to powerhouses such as 3.5 Paladin and Truenamer, the Cleric was a sad joke. Pathfinder just finished him off.
Wait, what? Are you smoking something?
It's the act of removal that matters. It shows the total lack of regard for the weakest 3.5 class. Next to powerhouses such as 3.5 Paladin and Truenamer, the Cleric was a sad joke. Pathfinder just finished him off.
Wait, what? Are you smoking something?
Really dude?
a cleric CoDzilla?That's what druids are for. First you have to be 12th level, then take draconic wildshape out of the draconomicon.
Wildshape into say a brass dragon, use IT's alternate form ability to become a firbolg with a 36 strength and since your now back in a form that can cast you have all of you spells back. Then you can just keep on stacking or doing damage as needed. The clerics spells are good and divine power is a great spell but it doesn't last nearly as long as it should. druids do it for Hours!
What the hell do you think the C stands for?Really dude?
a cleric CoDzilla?
I knew what it stood for I just didn't think anyone was still harping on about it.
Besides the only character that was ever asked to retire because they were doing too much damage was a dwarven barbarian. his damage out put in the high 90's per round was the rule not the exception. A keen great-axe hits more often than not and power attack with cleave make for some very nice damage. Barbarians are your real damage dealers not the humble cleric or the gentle forest dwelling druid.
What the hell do you think the C stands for?Really dude?
a cleric CoDzilla?I knew what it stood for I just didn't think anyone was still harping on about it.
Besides the only character that was ever asked to retire because they were doing too much damage was a dwarven barbarian. his damage out put in the high 90's per round was the rule not the exception. A keen great-axe hits more often than not and power attack with cleave make for some very nice damage. Barbarians are your real damage dealers not the humble cleric or the gentle forest dwelling druid.
O.o?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The latest series of Paizo blogs re Combat Manouevres and what weapon bonuses get added has confirmed my preference for 3.5, the PF rules are unfortunately vague and the "clarification" has changed to over time to contradict previous adjudications. I look back at the 3.5 rules for the same circumstance and find 3.5 to be so much clearer.
Its a pity because this is the second thing that I liked about PF that I have subsequently found actually seems worse (Channelling was first, and now the unified CMB mechanic, which seems less unified as time goes on). A shame really.
The latest series of Paizo blogs re Combat Manouevres and what weapon bonuses get added has confirmed my preference for 3.5, the PF rules are unfortunately vague and the "clarification" has changed to over time to contradict previous adjudications. I look back at the 3.5 rules for the same circumstance and find 3.5 to be so much clearer.
Its a pity because this is the second thing that I liked about PF that I have subsequently found actually seems worse (Channelling was first, and now the unified CMB mechanic, which seems less unified as time goes on). A shame really.
The previous adjudications did not really make sense though. The new one makes sense and removes conflict. I would hate to see them keep a ruling for the sake of keeping a ruling.
Halflings no longer get a +1 on attack for slings and thrown weapons?
*smirk*
Ok.