PDA

View Full Version : ToB and Pathfinder



Mark Hall
2009-06-28, 07:57 PM
Has anyone gone about combining these? We're currently in a Pathfinder game, and someone really wants to use the ToB. While the DM is not going to let him (he wants to see how Pathfinder works on its own), we are curious as to how the two combine. It seems to me that the change in many feats, making them actions instead of modifiers (for example, Cleave isn't something that happens when you kill someone, but an action you can choose to take that lets you get two hits), would combine well with ToB, giving people options when they're out of maneuvers.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2009-06-28, 08:25 PM
This is an alpha based thread, but you may find it useful to start with: ToB in Golarion (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/feedback/alpha2/general/timeframeOnNextRelease).

Basically, all is good, except changing the Warblade recover maneuver mechanic. They get royally screwed by changing it. That and we left the 'base' classes in the game; changing it how they recommend into a feat chain would really cause the flavor to be lost.

But, making all the "Concentration" checks in 3.5 into "Martial Lore" checks in Pathfinder really helped us as far as our game goes for simplicity. (as "Concentration" became part of Spellcraft in Pathfinder).

GreyMantle
2009-06-29, 04:13 PM
Given that fighters were royally screwed over by Pathfinder, using ToB would be an excellent idea.

DragoonWraith
2009-06-29, 04:19 PM
Given that fighters were royally screwed over by Pathfinder, using ToB would be an excellent idea.
Curious: How so? They get everything they used to, plus a few other things. None of them are amazing, but they are there.

Or are you referring to Power Attack? Yes, ok, but that's not the Fighter, necessarily... it's just one of the few good things the Fighter ever got...

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-29, 04:29 PM
Curious: How so? They get everything they used to, plus a few other things. None of them are amazing, but they are there.

Or are you referring to Power Attack? Yes, ok, but that's not the Fighter, necessarily... it's just one of the few good things the Fighter ever got...

Power Attack, Improved Trip, the loss of Dungeoncrasher, nerfs to magic weapons (minor ones, but enough that you can see it).

Oh, and the fact that their Fighter is a near-carbon copy of many of the Fighter fixes posted in homebrew forums around the net means they missed a lot of important details. And the head developer refuses to listen to people from CO boards on Gleemax or Brilliant Gameologists (and even ignored Frank Trollman's advice) despite the advice being given being vital to game balance.

And I'm not even going to start with whats wrong with the Candle of Invocation...

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-29, 04:30 PM
Curious: How so? They get everything they used to, plus a few other things. None of them are amazing, but they are there.

Or are you referring to Power Attack? Yes, ok, but that's not the Fighter, necessarily... it's just one of the few good things the Fighter ever got...Fighter got about 3 good things. Pathfinder wrecked one of them(for no apparent reason, too). Yeah, that's pretty screwed.

There may be other things I haven't noticed, but that's the core of it IMHO.

DragoonWraith
2009-06-29, 04:36 PM
Didn't notice Improved Trip... that's pretty poor.

As for Dungeoncrasher... that's not Core, I assumed that rather than being "gone", it was merely "hasn't been converted yet", and something that would be up to DMs to figure out how to use in Pathfinder (at least, my Pathfinder DM is pretty cool about considering other 3.5 sources).

And I really haven't been through all the magic weapons, so I'm not sure exactly what you mean but will take your word for it.

I do agree that their "fixes" are poor, but that's not the same as a nerf.

Of course, one could argue that by doing pretty much the same thing to Wizards and Sorcerers (leave what they had, but add a few little bonuses), they effectively nerfed the rest of the classes. That particular choice... yeah. I mean, sure, you look and you say "there's no reason to continue as a Wizard or a Sorcerer, at all", but their spells more than made up for that as it was. To give them more... yeah.

AvatarZero
2009-06-29, 05:03 PM
Of course, one could argue that by doing pretty much the same thing to Wizards and Sorcerers (leave what they had, but add a few little bonuses), they effectively nerfed the rest of the classes. That particular choice... yeah. I mean, sure, you look and you say "there's no reason to continue as a Wizard or a Sorcerer, at all", but their spells more than made up for that as it was. To give them more... yeah.

Wizards get a few additions that go way beyond little bonuses. A Wizard with Arcane Bond: Item being able to cast one spontaneous spell each day from their spellbook is pretty nice. Bigger than that is the CL8 Generalist Wizard bonus. You get a number of free level discounts to apply to metamagic equal to your caster level. That's right folks, all generalist Wizards get Divine Metamagic at level 8, except that it works every metamagic feat you possess. Oh dear.

DragoonWraith
2009-06-29, 05:04 PM
Oh! Yeah, I remember that now. *sigh*

Yeah, OK, forget that.

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-29, 05:15 PM
Wait, wait, wait. Wait...

Did I just read correctly, that while Wizards are getting FREE DIVINE METAMAGIC, and stuff, Fighters have had their few worthwhile toys taken away?

I must be missing something here. It's the only explanation.

Sinfire Titan
2009-06-29, 07:19 PM
Wait, wait, wait. Wait...

Did I just read correctly, that while Wizards are getting FREE DIVINE METAMAGIC, and stuff, Fighters have had their few worthwhile toys taken away?

I must be missing something here. It's the only explanation.

And their capstone is a permanent reduction in metamagic costs.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-06-29, 09:55 PM
Did I just read correctly, that while Wizards are getting FREE DIVINE METAMAGIC, and stuff, Fighters have had their few worthwhile toys taken away?

And sorcerers have gotten a boost too, because of course they aren't nearly at the wizard's or cleric's level and desperately needed it.

half eaten oreo
2009-06-29, 10:14 PM
We just played a lvl 12 one shot using pathfinder rules, and the fighter seemed to do very well. One player wanted to play an ubercharger and was angry when he found out about power attack, but the player who played the reach fighter did very well. The new feats are pretty cool and give the fighter different things to do every round which was my biggest gripe with 3.5 fighter.

Would prefer if they changed armor and weapon training to something similar to the rogue talents rather than static bonuses, but the bonuses are pretty decent.

GreyMantle
2009-06-30, 02:50 PM
Yeah. Paizo was really just astonishingly stupid with their creation of Pathfinder. I mean, people like Frank aren't necessarily the most humble people around, but they really do know what they're doing. It just turned into a Jason-ego-wank.

If you want something that's more balanced but avoids sweeping revisions to the game (which Frank's stuff certainly does), you could try ToB and the "limited" caster classes (beguiler, et al).

Person_Man
2009-06-30, 04:23 PM
Given the modular nature of 3.X, it's pretty easy to combine any two elements. An experienced DM can usually handle things by ramping up or down the difficulty of his encounters. Rule 0 covers any inconsistencies or contradictions. The worst thing that can happen is that Player A is far more powerful then Player B. But that's always been an issue. And if it comes up in your game, just throw Player B more treasure or a free template or something to even things out.