Picking up Pathfinder

[danzibr]

Yes, I think it's finally going to happen.

I've played 3.0/3.5 since ~2003. Just yesterday I was looking at the PF SRD and saw some really nice looking stuff, like Aegis and their version of ToB.

Now, I don't plan on switching to PF, only picking it up, and by that I mean using both 3.5 and PF. So as a total novice to PF, here's my question to the playground. Which of the following do you suggest?

1. Using 3.5 as a base with 3.5 or PF content (whichever is more beneficial to the player, barring broken stuff).
2. Using PF as a base with 3.5 of PF content (whichever is more beneficial to the player, barring broken stuff).

Essentially I want to (and want to let my players) use 3.5 or PF at their discretion; hey, the more content the merrier. Because I know 3.5 better I'm tempted to say the former, but from what I've read (like the 3.5/PF handbook), it seems PF is a better base.

I guess option 3 would be to not mix the two, silly me.

[Elricaltovilla]

I would recommend using PF as a base, the consolidated skill system and extra feats are nice to have for building characters, especially with the huge number of feats available from using both sources. Plus most of the classes got a bit of a buff in the transition from 3.5 to PF, and its nice to have class features to look forward to.

I'm not familiar with Aegis, the only Tome of Battle port I know of is the Path of War by Dreamscarred Press, which you should definitely check out if you like Tome of Battle. They also have a really nice Psionics port, and are going to release an Incarnum port soon too.

[Vhaidara]

I recommend using PF as the base. The skill system doesn't mix back very nicely, and I personally prefer the PF one.

Path of War brought much more interesting initiators to the table (having features beyond the maneuvers.

For more stuff (currently in playtest), we have Truenaming, Incarnum, more ToB, and Vampires. Also, Binder.

EDIT: Elric, I think he meant the Aegis class and the PF ToB port (which is PoW). I think he was on the d20PFSRD

[Elricaltovilla]

EDIT: Elric, I think he meant the Aegis class and the PF ToB port (which is PoW). I think he was on the d20PFSRD

That is some wonky grammar then... Oh well, my bad.

[Greenish]

I'd say use 3.5 as the base (better feats, more useful combat maneuvers, less stupid magic item restrictions), and just nick PF's skill system. The favoured class thing is okay, though some of the racial options are just silly.

[Vhaidara]

That is some wonky grammar then... Oh well, my bad.

Mostly just leaving out "the" before "Aegis". "Their" was referencing PF.

But yeah, danz, DSP makes PF worth considering a complete transition. Ssalarn (the guy doing the Incarnum port) has confirmed that he is working on a port for Shadow Magic as well, so in about a year or two at tops (depending on how much other stuff he gets caught up with) every 3.5 subsystem will have been ported to PF.

[Elricaltovilla]

I'd say use 3.5 as the base (better feats, more useful combat maneuvers, less stupid magic item restrictions), and just nick PF's skill system. The favoured class thing is okay, though some of the racial options are just silly.

PF is less restrictive in magic items. For one thing, crafting doesn't cost XP, and there are feats that allow you to craft without being a caster.

Pathfinder also gives more feats total over the course of your career, and actual class features for classes that would otherwise have entire columns of blank spaces.

PF's skill system I guess we agree on, but even if you ignore PF's racial options for favored classes, it's miles ahead of whatever 3.5 thought they were doing.

I also like the way PF did races a lot more, since they actually have useable stats (Half-Orcs!) and worthwhile racial traits without slapping unnecessary LA on them.

[Almarck]

It would probably be easier to use Pathfinder as the base as Pathfinder adds so many fixes and changes that it's not always the same game.

For instance, I keep hearing archery in 3.5 was hard to pull of, whereas archery in Pathfinder is really strong.

Compare Manyshot in both versions:
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Manyshot

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat...combat---final

The difference is subtle, but it's there.

Power Attack has been reworked entirely, your mileage varies on whether you think the PF version is better or worse. I think the PF version is better because it's more consistent since it's a choice of "do you choose to power attack or not" rather than "subtract X to add X to damage where X cannot exceed BAB". It's certainly more efficient, but again, your mileage varies.

There's also power attack options for Dexbuilds and Ranged combat.

Edit: also, races are considerably better. You can customize your races legally and the core races feature alternate racials which can be swapped out with instructions in the listing. That's real minmax potential there.

[Psyren]

I prefer PF as the base for a lot of reasons - consolidated skills, better races, more feats, rebalanced core spells, mundanes can craft magic items, single-classing encouraged, better affliction and condition rules, I could go on. Just be wary that CMB/CMD requires optimization in order to work, and that if you really want to help mundanes out, you should probably consolidate the Improved and Greater versions of every maneuver feat.

[Greenish]

PF is less restrictive in magic items. For one thing, crafting doesn't cost XP, and there are feats that allow you to craft without being a caster.

Maybe less restrictive on creation, but more restrictive on body slots. 3.5 has the wonderful affinity rules and allows adding the basic "keep up with RNG" options to actually interesting items without a markup in price.


[Edit]: Not having multiclassing penalties counts in PF's favour. The favoured class bonuses are all over the place, though, from granting the fighter +1/3 to Disarm per level to granting the sorcerer +1 spell known per level. That's just… bad.

[Almarck]

Yeah, I was just about to say. Magic item slots are probably a downside.

Magic Item slots for Belt and Headband items is slightly more restrictive than before. They consolidate the Str, Dex, and Con boosting items into Belts and Int, Wis, and Cha for the headbands. This has two main drawbacks: in order to boost two or three attributes of the same type you have to pay an increased price to get Headbands or Belts of Superiority which is a net increase of cost. It's a downside particularly to straight martial characters or casters that need more than one mental attribute to use their powers to their fullest.

I believe the intention was to allow players more flexibility in their item slots later on as the increased price isn't really an issue once you can afford things, but it can be crippling at the early to mid levels.

On the otherhand, this means Cha based casters don't need to ask for their DMs for a way to not have to make a custom item to replace "Cloak of Resistence" when they have a maxed out "Cloak of Charisma" already, so it's not totally bad.

Also, it avoids the confusion of how getting boots increases your ability to increase your archery skills.

So, PF's item system is a mixed blessing on what it can do compared to 3.5. Stat boosting items are arguably more streamlined meaning more net flexibility on using slots that otherwise would have been taken up by other mandatory items.

[Vhaidara]

I houserule magic items slots almost into oblivion anyways, so I don't even consider that an issue in either system.

[Edit]: Not having multiclassing penalties counts in PF's favour. The favoured class bonuses are all over the place, though, from granting the fighter +1/3 to Disarm per level to granting the sorcerer +1 spell known per level. That's just… bad.

Well, remember that everyone has the option of +1 HP or +1 Skill Point.

[danzibr]

Thanks for the responses! That's enlightening.

Also, as for my wonky grammar, the only way I could see confusion is if Aegis were plural. Still, I see where there could be confusion.

And I do remember taking a pretty thorough look at their redo of Incarnum. I'm not a huge fan of the names, but mechanically it's really exciting. Totemist is my favorite class, after all.

Perhaps more exciting, it's all on the PF SRD (or well, I think it is... dunno much about PF).

[Greenish]

On the otherhand, this means Cha based casters don't need to ask for their DMs for a way to not have to make a custom item to replace "Cloak of Resistence" when they have a maxed out "Cloak of Charisma" already, so it's not totally bad.

On the grabbing hand, you can add charisma bonus and saves bonus to your awesome cloak of paragliding without paying extra in 3.5.

Also, it avoids the confusion of how getting boots increases your ability to increase your archery skills.

Because belt makes so much more sense?

Stat boosting items are arguably more streamlined meaning more net flexibility on using slots that otherwise would have been taken up by other mandatory items.

I'd say it's the exact opposite, where in 3.5 you can get your stat boosts without paying a premium to also get interesting options.


[Edit]:

Well, remember that everyone has the option of +1 HP or +1 Skill Point.

Doesn't really affect the fact that the racial bonuses are all over the place.

[Almarck]

It's a mixed blessing I said. Personally, I like the Homebrew system Crossroads uses to remove important statups and just having all of the slots be used for items outside of that.

Personally, I think the magic item system is less conflict inducing for pathfinder. For example, invisibility cloak versus cha boosting cloak on a sneaky spellcasting roguish character. Or swordsmanship boosting gloves over the ogre gauntlets on a swordsman.

The belt thing actually does make more sense in my opinion. It's relative the center of the body, allowing it distribute its power evenly. If it was the feet, how it affects the hands is a little befuddling.

I will concede that the favored class bonuses are all over the place, but that's probably intentional.

Thanks for the responses! That's enlightening.

Also, as for my wonky grammar, the only way I could see confusion is if Aegis were plural. Still, I see where there could be confusion.

And I do remember taking a pretty thorough look at their redo of Incarnum. I'm not a huge fan of the names, but mechanically it's really exciting. Totemist is my favorite class, after all.

Perhaps more exciting, it's all on the PF SRD (or well, I think it is... dunno much about PF).

The Plural for Aegis is Aegii I believe.

PFSRD has pretty much everything except for all of the setting specific materials and anything currently in development.

It also possesses a load of 3rd party materials, which is what PoW, Psionics, and Akshic Mysteries are, very good third party materials that many people just auto-include.

[Greenish]

Personally, I think the magic item system is less conflict inducing for pathfinder. For example, invisibility cloak versus cha boosting cloak on a sneaky spellcasting roguish character. Or swordsmanship boosting gloves over the ogre gauntlets on a swordsman.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. PF just moves the conflict to a different slot, while 3.5 allows you to have both.

The belt thing actually does make more sense in my opinion. It's relative the center of the body, allowing it distribute its power evenly. If it was the feet, how it affects the hands is a little befuddling.

Ah well, I don't see the difference personally. Magic boots that make you more agile don't seem any different from magic belt that makes you more agile.

[Thatwarforged]

If the issue is magic items that 1.5 for a different slot is easy enough to homebrew into the game (Btw I was just reading the Pathfinder Conversion and it specifically has this rule in it not for conversion but its already in the game maybe hidden somewhere in the Core rulebook). As overall I personally agree with everyone else pathfinder makes a better base and just port over the feats and things you liked in 3.5 and pathfinder has a conversion guide to do it to, not sure how good it is though (It talks about what pathfinder wanted to do and the way to make sure they don't creep into your game).

[Fishyninja]

Well a lot of my friends have been tabletopping for ages. I however have only just dipped my toe into the water.

I have just created my character and am awaiting my first game.
Now from what I have seen of PF and the expansions it does seem to be a really well rounded game and I can't wait to get started.

[BWR]

I am a fan of PF so I'd suggest using it as the base and port over whatever 3.x you want. About the only change in PF from 3.5 I dislike is how they reduced a lot of SoD effects to mere damage (and rather piddling damage in some cases).

[Greenish]

If the issue is magic items that 1.5 for a different slot is easy enough to homebrew into the game (Btw I was just reading the Pathfinder Conversion and it specifically has this rule in it not for conversion but its already in the game maybe hidden somewhere in the Core rulebook).

The issue is I'm a cheapskate who doesn't want to pay the +0.5 extra.

[Thatwarforged]

The issue is I'm a cheapskate who doesn't want to pay the +0.5 extra.

Umm are you sure about that the affinities are a little small to.

Wondrous Items that don't match the affinity for a particular body slot should cost 50% more than wondrous items that match the affinity

[Snowbluff]

Use 3.5 as the base. The PF commodities are pretty much terrible. Playing with flaws got us the same number of feats anyway. The skills system is a wash. THe only really good, system wide thing that's an improvement is the favored class bonus (a rule that never mattered in 3.5). EDIT: I mean the class ones, +1 skill point or HP can go die in a hole.

I do suggest using the DPS PoW. It's pretty sweet.

[Greenish]

Well, that's not a problem since most stat boosters etc. have affinity with 2-3 slots and can be combined with other items in those slots without a markup in the price.

[Psyren]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. PF just moves the conflict to a different slot, while 3.5 allows you to have both.

But there are only two stat-boosting slots as opposed to 6. Ergo there is still conflict, yes, but less of it.

In addition to that, PF added two new slots that 3.5 didn't have.

[Greenish]

But there are only two stat-boosting slots as opposed to 6. Ergo there is still conflict, yes, but less of it.

Except there's no conflict in 3.5, which is what I've been trying to explain for too long, but apparently I'm not getting through so never mind.

[Psyren]

Except there's no conflict in 3.5, which is what I've been trying to explain for too long, but apparently I'm not getting through so never mind.

There is, and you were even given specific and common examples (e.g. Cloak of Charisma vs. Cloak of Resistance.) You can get around this by combining the items, but that solution applies to PF as well.

[Greenish]

There is, and you were even given specific and common examples (e.g. Cloak of Charisma vs. Cloak of Resistance.) You can get around this by combining the items, but that solution applies to PF as well.

Except combining the two items costs more money in PF. In 3.5, having a Cloak of +2 Charisma and Resistance +2 costs the same as having a Cloak of Charisma +2 and a Cloak of Resistance +2. Or you could have a Diadem of +2 Charisma (head slot) and Vest of Resistance +2 (torso slot).

[Vhaidara]

Except combining the two items costs more money in PF.

Easiest. Houserule. Ever.

In 3.5, having a Cloak of +2 Charisma and Resistance +2 costs the same as having a Cloak of Charisma +2 and a Cloak of Resistance +2. Or you could have a Diadem of +2 Charisma (head slot) and Vest of Resistance +2 (torso slot).

And why can't you have those in PF?

[Greenish]

Of course you can houserule things however you want.

[Seerow]

Of course you can houserule things however you want.

Yeah basically this. Personally I use 3.5 as the base because I already know 3.5 well. It's easier to pull in PF material on a case by case basis, and backwards translate anything like class skills not matching up or CMD/CMB references, than it is to be worried every time I want to resolve a basic action I might be doing it wrong because Pathfinder changed some minor wording that I just glaze over without noticing that completely reverses how it works. I'd rather stick with what I know.