| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love Pathfinder as what 4th D&D was "meant to be", and the true spiritual successor to D&D 3.5. Pathfinder's class design is rightfully richer and more varied (even for the class-of-feats Fighter) but there is material in D&D 3.5 that is still useful, including the additional classes. I'd like to keep using these as single-class alternatives to multi-classed characters (such as Scout instead of Ranger/Rogue). As well, I've never been comfortable with "only" eleven classes but Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat do fill some obvious niches (such as spontaneous divine caster).
The main problem is bringing in classes at the same level of versatility as the core classes of Pathfinder. Even compared to the standard 3.5 classes, some are weak and others are just plain useless. Here is the Tier System of Classes that tries to quantify relative power level in 3.5:
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=3qu08lo8teuq70e 821utcotcl6&topic=5293
Has anyone done some close examination of the 3.5 Complete Class Book classes to judge whether they would be able to compete with the standard Pathfinder classes?
If the Tier System were applied to Pathfinder's version of the core classes, what tiers would they fall into?
true there are no evil 4e monsters under you bed i checked you are good.
but some 3.5 classes would all right the factdom for one and the classes from the book of nine sword seem like they would do well
A number of people have posted conversions of a lot of the 3.5 base classes are floating around on the boards. If you do a search for warlock, beguiler, and scout you will definately get hits. Other classes have more or less been replaced by pathfinder equivalents, by the magus, samurai or ninja.
There have also been a number of 3rd party publishers that have put out base classes to fill out the need for base classes. Most notably 4 winds and super genius games.
I think many of the spat 3.5 classes work just fine in Pathfinder. The tweaks involve class skills and prerequisites which may not apply in Pathfinder.
However, as far as the abilities of those classes, they often stack up pretty well.
I love Pathfinder as what 4th D&D was "meant to be", and the true spiritual successor to D&D 3.5.[expletive deleted] like this is why the damnable edition war will never end. Why can't you just be happy with Pathfinder without feeling the need to rip at 4E?
My apologies, Kthulhu, it was not my purpose to offend. I was only prefacing my main point about Pathfinder being a good descendent of D&D 3.5 despite there being some major differences in class design.
eh don't worry about kthulu as a dark god of insanity he pretty well hates everything...
Cool, I won't...
Anyway. I did some more reading and figured out a list of 3.5 alt-classes that could be made to compete with and fit the rules-flavor of Pathfinder fairly well. Some are fairly weak and will need buffing up. This list is probably 40% personal taste; I may not really care to ever play some of the classes on this list (much like I will probably never play a Bard, APG Witch, or UC Samurai) but I tried to include some classes that would have some appeal in playing style with the different players I've gamed with. I also tried to exclude 3.5 classes which would be superseded by PF classes. (e.g. Favored Soul made obsolete by Oracle)
The number of stars indicates class versatility vs. Pathfinder core classes
*needs little or no tweaking
**needs some tweaking
***needs significant tweaking/boosts
Also some additional comments follow.
Antipaladin: I feel this class deserves promotion to a full class. No player may ever be able/willing to play one but NPC 1st-level blackguards should be able to exist is 1st-level NPC paladins can exist.
Archivist* The divine version of the bookworm-y wizard, I liked this concept.
Beguiler** Fairly weak unless you play it as a rogue substitute, I guess. Definitely needs more upper-level material. Possibly gain a (non-advanced) rogue talent at 9th/13th/17th?
Binder* The concept inherent in the class could create all kinds of fun with the Inquisitor class also in play. There is a natural opposition here between these 'vestige-mancers' and these zealous vigilantes.
Dread Necromancer** There is a slight parallel with Monk here. These are both classes trying to achieve some kind of ultimate transformation. My PF campaigns are always planned to include material from Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness; I can certainly imagine a "deathless" version of the Dread Necromancer but there would need to be some adjustments.
Duskblade** Is there a casts-through-weapon class in PF?
Factotum** What is great about this class is it scales directly with the surrounding system. I would rather give it something else than the trapfinding ability.
Marshal*** Many levels are quite empty. The foundation for a good PF-style class is available with the minor and major auras but the class doesn't do much otherwise.
Scout*** A sort of Ranger/Rogue combo. By including more classes in the mix I want to discourage multiclassing beyond the occasional diversification (minimum of 3:1 ratio in class levels) because that makes the multiclasser fall behind in "high-level powers" compared to the rest of the party.
Spirit Shaman* There is no spontaneous druid magic caster, and there should be one. Under 3.5 the spirit-affecting powers were mostly fluff unless (as someone put it) you were playing D&D Ghostbusters; in Pathfinder I would have the definition of spirit to include all non-native Outsiders along with fey, incorporeal undead, etc. Given that PF merged the Elemental type into Outsider, this expansion of the definition makes sense and makes the spirit-affecting powers more useful.
P.S. I entertained adding Hexblade and Warlock to the list, but Sorcerer and Wizard should be able to cover these concepts fairly easily. I could also see Spellthief being brought in for its unique flavor, but it is a fairly empty class with but one real gimmick and it might be more worthwhile to simply collapse it down to a prestige class. I wish I could also bring in Healer but there just isn't enough for it to do, which other classes couldn't do better.
There has been some work done, some of it here, by Elghinn Lightbringer. Many of the classes you mention are great if they just have their hit dice moderated to their BAB.
Antipaladin: I feel this class deserves promotion to a full class. No player may ever be able/willing to play one but NPC 1st-level blackguards should be able to exist is 1st-level NPC paladins can exist.
Done. Check out Advanced Player's Guide.
Archivist* The divine version of the bookworm-y wizard, I liked this concept.
It works fine as is, pretty much.
Beguiler** Fairly weak unless you play it as a rogue substitute, I guess. Definitely needs more upper-level material. Possibly gain a (non-advanced) rogue talent at 9th/13th/17th?
I beg to differ, especially with his spell progression he needs no extra stuff and works nicely as is. In Pathfinder there is less need for a trap-springer as Trapfinding took a nerf and you no longer need it to find traps.
Dread Necromancer** There is a slight parallel with Monk here. These are both classes trying to achieve some kind of ultimate transformation. My PF campaigns are always planned to include material from Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness; I can certainly imagine a "deathless" version of the Dread Necromancer but there would need to be some adjustments.
Please ... the Book of Vile Dorkness and the Book of Exalted Cheese?
Duskblade** Is there a casts-through-weapon class in PF?
Magus in Ultimate Magic, far more versatile than the duskblade who is basically a damage-whore and not much else.
Scout*** A sort of Ranger/Rogue combo. By including more classes in the mix I want to discourage multiclassing beyond the occasional diversification (minimum of 3:1 ratio in class levels) because that makes the multiclasser fall behind in "high-level powers" compared to the rest of the party.
Scout actually works perfectly as-is. Seriously. One of the reasons the classes in Pathfinder took an upgrade was that the later ones from WotC like the scout were measurably better. Scout is now on par with the pathfinder classes, about the only change I would consider is giving them Toughness as a free feat to keep them as a bit more 'battle tough' than the rogue.
Spirit Shaman* There is no spontaneous druid magic caster, and there should be one. Under 3.5 the spirit-affecting powers were mostly fluff unless (as someone put it) you were playing D&D Ghostbusters; in Pathfinder I would have the definition of spirit to include all non-native Outsiders along with fey, incorporeal undead, etc. Given that PF merged the Elemental type into Outsider, this expansion of the definition makes sense and makes the spirit-affecting powers more useful.
Spirit Shamen was a strange one - a bit of both spontaneous and prepared caster in one, and MAD to boot. I think the shamanic druids work better myself, or if I was going to take this one to town I would redesign from the ground up, and make it truly spontaneous - swap say the sorcerer's spells/day and progression in for the ones they have. The chastise spirits' ability is a lot like channeling, and might easily be replaced by it with some feats to extend the effect to spirits.
P.S. I entertained adding Hexblade and Warlock to the list, but Sorcerer and Wizard should be able to cover these concepts fairly easily. I could also see Spellthief being brought in for its unique flavor, but it is a fairly empty class with but one real gimmick and it might be more worthwhile to simply collapse it down to a prestige class. I wish I could also bring in Healer but there just isn't enough for it to do, which other classes couldn't do better.
Hexblade was essentially a de-buffer, not that impressive either. Warlock ... was some people's favourite class, and I think can work almost as is.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Matthew,
As to the Binder, I have to recommend the excellent Secrets of Pact Magic and Villians of Pact Magic, from Radiance House and available on this site. It takes the Binder and turns him up to Eleven. There's also a free Pathfinder conversion guide.
For the Duskblade, I recommend either the Magus, Super Genius games' Vanguard and Archon, or my own Damascarran*. All are the 'stabracadabra types' with different takes.
For the Factorum's flavour, I also recommend the latest issue of Kobold Quarterly.
*
Antipaladin: Like Dabbler said, its in the APG.
Archivist* I take it as is, it was a pretty solid class to begin with. Maybe add in some first level abilities like the wizard gets to prevent early 15 minute work days.
Beguiler** - I give it the illusion school wizard powers and more frequent advanced learnings and call it done.
Dread Necromancer** I spent alot of time trying to sort this class out for a player in my group and then realized a 3rd party publisher did it better with the super genius death mage here. I'd say go with that if you are ok with 3rd party stuff.
Duskblade** The magus does this incredibly well. The best I have seen in fact. Spell combat is a simple but excellent solution to the mixing fighting and casting challenge. Full marks here (if you can tell I like the class). But not to leave them out, if you want caster/fighter mixes there are several options, the Archon, the Vanguard both do a good job with the niche in my opinion. I have seen both in play, and liked them.
Factotum** honestly the factotum really doesnt need much tweaking in my opinion i'd say its ready to go.
Marshal*** I would check out the Super Genius warmaster Same concept, non-magical buffing and leadership, but much better execution in my opinion.
Scout*** A forum search will show all sorts of conversions for the scout, its probably one of the most popular in that regard.
In terms of the hexblade you are in luck, the magus has a hexcrafter archetype in ultimate magic that incorporates some of the witches hexes. So if you want a magic sword swinging, hexing fightery guy, you have a great option there. OR there is a homebrew class the iron mage which does what the hexblade did (full bab 4 levels of casting, with additional buffs or debuffs) but much much better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love Pathfinder as what 4th D&D was "meant to be", and the true spiritual successor to D&D 3.5.[expletive deleted] like this is why the damnable edition war will never end. Why can't you just be happy with Pathfinder without feeling the need to rip at 4E?
Crap like this is the real reason for the continuation of the edition war.
Someone has an opinion (like "I don't like 4e, it doesn't feel like D&D to me, but Pathfinder does") and people have to make it a declaration of war just so they can attack the person for not liking what they like.
Especially if the very first thing they have in their reply is an insult.
Why can't you just accept that some people have a negative opinion about 4e?
This time the guy apologised, but the next might feel attacked (and he wouldn't be wrong) and hit back.
So if you don't like others talking bad about the game, why not just ignore it, or tell them about it without the flame bait?
Matthew,
As to the Binder, I have to recommend the excellent Secrets of Pact Magic and Villians of Pact Magic
I have to support this recommendation.
It works whether you want your whole campaign world to be heavily into pact magic or if you want just one weirdo character who does it.
I also tried to exclude 3.5 classes which would be superseded by PF classes. (e.g. Favored Soul made obsolete by Oracle)
I'll add my mustard (i.e. my two cents) to the stuff you mentioned. Some of it might be repetitive.
Some classes aren't really appropriate to 3e/PF (at least in my opinion), and some have already been replaced or mostly replaced. It's not always a complete new class, but with the archetype concept where you replace some class abilities, and the variant class concept where you replace lots of abilities but still keep enough of the original class to not make a completely new class, and the examples of each, I think a lot of the concept many of the extra classes served are covered.
Antipaladin: I feel this class deserves promotion to a full class.
Though it was mentioned, I want to mention the antipaladin variant class again. It's not a completely new class (it's the bizarro paladin, a dark reflection of the LG class), and doesn't get as much support as a completely new class - though other books do list spells that appear on the anti-paladin spell-list, and ultimate combat had an antipaladin archetype.
Archivist* The divine version of the bookworm-y wizard, I liked this concept.
I'm not convinced that it needs a whole class. I'd just go with cloistered cleric - though I'd use the cloistered cleric variant found in Unearthed Arcana (it's also on d20srd.org if you don't have UA), because the cloistered cleric archetype was messed up big time.
The u.a. class variant takes away armour (except light) and shields (I think), reduces the BAB to poor, the HD to d6, but adds some class skills, 6+ instead of 2+ skill points, the knowledge domain as bonus and bardic knowledge.
Beguiler**
I'd just do away with all the classes that get a specialised spell list but get to know all spells on it and cast them spontaneously ("warmage-type classes", since the warmage started the trend). That includes the beguiler (unless I'm mistaken. It has been a while).
I think the bard can serve the concept pretty well, especially with the Pathfinder boosts it got, and the numerous archetypes that are around.
Dread Necromancer** There is a slight parallel with Monk here. These are both classes trying to achieve some kind of ultimate transformation.
Another "warmage-type" class. I think it's basically a systemic thing: Either you get to have as many spells as you can find but must prepare them or you get to cast them without preparing but your "personal spell list" is limited in number. To properly support all the warmage-types, you have to give them new spells for their spell list (or they feel abandoned), but you make the class - and every character from that class - more versatile (and thus more powerful) each time you add a spell to the list. That's why I think we should stick to the two classics.
As for the dread nec's transformation aspect: If you want to be undead, go ahead and become one. I think between the classical spellcaster classes, their schools/sub-schools, domains/sub-domains, bloodlines/sub-bloodlines and maybe the occasional specialised archetype, the concept "becomes more like the undead with time" is possible without another class thrown into the mix.
Duskblade** Is there a casts-through-weapon class in PF?
Magus. It rocks. In my opinion the best warrior-arcanist class ever. And it has a number of archetypes (and class ability choices - the "menu type" class ability for this class is called "magus arcana") available, so you can customise the heck out of your gish, whether you want to be a bit like an elven bladesinger, more focussed on fighting, more focussed on magic, or have a special blade like Elric.
Factotum** What is great about this class is it scales directly with the surrounding system. I would rather give it something else than the trapfinding ability.
That was the "chameleon" class, right? Nice try, but I think it didn't really deliver. Plus, the fact that you have to find a role and stick with it is one of the basic things about 3e/PF. If you want to be versatile, you can always go bard.
Marshal
My advise: Toss it. Use the cavalier. Maybe adjust with archetypes as needed (there are archetypes that emphasise the leader aspect of the class more)
Scout*** A sort of Ranger/Rogue combo. By including more classes in the mix I want to discourage multiclassing beyond the occasional diversification (minimum of 3:1 ratio in class levels) because that makes the multiclasser fall behind in "high-level powers" compared to the rest of the party.
I never liked the scout even before PF came around. It's thing is "stay mobile and still deal some damage". That is something people are concerned about, I agree with that, but it should not be fixed by adding one class that does it. A fix on a more systemic level is required. PFRPG went partway there with the Vital Strike feat line (which lets you do some extra damage when you only make one attack). It just has to go further (by loosing the restrictions to when you can apply it, and just give it to everyone as bonus feats as soon as they get the extra attacks. That's what I do in my games, and it works).
Beyond that, there is a scout archetype for the rogue. It replaces uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge with an ability that lets you sneak attack on a charge (on level 4) and another that lets you sneak attack whenever you have moved far enough (on level 8). Together with the changes the rogue got, this makes the 3.5 scout class obsolete in my opinion.
If you want a more martial bend, just go with the ranger - again, there are a number of archetypes to customise the (already more versatile) ranger further. There is even one called "skirmisher", which is the legendary spell-less bard people have been asking for for ages. Instead, they get "hunter tricks".
Spirit Shaman* There is no spontaneous druid magic caster, and there should be one.
Instead of a whole class, I suggest just taking the druid and making his spellcasting spontaneous. Use the spells/day and spells known tables for the oracle. If they choose a domain instead of an animal companion, they just add those spells to their list of spells known as soon as they can cast spells of the appropriate levels, and they get summon nature's ally spells for free, too.
Druids are quite shamanistic already, and there are a number of animal shaman archetypes to boot.
P.S. I entertained adding Hexblade and Warlock to the list, but Sorcerer and Wizard should be able to cover these concepts fairly easily.
Not quite.
Warlock: Just doesn't belong to the game in my opinion. Its another class that gets something that should be a system-level decision: Is magic limited in its daily use or not?
Sorcerers can be the guys who make pacts with weird powers for their magic. Bloodlines don't have to be gained by having a freak in your ancestry! Sometimes, the circumstances of your birth, conception or time in between will affect you, and a "I made a pact with eldritch entities" deal sorcerer can totally work, too. There are lots of bloodlines to choose from.
Many bloodlines already get a basic blasting bloodline power they can use several times per day (and cantrips are at will if everything else fails), and if you want these basic abilities to be at will, it won't really break the game (make it a feat if you must)
Hexblade: We got you covered! The hexcrafter archetype for the magus lets a magus get some hexes. Hexes are from the witch class.
I could also see Spellthief being brought in for its unique flavor, but it is a fairly empty class with but one real gimmick and it might be more worthwhile to simply collapse it down to a prestige class.
Not even that. It sounds like something a rogue archetype would be good for. Maybe even just a rogue talent (or a couple of rogue talents)
I wish I could also bring in Healer but there just isn't enough for it to do, which other classes couldn't do better.
Exactly. Clerics are awesome healers, especially with the channel energy class feature they now get. And if you want to really specialise in healing, play an oracle of life. Only get medic spells. And if you have a player who wants to play that and wants that unicorn companion that badly, just give them the "12 year old gamer girl" template. ;-)
I suppose I should have mentioned further up that I've not given much serious thought to employing these many 'archetypes' and whatnot in order to create variations on the basic class design. If they are used only by the DM to customize a class to fit the campaign world's flavor he is attempting to brew up, then they are a nice tool for substituting a little of this for a little of that. But there should be some stability within the design of a single class. I guess that is a side-issue and I am still being afraid of the ghosts of 2nd-Edition kits.
|
Spirit Shaman* There is no spontaneous druid magic caster, and there should be one.Instead of a whole class, I suggest just taking the druid and making his spellcasting spontaneous. Use the spells/day and spells known tables for the oracle. If they choose a domain instead of an animal companion, they just add those spells to their list of spells known as soon as they can cast spells of the appropriate levels, and they get summon nature's ally spells for free, too.
Druids are quite shamanistic already, and there are a number of animal shaman archetypes to boot.
I'd actually argue for a new oracle mystery. The nature and ancestor mysteries already move heavily in that direction; it's certainly not a leap to get the rest of the way to a "spirits" mystery. In fact, the oracle's typical grab-bag ability design seems particularly well-suited to a class that specialized in dealing with fae, incorporeal undead and some outsiders - a rather grab-bag set of creature types all on its own.
I could also see Spellthief being brought in for its unique flavor, but it is a fairly empty class with but one real gimmick and it might be more worthwhile to simply collapse it down to a prestige class.Not even that. It sounds like something a rogue archetype would be good for. Maybe even just a rogue talent (or a couple of rogue talents)
The sandman bard archetype from the APG. It's the spellthief reborn, right down to the sneak attack progression and trapfinding (the stealspell bit is a given).
Wouldn't this same logic lead to eliminating one of the wizard or the sorcerer? If you don't feel that it does imply the elimination of one of the wiz/sorc, why not?
Do either wizards or sorcerers get all their stuff at will?
I suppose I should have mentioned further up that I've not given much serious thought to employing these many 'archetypes' and whatnot in order to create variations on the basic class design. If they are used only by the DM to customize a class to fit the campaign world's flavor he is attempting to brew up, then they are a nice tool for substituting a little of this for a little of that. But there should be some stability within the design of a single class. I guess that is a side-issue and I am still being afraid of the ghosts of 2nd-Edition kits.
The archetypes give variation but maintain stability rather well, unlike 2nd edition kits they do not give stuff for free. Most GMs I know were already swapping class abilities out along the lines similar to archetypes, the archetypes give fair guidelines how to do it along a theme. I hardly see any archetype causing problems here, they are more similar to 3.5's substitution levels but more restricted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do either wizards or sorcerers get all their stuff at will?No, but it's two different systems for limiting the daily use of magic for classes which are otherwise basically interchangeable.
Whole different living creature of the Animalia.
As you said: They're interchangeable. That means you can use either, or both, and the basic premises of the game don't change. Neither sorcery nor wizardry "break the game".
The warlock does. The basic premise in Pathfinder is that magic isn't an unlimited commodity. The warlock breaks that premise.
That's the thing I don't like about it, not that there are different systems that accomplish the same thing. In fact, I love how there are several ways to do the same.
Do either wizards or sorcerers get all their stuff at will?No, but it's two different systems for limiting the daily use of magic for classes which are otherwise basically interchangeable.Whole different living creature of the Animalia.
As you said: They're interchangeable. That means you can use either, or both, and the basic premises of the game don't change. Neither sorcery nor wizardry "break the game".
The warlock does. The basic premise in Pathfinder is that magic isn't an unlimited commodity. The warlock breaks that premise.
Is that an actual, stated design decision, or just what's happened to be available up to now? Because the witch has a lot of at-will hexes, although many of them are limited to one per target per day or suchlike.
I don't mind some forms of unlimited magic, as long as it follows the standards of current "unlimited" things, like swinging a sword or picking a lock with thieves tools.
If this means limiting the effectiveness of the magic down (sort of watering down the effects), then so be it.
Honestly, it really just feels like Mutants and Masterminds method of changing the descriptor. Instead of physical damage, it's one of the elements or force, etc.
I can see it as a matter of taste though. This is the reason some people disliked some of the changes 4e made (not to start a flamewar or anything), it kind of homogenizes the game with too many things being similar.
I have used the incarnum classes, the nine sword classes and the binder & shadowcaster with moderate success, it takes quite some work but it is worth it. My main concern is how to replace the concentration as a skill effectively, especially when dealing with a lot of the Sword Sage stuff. Any suggestions? (not as per the spell)
I have used the incarnum classes, the nine sword classes and the binder & shadowcaster with moderate success, it takes quite some work but it is worth it. My main concern is how to replace the concentration as a skill effectively, especially when dealing with a lot of the Sword Sage stuff. Any suggestions? (not as per the spell)
I'm poor at linking but here are quite a few threads offering suggestions for this issue. Just search the boards.
Personally, we use Martial Lore.
Kay, so you're more concerned with unlimited magic in general than with redundancy with spellcasters.As you said: They're interchangeable. That means you can use either, or both, and the basic premises of the game don't change. Neither sorcery nor wizardry "break the game".
The warlock does. The basic premise in Pathfinder is that magic isn't an unlimited commodity. The warlock breaks that premise.
More or less. It's not unlimited magic per se, it's that the systemic assumption is that magic is limited.
If someone decided that wizards should get their perpetual groove on, it should be a general variant rule that changes magic on a systemic level, not have one class that gets to cast at will while the others need to tick off spell slots and eventually run out of all but the most trivial magic.
Is that an actual, stated design decision, or just what's happened to be available up to now? Because the witch has a lot of at-will hexes, although many of them are limited to one per target per day or suchlike.
The warlock does. The basic premise in Pathfinder is that magic isn't an unlimited commodity. The warlock breaks that premise.
There is the witch, that is true.
But, as you already mentioned, a lot of hexes only work once per target.
And even beyond that, their actual spellcasting - which is arguably where their main power comes from - is limited just like a wizard's.
They do get more - and nicer - "fallbacks", to the point where it's more than just icing on the cake.
It's still a long way away from a completely at-will warlock.
I can't give you a written statement about this, but I do think that when sorcerers don't get to use their demon claws at will, or evokers' energy bolt is limited, I think they don't want too much at-will magic.
I could also see Spellthief being brought in for its unique flavor, but it is a fairly empty class with but one real gimmick and it might be more worthwhile to simply collapse it down to a prestige class.
Not even that. It sounds like something a rogue archetype would be good for. Maybe even just a rogue talent (or a couple of rogue talents)
Maybe the spell stealing aspect could be folded into or replace the Minor and Major Magic tricks altogether...it would be more flavorful and suit the Rogue personality better.
* * * * *
One of the things I did like about 4E was that all magic was not "just" arcane or divine. Clerics powered by deities but Druids powered by nature, considered different power sources. (Wizard and Bards need to be different here too.) Each power source could have its own methodology of distributing, granting, manifesting, or preparing its spells, whether it's with slots vs. magic points, "memorization"/praying vs. spontaneous casting, or something else. Not just arcane vs. divine, but also primal. I would move bards out of the arcane camp and put them in with monks as a kind of spirit/ki power source (which could include psionics if you like psychics in your swords and sorcery), and maybe shadow energy too if it came to that.
One of the things I did like about 4E was that all magic was not "just" arcane or divine. Clerics powered by deities but Druids powered by nature, considered different power sources. (Wizard and Bards need to be different here too.) Each power source could have its own methodology of distributing, granting, manifesting, or preparing its spells, whether it's with slots vs. magic points, "memorization"/praying vs. spontaneous casting, or something else. Not just arcane vs. divine, but also primal. I would move bards out of the arcane camp and put them in with monks as a kind of spirit/ki power source (which could include psionics if you like psychics in your swords and sorcery), and maybe shadow energy too if it came to that.
Reminds me of the essence vs channeling vs mentalism division in the Rolemaster.
Or, perhaps, they realize that people irrationally freak out when they see "magic" and "at-will" in the same sentence, regardless of whether the effect is actually powerful or not.
Some folks are still freaked out by cantrips being castable at will... *shrug*
Just tagging the thread.
One of the things I did like about 4E was that all magic was not "just" arcane or divine. Clerics powered by deities but Druids powered by nature, considered different power sources. (Wizard and Bards need to be different here too.)
That's no different from Pathfinder. Pathfinder simply does not spell it out. I prefer it that way. We don't need to compartmentalise and spell out everything.
Clerics receive their magic from deities (or maybe a concept, depending on whether that is an option in the setting), wizards gain power from study, etc. We don't need a "Power Source: X" entry for that to be true.
Each power source could have its own methodology of distributing
Pathfinder's way is better: Here, every class can have its own methodology independent of their "power source". Even if two classes share a "power source", they need not be the same.
Take clerics and inquisitors. Both are divine casters, both usually get their magic from a deity, but the cleric prepares while the inquisitor is spontaneous.
I would move bards out of the arcane camp and put them in with monks as a kind of spirit/ki power source (which could include psionics if you like psychics in your swords and sorcery), and maybe shadow energy too if it came to that.
Nah. Bards use arcane magic. Doesn't mean they're the same as wizards, though. Because they're bards, not wizards. That they both use arcane magic doesn't change that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love Pathfinder as what 4th D&D was "meant to be", and the true spiritual successor to D&D 3.5.[expletive deleted] like this is why the damnable edition war will never end. Why can't you just be happy with Pathfinder without feeling the need to rip at 4E?
Actually no.
Matt had a very valid opinion. The temperature of the thread only increased when someone accused him of edition warring.
Stating your opinion of not liking a game like 4e is NOT edition warring no matter how much one would like it to be.
It's the standard American problem of finding offense where none is intended.