Pathfinder 1E Finally Looked at the Pathfinder Rules...

[Mark Chance]

Have you ever waited for the party to decide to teleport somewhere or walk? If so, you will see the casters dictating the game pace.

Frankly I fin your statement disingenuous.

In order for you to find my statement lacking in candor or sincerity, you'd have to have actually played in one of my games. Since you haven't....

Now, back to Pathfinder.

Feh, everybody rest as our biggest overwhelmingly baddest gun is out of ammo was "correct" game strategy, not somebody trying to break the game. The DM can only pull so many rush rushes to try and fight it. In the end it doesnt wash.

Fine. Whatever. I answered your question. Your premise that casters dominate the game is, at best, only true sometimes in some places. As I've said, I've seen plenty of counterexamples over the past 30+ years. Unlike some of the PF detractors in this thread, I've actually played PF, most recently today.

So, regarding the OP's request for input from people who've actually experienced PF: Go for it. You might like it. If not, that's okay. At minimum, you won't hurt my feelings.

 

[Piratecat]

Mark, your point is fine but in case anyone missed my caution at the bottom of the previous page. Enough, please. I'd like to steer this towards more discussion and less bickering on everyone's part.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

Well, after playing 4th again for the first time in a few weeks I thought I'd do a little bit of what I'd found.

I played a level 12 split stat paladin of Bane today, and it was awesome. He was generating temp hp out the wazoo and his marks were next to impossible to ignore. While it's true that mot paladins are similar I found that the group interaction is completely different, depending on the people you're playing with. 4th seems to be more group oriented.

3.5 seems to be more player oriented, allowing for finer tweaks. While I do like the idea I'm not sure if the system pulls it off, but then again I haven't actually played a Pathfinder game. The system looks like it takes 3.5's options and expands them, which is awesome.

Ultimately the two systems tell very different types of stories, and that's enough to keep both systems around. I think I'd like to get into the differences that I see theoretically at some point in this thread, but considering that it's been a long day I think I'll make those observations later.

Keep it peaceful, guys!

 

[Dice4Hire]

Original text removed by Admin. Dice4Hire, which part of "enough" and "don't bicker" wasn't clear? ~ Piratecat

But to the OP, one of the better things about Pathfinder is that there is a very good SRD at

Pathfinder SRD (Pathfinder_OGC)

so it is possible to see the basics there, for free.

Give it a look.

 

[Turtlejay]

*headdesk*

Before this draws the big edition warriors, does anyone have anything to say to my worry about non-pathfinder 3.5 products and their balance? Like, if I wanted to play a Beguiler or a Warmage, how balanced would that be with the revamped core classes? How much work would it be adapting skill proficiencies? Spell lists? Paragon Paths? As I said earlier (and I realize I'm not the OP, hope this isn't too much of a threadjack) I really think for me 3.5's strong suit is it's crazy variety in character creation. I'd hate to be stuck with just the base classes available in the SRD.

Jay

 

[dm4hire]

Turtlejay - You should have no problem playing optional 3.5 classes. Part of Pathfinder's objective was to bring the core classes up to a level in line with the classes found outside of it, such as the Beguiler and Warmage. Other than calculating CMB/CMD there won't be much converting. There are several threads though on Paizo's forums that cover converting for those classes though if you find them lacking.

Converting them over to 4e will take a lot more work though I am pretty sure others have done that and it's just a matter of looking for it. When it comes to the more specialized classes like the Beguiler though I think you might lose some of the flavor in 4e as classes in it tend to be even more focused than it. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I worry that the flavor might come out a bit stale.

Edit: Here's the forum on Paizo's site where you can find Pathfinder conversions.

 

[Coldwyn]

*headdesk*

Before this draws the big edition warriors, does anyone have anything to say to my worry about non-pathfinder 3.5 products and their balance? Like, if I wanted to play a Beguiler or a Warmage, how balanced would that be with the revamped core classes? How much work would it be adapting skill proficiencies? Spell lists? Paragon Paths? As I said earlier (and I realize I'm not the OP, hope this isn't too much of a threadjack) I really think for me 3.5's strong suit is it's crazy variety in character creation. I'd hate to be stuck with just the base classes available in the SRD.

Jay

Really depends on the class. If I take a look at the PF classes, I´d say "Increase HD by one type, slap one some flashy extra powers and at wills", but that doesn´t hold true for all classes. My guess is that one will have real trouble doing an adeqaute conversion of the warlock, dragon shaman and so on.
Additionally, creating exiting choices for old classes is a dredge. Creating multiple arcane schhols to choose from for arcane classes, or multiple demon pacts for warlocks or hexblade sure is a chore.
And no, don´t doing this is neither a real conversion nor a service to the player.

 

[BryonD]

*headdesk*

Before this draws the big edition warriors, does anyone have anything to say to my worry about non-pathfinder 3.5 products and their balance? Like, if I wanted to play a Beguiler or a Warmage, how balanced would that be with the revamped core classes? How much work would it be adapting skill proficiencies? Spell lists? Paragon Paths? As I said earlier (and I realize I'm not the OP, hope this isn't too much of a threadjack) I really think for me 3.5's strong suit is it's crazy variety in character creation. I'd hate to be stuck with just the base classes available in the SRD.

Jay

You won't be stuck at all. If the other class was weak before, then it will be weak now. If it was really powerful before, then it will be a small bit less powerful than it was. But all in all it ends up in the same basic range.

Skills are very simple to adapt. If you old character had ranks in Hide or Move Silently, they have ranks in Stealth now. And in the likely case that they had ranks in both, some of those skill points are now freed up. But everything maps neatly over. And it would not be difficult to just keep the old skill system if you prefer.

As for 3PP spells, you can probably use them as is and continue to have the same result. If you thought it was broken before, PF won't fix it. But if you thought it was fine, nothing about PF will disrupt that. You could probably very easily follow the trends established in PF spell tweaking if you wanted to be completely in sync. But it isn't at all mandatory.

You won't be stuck at with anything. My complete 3E library is still on the shelf and I don't even think of PF as a different game.

In Paizo's own words: 3.5 survives 3.5 thrives. They built it with keeping all the foundation of 3.5, and everything built upon that foundation.

 

[BryonD]

Really depends on the class. If I take a look at the PF classes, I´d say "Increase HD by one type, slap one some flashy extra powers and at wills",

Thats a good point. D4 HD do become D6, so that should change. And if you are looking at a light fighter type class, a step up in HD may be appropriate there.

The "at wills" mostly turned in to 3+primary stat, but its kinda a wash really. If you want to keep that vibe going, pick a "go to" 1st level spell and let the class a slightly weakened version of that with X uses per day. Basically it fills in those turns when you don't want to do something better (for example, burn an actual spell) but it gives you something more in the spirit of the class to do than fire a crossbow.

Wizards and sorcerers both gain other extras at a few levels along. As it seemed to be the trend that most new classes received more special abilities as they gained levels, this probably is not a concern. In the end the specials go much further to make a dragonblooded sorcerer feel distinct from a transmuter wizard from a diviner wizard from an infernal sorcerer, than it does to increase their overall power.

 

[rgard]

Thats a good point. D4 HD do become D6, so that should change. And if you are looking at a light fighter type class, a step up in HD may be appropriate there.

The "at wills" mostly turned in to 3+primary stat, but its kinda a wash really. If you want to keep that vibe going, pick a "go to" 1st level spell and let the class a slightly weakened version of that with X uses per day. Basically it fills in those turns when you don't want to do something better (for example, burn an actual spell) but it gives you something more in the spirit of the class to do than fire a crossbow.

As a DM, that's the route I'm taking. In addition, if you find that the Beguiler PF or Warmage PF character is lacking you can always modify the class as you go along. Nothing is written in stone.

Side note: Personally (having played D&D from OD&D through 3.x) I never had a problem with what to do with my Magic User (levels 1 to 4) once the spells ran out. At low levels the character would draw his dagger and melee. Did throw some darts too, but that was too wimpy. I did manage to get one straight MU and one straight Illusionist to name level playing that way. Lost a few MUs that way, but I stayed engaged in the game.

A 3.x wizard getting the crossbow proficiency was a paradigm breaker for me!

Thanks,
Rich