Pathfinder 1E Sell me on Pathfinder....

Oryan77 · Oct 19, 2009

Thanael said:
4. Buy the Trailblazer pdf.

I actually just got this the other day and have been reading through it as I get the time. Like I told Wulf when he linked me to the download, the first thing I saw in that pdf was, "One of the most frustrating and baffling problems to arise from 3e is the sense of entitlement and empowerment that players experienced."

I shed a tear when I read that

pawsplay · Oct 20, 2009

Oryan77 said:
Well that was my original thought. But people were saying that the PF classes were more powerful than 3.5 classes. So I didn't want to use PF classes if I was going to need to adjust CRs of encounters.

Also, another thing I just realized was that PF classes are going to be referring to the PF skill list. I actually prefer the skills to not be merged. I like having the options. Would using the 3.5 skills with PF classes be a problem other than the player referring to the 3.5 class to get their skill list?

No, no problem, if that's how you roll. The Pathfinder rules for class skills would still work with 3.5, too.

pawsplay · Oct 20, 2009

ssampier said:
Wow. You guys make this sound really cool.

How much time to convert from 3.0/3.5? I have lots of 3.x books I have never used from Eberron to Necromancer Games scenarios.

It took about fifteen minutes per 18th level PC to convert my existing campaign. It takes about one minute, thirty seconds for most monsters. You might spend a little more time with major encounters.

Standard monster conversion goes like this:
- Add +1 hit point per HD if their Hit Die increased
- Add extra feats, replacing any feats that are now inappropriate
- Either scratch out "grapple" and write "CMB" or calculate CMB
- Decide if you care about skills. If so, determine if the monster now has excess skill ranks and spend them.

Scurvy_Platypus · Oct 20, 2009

Salthorae said:
huh?

Drat. You're right. It's in the Final not the Beta. *shrug* So that's a single mark in the Final's favor then (as far as I'm concerned). I still feel the Beta is better.

Salthorae said:
And Armor training increases max Dex with armor...which could still increase your AC....

Beta had that option, as well as actually increasing your AC. Which means that my fighter switching over from Beta to Final is losing 3 AC. As a Heavy Armor fellow that's strongly into Str/Con, it means pretty much everything hits him. Hell he's at an AC of 25 right now and getting the crap pounded out of him in Rise of the Runelords. AC dropping to 22 means old grannies with a potato are going to be smacking him.

The Fighter is still basically a crap option to pick under the Final rules. I say this as a guy that _plays_ Fighters and refuses to play casters.

I don't expect that my opinion is actually going to change the love everyone seems to be filled with for the Final rules. It also won't stop me from saying "Fighters got worse". How could they _not_? It was stated numerous times that the Final rules were going to be _more_ similar to 3.5 than the Beta rules; Beta pumped them up, Final knocks them back. *shrug*

pawsplay · Oct 20, 2009

The weaknesses of fighters were always overstated. At a medium level of optimization, a fighter and a warblade tended to do similar damage and both outperformed the barbarian by a smidge. However, the fighter was always vulnerable due to a lack of defenses and had not very much to do outside combat. In Pathfinder, the fighter's offensive output is stronger, mobility is higher, and they get a bonus versus fear. Pathfinder's revised skill rules (fewer skills, less punishing for cross-class skills) allow a fighter to be secondary in any of several roles, ranging from diplomacy to stealth to scouting.

While a fighter can rarely match the sheer "shazam" of high sneak attack builds or twinned admixutred spells, etc., over several rounds their damage output can be very high and consistent, they can use combat maneuvers very effectively (moreso in Pathfinder), and few opponents can completely ignore them (maybe a flyer with a weird DR type would be hard).

Salthorae · Oct 20, 2009

@Scury: Slightly off topic, but you could still request your DM to allow you the Heavy Armor Optimization, Greater Heavy Armor Optimization Feats from Races of Stone... that would offset your AC loss by 2

Back on topic: even if you take Scury's view of Fighters as still not good enough in the Final release of Pathfinder, all the classes got improvements and tweaks, and the sorcerer alone was enough to sell me on the game... I've always liked the idea of Sorcerers, but they basically sucked hard in 3.5. Now they have flavor and balance with other classes!

Maidhc O Casain · Oct 21, 2009

I tried to play Sorcerers in 3.5 because I also love the idea. Never could really make one work - they just didn't stack up well. Pathfinder Sorcerers are fun!