Pathfinder 1E Power and Pathfinder Classes - Forked Thread: Pathfinder - sell me

[Voadam]

Heh, I disagree completely. I would say boosting hit points is a particularly bad way of increasing power-level. This is especially the case, since the biggest hit point boosts, both in absolute terms and even more so in relative terms accrue to the previously low-hit point classes... wizards, sorcerors et al.

[*]It increases the PCs' and NPCs' staying power thus prolonging fights.
[*]It is a way to boost power without adding any flavor (and it could be argued with actually removing some by moving the game ever further away from any notion of verisimilitude)
[*]The increases accrue most to the previously most powerful classes - spellcasters. Clerics and Druids are not directly affected by the hit dice increases (thankfully!), but Wizards and Sorcerers get a hit dice boost, whereas the previously weaker classes Fighters, et al do not.

I'm with Wulf on this.

Rangers, Rogues, Bards, sorcerers, and wizards get a boost on hp. Rangers and Rogues are expected to be in melee for TWF or getting in flanking sneak attacks. They have weak armor for lower ACs than melee tanks. Increasing hp helps them out in doing their combat jobs. Bards are the jack of all trades including rapier combat so they can use the boost as well.

Wizards and sorcerers get boosted up to beguiler HD levels, they become slightly less glass cannons, perhaps glass cannons with wooden frames. I expect PF wizards and sorcerers who take on front line roles where they risk significant damage to get chewed up, just slighltly less quickly than 3e ones. Their role is generally untouched back lines, this change of +1 hp per level does not seem to change that role IMO.

Also think about the interaction of hp and combat length. Increased hp generally = staying in combat longer. More rounds of combat means more combat round resources used. Core spellcasters have powerful but limited combat round resources. They start off strong and get weaker then tap out as they burn through spells. Longer combats in PF from increased hp means they go through more spells than in 3e and will end up using weaker spells in the extended rounds of combat duration.

Martial characters have more constantly useable attacks that are generally not as spectacular as spellcasters' top spells. Longer combats mean their attacks stay strong when the spellcasters' attacks fade.

Making fighters the dependable combat workhorses who relevantly stay strong to the end seems a good flavor issue.

In any case I don't expect the hp differences to be significant. I would not expect the +1 hp/level to allow more than 1 extra round of survivability in most situations, if that. But I think it is a push in the right direction.

Of note though is that increased hp also means that healing up to full requires more healing resources, so unless you import healing surges from 4e or some other mechanic this will be an issue.

 

[Betote]

That is the crux of the matter. Some DMs will be content to convert and capable of doing so. Some will do it well, others will do it poorly. I think many more will be content to discard. It further aggrivated by the notion there will be plenty of fresh 3.5-era crunch (Third Age, Dungeonaday) that isn't Pathfindered. (For good or ill, once 3.5 hit, all 3pp converted to 3.5 to jump on WotC's bandwagon. I don't foresee the same universal acceptance of Pathfinder, though I may be wrong).

I think you're wrong on this, and my experiences with the Beta seem to think so, too. When the Beta came out, I discarded my 3.5 PHB and DMG in favor of it, and never looked back. I've run mostly published 3.5 adventures, and I have only to "convert" the CMB for creatures of non-medium size (adding or substracting a value to the Grapple score). I've also used non-core basic classes (favored soul, beguiler, scout), spells from WotC's Spell Compendium and feats from AEG's Feats.

What was broken or unbalanced in the splatbooks in 3.5 is still so in the Beta, and what was balanced still is. I had to make no conversion of anything. I ban heavily, but that's just because I'm a control freak and I was doing it back with 3.5

And we have been said that the final installment (remember, we're talking about a BETA, not the final product) is closer to the SRD than what I've been used for months without any conversion needed. So I'm pretty convinced that Pathfinder products will be fully compatible with D&D3.5-era products, and vice versa.

Remember that Paizo's main objective with Pathfinder RPG is that you'll be able to run their adventures (written for the PFRPG) with your D&D 3.5 books. PFRPG is just something that's going to be in the shelves to support their 3.5 products.

 

[Remathilis]

qft....maybe i just need you t rewrite all of my posts from now on...

Well, I AM quoted in your signature. Twice.

 

[billd91]

no what I am saying is you gave the evadaince that helped (spell changes) in the same post you claimed I ignored things (How could I ignor what you had not posted yet)

So now you're saying that you never cracked open the PF Beta? That changes a bit, and I apologize for assuming you had some familiarity with it, though it would helped if you had dialed down the sarcasm that you had in earlier posts where it seemed that you were rebutting comments people made as if you had some knowledge of the Beta. It also would have helped if you hadn't been saying that they had done nothing to fix CODzilla when you were ignorant of what they have done.

I would suggest checking out the Beta. It's still free to download. In that document, you'll see what has been done to fighters to beef them up a bit.
Word of warning: There are lots of changes scattered throughout, not all obvious, but all designed to nudge the game in better directions. Some have been backed off on for the final product (because they didn't pan out that well in the Beta).

so now becuse these very nice people asked me to ty it I am again trying, and finding no one can give me a hard example of a fix...

Didn't you just get some in the post where I thought you were ignoring the evidence that something was done?

 

[zag01]

There're items called Nightsticks that let you get extra turning attempts. Them + DMM was what kept the CO board cheese going back in the day.

Ah yes the Character Op Boards. Well thats ONE way to play the game.

 

[Voadam]

qft....maybe i just need you t rewrite all of my posts from now on...


and this is what I was afriad of...if this is true then it IS worthless to me...I have my books for my older systems of D&D I would like to add to them not replace them...

If you feel that 3.0 is its own system that is incompatible with 3.5 and all your 3.0 books are now worthless to you I think you will consider pathfinder incompatible and worthless to you as well.

I consider PF beta differences similar to the changes from 3.0 to 3.5. I mix in 3.0, Arcana Evolved, d20 Modern, pathfinder beta, and various other stuff freely in my 3.5 games. Some I convert, some I use as is.

Seems very similar to using Basic, 1e, and 2e stuff in my 2e D&D game years ago.

True20 with its non hp damage save I consider a different animal as I do 4e. The mechanics from these are much more difficult to adopt straight into a 3.5 game, though some aspects like healing surges are IMO worth the effort.

 

[AllisterH]

Ah yes the Character Op Boards. Well thats ONE way to play the game.

Personally, I think the Char Op boards are a great thing. If a feat/class/spell is much talked about on the CharOp boards, you better believe I'm banning it from my home campaign....

 

[billd91]

3.5 made all 3.0 material (functionally) obsolete. Some stuff could be run with tweaks (modules and monsters mostly) but PC crunch all had to be revised (Hello Complete Warrior, goodbye Sword & Fist) converted by hand, or discarded. Most of the DMs I knew did the first or the last. Many (myself included) didn't allow 3.0 crunch after 3.5's arrival. Even as a DM, I rarely used MM2 because of compatibility headaches.

Part of the backward compatibility issue is a question of definition. People simply have different ideas of what that means. Personally, if there are only a few changes I need to make to use a 3.5 NPC in a PF game, then it's pretty much backward compatible. There may be other changes I could make, but I don't consider them important to backward compatibility unless I need to make them.

For your Monster Manual II example, I'd have been changing DR, a little info on constructs, and very little else. Sure, I could change the feats and skills but unless one is quite pertinent and important to be 100% correct (and face it, for NPCs that's almost never true), then I don't really care. The same will be true for the conversion to PF.

 

[Krensky]

I was told they would work with backwards compadable PF...what I found was it was so changed that alot of it wont work without overhauls (and I can over haul any 3.5 book to 4e if I spen enough time)

You need to double check your definition of backwards compatible. Pathfinder duplicates the functionality of 3.5 and is interoperable with products made for 3.5e. It's backwards compatible. Older materials sometimes need a few tweaks and often a complete rework gives nicer results, but the old stuff works fine. The play test boards repeat this over and over.

That is backwards compatibility. Pathfinder is backwards compatible with 3.0 and 3.5

 

[Mournblade94]

Now, that's harsh!

I didn't get what Wulf meant until I read YOUR reply.

That was pretty good.