Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 201
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Starbuck_II's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: More Stats 'n' Stuff

    Quote Originally Posted by Saph View Post
    [*]Under Pathfinder Rules: Bob has Strength 18, a MW weapon, and +2 BAB (humans in Pathfinder get +2 to one stat, ie Strength for a Fighter). He makes one roll with his Combat Maneuver Bonus of +8 (+4 for Strength, +2 BAB, +2 Improved Trip) against the Ogre's CMD of 17 (10 + 3 BAB + 5 Str -1 Dex +1 Size). 60% chance of success, and you aren't counter-tripped unless you fail by 10 or more (which is impossible in this case). So the odds are more favourable, but the payoff is lower (since Improved Trip doesn’t grant a free follow-up attack anymore).
    I'm pretty sure +8 vs 17 is 55% chance.
    Because if you needed a 10 on a 1d20 that would be about 50% chance, but you need a 9 thus 55% chance.
    Why the extra 5% (60-55 =5)?

    But good handbook either way.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Saph's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    London, England.

    Default Re: The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook

    Quote Originally Posted by Longcat View Post
    Saph, what do you think of the changes they made to the Prestige classes? Are Arcane Archers actually (god forbid) playable now? Which ones were hit with a nerf stick, and which ones got buffed?
    Arcane Archers are much better. They now get 7/10 caster level progression, a better Hit Die, and instead of free enhancement bonuses on their arrows they get free special enchantments instead - flaming/frost/shock at 3rd-level, distance at 5th-level, burst at 7th-level, and holy (or whatever) at 9th-level. You can see for yourself here.

    However, it's worth noting that PrCs in general are relatively weaker than in 3.5. It's not that PrCs have been made worse, it's that most classes now have enough class features that PrCing out is no longer an automatic choice. Also, you don't get the favoured class +1 hp/+1 skill point with a prestige class.

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Mike_G's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Laughing with the sinners
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: More Stats 'n' Stuff

    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck_II View Post
    I'm pretty sure +8 vs 17 is 55% chance.
    Because if you needed a 10 on a 1d20 that would be about 50% chance, but you need a 9 thus 55% chance.
    Why the extra 5% (60-55 =5)?

    But good handbook either way.
    Needing a 10 or higher is 55%

    1-9 is a miss (9 possible rolls x 5% =45%)
    10-20 is a success (11 possible rolls x5% =55%)

    Needing an 11 would be 50/50 (1-10 fail, 11-20 success)
    Out of wine comes truth, out of truth the vision clears, and with vision soon appears a grand design. From the grand design we can understand the world. And when you understand the world, you need a lot more wine.


  4. - Top - End - #34
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2009

    Default Pathfinder

    I've started playing Pathfinder, and I do like some of the changes that were made. How do the playgrounders feel about it?
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    -Groucho Marx

    not nale, not-nale. thog help nale nail not-nale, not nale. and thog knot not-nale while nale nail not-nale. nale, not not-nale, now nail not-nale by leaving not-nale, not nale, in jail.

    I support LGBT In the playground.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Mongoose87's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder

    The word I would choose is "polarized."
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Roc View Post
    Ring of Evasion means never playing a monk with monk levels again. There is just no reason to dip that stuff. I know we're all about using every part of the buffalo here, but can we just admit that it's inedible?

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Golden State
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharkman1231 View Post
    I've started playing Pathfinder, and I do like some of the changes that were made. How do the playgrounders feel about it?
    I've run PfRPG. Same with D&D 4th edition and its discontinued version. Any specific questions?

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Ravens_cry's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default Re: Pathfinder

    I like it. I have never played 3.5. Well, once, in a pick up game that went nowhere, but otherwise no. I have played multiple sessions of 4.0, and I prefer Pathfinder.
    I am playing a Paladin, so my views may be biased.
    Last edited by Ravens_cry; 2010-01-04 at 07:42 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Calanon View Post
    Raven_Cry's comments often have the effects of a +5 Tome of Understanding

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Rixx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook

    I played a 3.5 Ranger before we switched our game over to Pathfinder, and liked the PF changes - especially how I could add in his desert background as a mechanical benefit as well as a flavor choice! Pathfinder is a lot less restrictive with character concepts, and the base classes are much more versatile.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Akal Saris's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook

    I've enjoyed it so far. A lot of the outrage tends to be over how Paizo didn't fix enough of the game's problems, which is true - but if you're angry about balance problems, why are you even playing 3.5?

    Anyhow, the overall trend was that most classes got slightly buffed and more interesting to play, the skills system was improved, and a lot of the annoying/arbitrary rules were done away with or condensed. It reminds me of the switch from 3.0 to 3.5 - not a huge leap, and easy enough to learn the new rules, but overall more enjoyable for most classes.

    Besides game balance, the other factors that influenced me to play it were that I like the art style more than 4E, I enjoy the adventure paths that Paizo puts out, I'm generally ambivalent about the campaign setting, and there is a local PF group nearby, whereas there aren't any 3.5 games running in the area. I also get to look forward to new books every few months, whereas WoTC will never print another 3.5 book.

    I don't plan on switching any of the older 3.5 games that I currently run to PF, but new games that I've started up have all been using the PF rules, which my PCs have enjoyed so far (one of them is WAY more into PF than I am, actually).

    Anyhow, Saph's guide to PF is very well done and about as objective and informed an opinion as you're likely to find on these forums.

    Oh, and here's a shot at a PF tier system along JaronK's lines:
    Tier 1 - if optimized can be the most important influence on most situations that the party faces in the game past 11th level, competently does 1-3 roles in party from 1-20
    Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Oracle, Sorcerer
    Tier 2 - "breaks" the game after 11th or so, with some difficulty due to lack of flexibility, competently does 1-3 roles in party from 1-20. Any class with high ranks in UMD and enough money could fit here as well once you hit high levels.
    Summoner
    Tier 3 - almost never breaks the game, yet competently does 1-3 roles in party from 1-20
    Paladin, Rogue, Ranger, Barbarian, Inquisitor, Bard
    Tier 4 - never breaks the game, competently does a single role or does a mediocre job at 1-3 different roles
    Monk, fighter, alchemist, cavalier
    Tier 5 - does maybe a mediocre job at 1 role
    Expert, warrior, aristocrat, adept
    Tier 6 - utterly useless
    Peasant
    Handbooks: (Hosted on BG)
    [3.5] The Poison Handbook
    [3.5] (New) Master of Shrouds Handbook
    [3.5 Base Class] Healer's Handbook

    Trophies!
    Spoiler
    Show

    Thanks to Strategos and Jumilk for the awesome Iron Chef trophies!

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Starbuck_II's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook

    Yeah, the Alchemist lacks brew potion (even though it fits them). Also they have 3/4th BAB but their warrior potion grants Str (in exchange for Cha damage). Really had to much caution in creation.

    They seem to lack a definive role. Bard at least can buff.

    So I can see Tier 4 easily.

    Why Cavalier?

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Akal Saris's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook

    Cavalier gets stuck down there mostly because they can't handle very many roles well, especially compared with the paladin.

    PF Paladin: Competent tank (especially good saves), competent damage vs. evil foes (a large number of what most parties face), mediocre damage otherwise, competent party face due to high charisma focus and the right skills, surprisingly competent healer (wands for out of combat, lay on hands for in combat and status effects), and has good mobility with a mount.

    Cavalier: Competent tank (but generally not as good as a paladin), competent damage vs. 1 foe/combat (with less damage than a paladin would do against an evil foe, but no alignment issues), mediocre damage otherwise, a mediocre party face compared with a paladin since they have much less utility from a high charisma, unable to heal, and good mobility with a mount.

    A charging-focused cavalier build probably hits T3 since that brings damage up significantly and several of the cavalier's class features involve charging, but otherwise there are very few other combat builds for a cavalier to pursue, and there isn't much need for a cavalier when a paladin does everything it can do, only better. And as a personal peeve, the cavalier is also unnecessarily fiddly, revolving around 2-3 sets of scaling minor bonuses from oaths and orders. It's not a horrible class, but it could have been much better designed.
    Handbooks: (Hosted on BG)
    [3.5] The Poison Handbook
    [3.5] (New) Master of Shrouds Handbook
    [3.5 Base Class] Healer's Handbook

    Trophies!
    Spoiler
    Show

    Thanks to Strategos and Jumilk for the awesome Iron Chef trophies!

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook

    Quote Originally Posted by Akal Saris View Post
    Oh, and here's a shot at a PF tier system along JaronK's lines:
    Tier 1 - if optimized can be the most important influence on most situations that the party faces in the game past 11th level, competently does 1-3 roles in party from 1-20
    Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Oracle, Sorcerer
    Tier 2 - "breaks" the game after 11th or so, with some difficulty due to lack of flexibility, competently does 1-3 roles in party from 1-20. Any class with high ranks in UMD and enough money could fit here as well once you hit high levels.
    Summoner
    Tier 3 - almost never breaks the game, yet competently does 1-3 roles in party from 1-20
    Paladin, Rogue, Ranger, Barbarian, Inquisitor, Bard
    Tier 4 - never breaks the game, competently does a single role or does a mediocre job at 1-3 different roles
    Monk, fighter, alchemist, cavalier
    Tier 5 - does maybe a mediocre job at 1 role
    Expert, warrior, aristocrat, adept
    Tier 6 - utterly useless
    Peasant
    I disagree with most of these. The only classes that actually go up a tier are Paladin and Rogue, and Paladin only goes up 1. (Edit, I don't think that the rogue actually goes up a full tier, especially with the "stealth nerfs" to blinking etc. But rogue was at the top of tier 4 before, and they didn't need much help to enter tier 3).

    Sorcerer is still limited by his spells known. His class abilities are nice, but nowhere near the flexibility of a tier 1 caster.

    Paladin still is pretty much a 1 trick pony, he has just become actually effective at his trick. That puts him in tier 4.

    Ranger isn't significantly improved. He only reaches tier 3 if WS ranger is an option, and even then I'm not sure given the nerfs to WS. With barbarian it is arguable if they improved at all. They are certainly still a 1 trick pony. Tier 4.

    Monks and fighters are arguably more effective, but the core problems of their classes aren't actually addressed. Monks still don't have an effective role in combat that they fill well. They don't have full BaB. Their class features don't synergize well, etc. Fighters gain some static bonuses, but they are still the same 1 trick ponies they are in 3.5. Worse, there are as many nerfs to fighter stuff as bonuses, so much so that many fighter builds are actually worse. The fact that all classes get more feats gives the fighter less of a distinctive role versus the other melee. Both still tier 5.

    I don't have the new classes, so no opinion on them.
    Last edited by Gnaeus; 2010-01-22 at 09:43 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook

    Quote Originally Posted by Saph View Post
    Arcane Archers are much better. They now get 7/10 caster level progression, a better Hit Die, and instead of free enhancement bonuses on their arrows they get free special enchantments instead - flaming/frost/shock at 3rd-level, distance at 5th-level, burst at 7th-level, and holy (or whatever) at 9th-level. You can see for yourself here.

    However, it's worth noting that PrCs in general are relatively weaker than in 3.5. It's not that PrCs have been made worse, it's that most classes now have enough class features that PrCing out is no longer an automatic choice. Also, you don't get the favoured class +1 hp/+1 skill point with a prestige class.
    Dragon Disciple is so much better that it is playable now. 7/10 spellcasting + advances your sorcerer draconic bloodline. I see Paladin/Sorcerer/DD as maybe the most improved build in the game.

    Assassin lost its spellcasting, which in my mind is a huge nerf.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Person_Man's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook

    Buffs for non-Pathfinder classes that you might convert to Pathfinder:
    • Incarnate: Most soulmelds provide a Skill bonus of some type. Now that Skills have been consolidated, many soulmelds effectively become twice as powerful. More importantly, the ability to by non-class Skills on a one-for-one basis means that the Incarnate no longer has to dip into another class or have ridiculous Int in order to be an effective Skill Monkey.
    • Totemist: Same deal as Incarnate, though less so. Totemist soulmelds cover fewer Skills, and Totemists have fewer essentia points to throw around. Still handy though.
    • Marshal: A one level dip for your Cha bonus to Str checks is a lot more potent given the CMD rules.
    • Factotum: Although he has to wait until 3rd level to get it, Int to Str checks is a lot Str checks is a lot more potent given the CMD rules. And as an Int based class with and with 8 Skill Points per level and all Skills as class Skills, it wouldn't be unrealistic for a Human (now with +2 to any stat AND bonus Skill Points!) Factotum to be able to max out more then a 12ish different Skills which would cover 20ish different Skills in 3.5.
    • Swashbuckler: Daring Outlaw (19/20 BAB and full Sneak Attack) is suddenly a lot more attractive given the changes to Rogue.
    • Spirit Shaman: Nerfing the Druid makes him a more attractive alternative for someone who wants to play a caster focused nature class.


    Unfortunately, a LOT of other classes now seem even less powerful then they did before in comparison to the buffed up Pathfinder classes. Scout, Ninja, Hexblade, Soulknife, Knight, Samurai (should we create a Tier 7?).

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Matthew's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Kanagawa, Japan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook

    Interesting stuff; nice work, Saph!
    It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one’s own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

    – Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350), Tsurezure-Gusa (1340)

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Orc in the Playground
     
    AustontheGreat1's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    I live in Alabama
    Gender
    Male

    Default Pathfinder Question

    I've heard a lot about pathfinder and until recently I didnt really explore it, but I've read a little about it and I'm interested. I've found a pathfinder core rulebook on sale in town and I'm pretty sure I'm gonna buy it. My main question is, is it very similar to the DnD system or would I be learning a whole new system?

    And, of course I'm interested in hearing any comments or pieces of advice on the subject.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    U.S.

    Default Re: Pathfinder Question

    Pathfinder is essentially a book of houserules for 3.5. It's almost identical, which can kinda make it harder to learn in a way because you have the illusion that you already know things that were actually changed.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Viletta Vadim View Post
    Pathfinder is essentially a book of houserules for 3.5. It's almost identical, which can kinda make it harder to learn in a way because you have the illusion that you already know things that were actually changed.
    Basically 3.5 core ruleset that have been tweaked, it is fun in some ways. But it is not for everyone.
    Around here I have a very responsible position. Every time something goes wrong I'm responsible.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    randomhero00's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009

    Default Re: Pathfinder Question

    Very similar. But many small things have changed. Which means you still need to read through almost nearly the entire thing... expect it to take awhile to get caught up on that huge book. If you like 3rd and not 4th its a nice change. But if you like 3rd and already have 3.xe books...well there's not really a huge reason to change. You can update 3.xe books to pathfinder but its annoying. Summary: overall probably an improvement, but its not worth the cost to many.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    sonofzeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008

    Default Re: Pathfinder Question

    GOOD: It boosts most base classes, definitely boosts all base races, nerfs a few spells, and simplifies trip/grapple/disarm. Staying in a single class is now more optimal.

    BAD: Non-core classes now kind of suffer in comparison, non-core races definitely suffer in comparison, it doesn't fix many of the worst loopholes, and the trip/grapple/disarm fix is contentious at best. It also has some really random nerfs, like (I believe) Monks can't take "Improved Natural Attacks" any more and don't really have their core problems fixed.

    NEW: A lot of spells have been changed, trip/grapple/disarm works totally differently now, and the official cosmology has changed. Every class/race has been altered, and a lot of little rules have changed. For example, Rogues now get d8 HD, a bunch more class features, and Sneak Attack isn't blocked by critical immunity (though the target still needs a "discernable anatomy").




    CONCLUSION: It works well as a cohesive set of houserules to core-only 3.5 D&D. It's possible to use non-core, but changes enough that integrating things becomes awkward, though not impossible. If you routinely use Swashbuckers and Wu Jen and Warlocks and Knights and Factota, you may want to give PF a pass. If you have you own set of fixes already, you may want to give PF a pass. If you routinely stick to the official rules and the core books, it could be a good improvement to your game... and there's plenty of supplimental classes/feats/whatever that they've added through Adventure Paths, so it's not like you can't branch out (or houserule non-core stuff to fit).
    Last edited by sonofzeal; 2010-01-31 at 02:03 PM.
    Avatar by Crimmy

    Zeal's Tier System for PrC's
    Zeal's Expanded Alignment System
    Zeal's "Creative" Build Requests
    Bubs the Commoner
    Zeal's "Minimum-Intervention" balance fix
    Feat Point System fix (in progress)

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by JadePhoenix View Post
    sonofzeal, you're like a megazord of awesome and win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Roc View Post
    SonOfZeal, it is a great joy to see that your Kung-Fu remains undiminished in this, the twilight of an age. May the Great Wheel be kind to you, planeswalker.

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Frosty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Re: Pathfinder Question

    Quote Originally Posted by sonofzeal View Post
    CONCLUSION: It works well as a cohesive set of houserules to core-only 3.5 D&D. It's possible to use non-core, but changes enough that integrating things becomes awkward, though not impossible. If you routinely use Swashbuckers and Wu Jen and Warlocks and Knights and Factota, you may want to give PF a pass. If you have you own set of fixes already, you may want to give PF a pass. If you routinely stick to the official rules and the core books, it could be a good improvement to your game... and there's plenty of supplimental classes/feats/whatever that they've added through Adventure Paths, so it's not like you can't branch out (or houserule non-core stuff to fit).
    That's not to say it can't be done though. In the campaign I'm about to run, a fair portion of my houserules are either PF-inspired or directly taken from PF itself. If you already have a good sense of what's balanced and what's not, feel free to incorporate parts of PF into your game.
    NS2...it's time to evolve again.

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    KiwiImperator's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009

    Default Re: Pathfinder Question

    It's some pretty solid work, insofar as I've seen. My group and I have switched over to Pathfinder, since we're all pretty big fans of Paizo's adventure paths. They did a pretty good job of making all of the classes viable gameplay options, and sanded off a lot of the rougher corners of ol' 3.X. There are still a few holes, mostly to do with the CMB stuff, but I'll say this: They poured a TON of work into making all of the core classes interesting. Fighter actually has a lot of depth now, and you can end up with a Shuggoth-blooded sorcerer punching people from 15 feet away with his freaking mutant arms, all that good stuff.

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Orc in the Playground
     
    AustontheGreat1's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    I live in Alabama
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Question

    thanks for all the input. Im still pretty much set on buying, even though I heard mixed things, cost of the book isnt really an issue as I still have some of those useless (Though much appreciated, I'm not in ungrateful.)) gift cards I can blow on it.

    Though unfortunately, the place I'm buying it only has the Core Rulebook which from my understanding is basically an amalgam of the Players Handbook and the DMG. I can always use the Pathfinder SRD, for the monsters.

    But, does anyone know of any supplements that I should make sure and check out? or is the supplemental options for the pathfinder set extremely limited in that respect?

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    U.S.

    Default Re: Pathfinder Question

    Supplements are currently scarce. The current big ones are the Bestiary (which is pretty much essential unless you want to draw all monsters off the PRD), their campaign setting (if you have any interest in campaign settings), and... I think that's all for now. The Advanced Player's Guide is a work in progress, and you can download the beta classes from Paizo's site.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Question

    "Factota"
    props on proper pluralization of a latin-based name :P

    I haven't played any pathfinder yet, but I just got it and am just gushing over it. I converted my Warblade/Sorc to it, and I am liking the cool new stuff that I am getting for my sorcerer side, and since ToB rocks so much ass, I am not dissapointed that it didn't get a coolness boost. The only thing that makes me sad is that I am prestiging currently in a homebrew ToB/Arcane class, so I won't be able to see a lot of the higher end Sorceror features. OH my god, though...I want to play a Paladin! >:]

    IN short, Pathfinder definitely takes all the core classes and dashes some cool on them. The only things I can think of that *might* be nerfed are clerics/druids (and I'm sure that would break people's hearts :P), and if I recall, they made Specialists get specialist powers instead of extra spells per day.

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Frosty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Re: Pathfinder Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Susano-wo View Post
    "Factota"
    props on proper pluralization of a latin-based name :P

    I haven't played any pathfinder yet, but I just got it and am just gushing over it. I converted my Warblade/Sorc to it, and I am liking the cool new stuff that I am getting for my sorcerer side, and since ToB rocks so much ass, I am not dissapointed that it didn't get a coolness boost. The only thing that makes me sad is that I am prestiging currently in a homebrew ToB/Arcane class, so I won't be able to see a lot of the higher end Sorceror features. OH my god, though...I want to play a Paladin! >:]

    IN short, Pathfinder definitely takes all the core classes and dashes some cool on them. The only things I can think of that *might* be nerfed are clerics/druids (and I'm sure that would break people's hearts :P), and if I recall, they made Specialists get specialist powers instead of extra spells per day.
    Druids got nerfed slightly. Wizards and Sorcerers got stronger. Yeah. Stronger.
    NS2...it's time to evolve again.

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the Rainbow
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Question

    If you are playing 3.5 and looking to purchase all new core books (not really feasible to use a PF handbook in the same game with a 3.5 PHB) and ultimately toss out most of your supplements (since converting each thing will ultimately prove not to be worth it), then it is a good choice.
    Definition of DMPC:
    1: a character that if it was run by a non-DM would be considered a PC; a special kind of Ally (see p. 104 of the 3.5 DMG)
    2: (derogatory) any character used by a DM that disrupts the game
    Need to replace those core 3.5 books, check out Gauric Myths.

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    U.S.

    Default Re: Pathfinder Question

    Why do folks assume you have to convert everything if you want to use anything? If you have one or fifty or a thousand supplements, you still only have to convert the things people actually want to use, which is a much smaller number of things than 'all of it.' And a lot of the conversions amount to 'go ahead.'

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2007

    Default Re: Pathfinder Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Viletta Vadim View Post
    Supplements are currently scarce. The current big ones are the Bestiary (which is pretty much essential unless you want to draw all monsters off the PRD), their campaign setting (if you have any interest in campaign settings), and... I think that's all for now. The Advanced Player's Guide is a work in progress, and you can download the beta classes from Paizo's site.
    This in not true. Pathfinder is currently publishing their 3rd and 4th adventure arks. Each ark is a six book campain that usualy run from 1st to 15th level. There are also map packs available, and a companion. These usualy are $10-20. Compainions for an adventure are have detailed information of the city or region that the adventure takes place in. A very nice thing to have for both players and GMs. And there is more.

    Pathfinder is putting out companions for races, countries, and organizations. They are released monthly. The dwarf book came out just under two weeks ago.

    Pathfinder is also organizing a Pathfinder Society. Its pritty much their version of living Greyhawk. About 50 stand alone adventures have been written so far. You can order them off of the web sight. In PDF or hard copy. These adventures are ment to be 4 hour one shot adventures. They want peaple to play them and give feedback.

    D&D 3.5 is dead, and 4th ed is not going to last much longer. The cancelation of Star Wars SAGA looks to be forshadowing this. Almost every one that was invalved with D&D 3rd ed has jumped ship. They eather went on their own or work for Pathfinder. It's not 'just a bunch of house rules'. It's more like what 4th edition could have been.

    IF the OP wants to get the book he should. At the very least sit down in the book store are read some of it. Maybe you will like it, maybe not. At the very least judge the book for what it is. Not what D&D 3.5 is or is not.
    Last edited by Hawriel; 2010-02-01 at 09:26 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Land of long white cloud
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawriel View Post
    D&D 3.5 is dead,.
    This is a silly statement.
    3.5 isn't dead or about to die.
    I look at the book stores and there's no horde of 2nd hand 3.5 stuff out there.
    Hell, 2nd Ed isn't dead, and that's been out of print for ages.

    Stephen E

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •