Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cor_Malek" data-source="post: 5348496" data-attributes="member: 91608">I'm no shopkeeper so I ain't selling stuff. I might address some of your questions though, especially since my initial stance toward PF was rather hostile as well <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />As you might see <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/295333-3-5-experiment-nerf-full-casters.html" target="_blank">here</a>, simply nerfing the casters is not a viable way to bring balance to 3e classes. Besides, for most players - it never was about casters breaking the game, but rather outclassing other characters and making them redundant. Which is why Paizo decided to only lightly debuff casters, and instead - give more power to lower-tier classes. Hence perceived power creep.But they retain "less but bigger" splat policy, so it's only initial shock. Classes introduced in APG were focused on flavour not on Power Up for $, which changed "power" equation between PF and 3.5 - core classes are better, but they didn't bring in stuff that makes the core redundant anyways.You might recall popular at times threads like: vampire druids or Cedric the rough paladin. So it's hardly anything new, and question whether to allow this (or playing non-human PC's) is as always in DM hands. What Paizo did, was codify it - so if you want to do this - here's how. If you don't - don't bother with this part.It's still far less ambiguous than what Gary originally intended when he introduced paladins to DnD. Upon reading one of his FAQ threads you'll stumble on how he describes paladin capturing enemies, allowing them to convert - and swiftly slitting their throats to help the avoid caving in to wicked ways again. He was also intended to be lawful only towards law of his god, so again - something many DMs would disallow.PHB p.31Again, instead of penalty for not following the developers carrot stick, they introduced award for those who do: you gain 1 hp or skill point each level you take your favoured class. Which is quite a big deal, really - you want to have as many skills as you can, especially early on - because of +3 bonus on class skills. And then, it helps to keep up with the spread out skills.1 hp per level quickly accumulates for low HD classes, quickly emulating permanent "false life" spell.It's still not a good idea to go level dipping in PF, even more so than in 3.5. See, every class has now a lot more class features, but you gain them gradually over the levels. They also scale as you go, so - yeah, you'll get a lot class features as a X lv 2/Y lv1/ Zlv3 - but you'd get nearly as many as X lv 6, and they'd be all much better than what you got.  Again, this is not something that has to do with rules, but how you play the game. Even the rule for wizards learning new spells per level was not intended as "Poof! Instant knowledge", but rather as rule explanation for wizard having some knowledgeable master.Heck, in most games I played in you wouldn't be able to put points in skill you had 0 ranks in even if it was a class skill for you. Same with weapon - I had to use bastard sword in two hands for a while before getting the exotic weapon feat for it.You want it - you roleplay it. Just as you describe it in two following paragraphs. This is not something where mechanics are to be brought in.Seriously, you need that spelled out? Again, it's a setting not a mechanics thing. I remember disclaimers about playing non-human / official races, but it's really not something I'd care for to spend time looking for.On the contrary, I'd require having it written that if you go into town as member of race people normally would slay on sight - you don't get attacked. And I'd require such rule so I could houserule it back.But yeah, in PF default setting it's actually spelled out - ie if you go to Cheliax even as a halfling - everyone will assume you're a slave. Go as a tiefling, and everyone will treat you like a dog.I think you rather looked for mechanics spelling out rules that do not belong in rulebook, but in campaign setting description.You either believe me, or not. I won't bother with quotations where rules are of secondary importance anyway. There was one part where it was important - favoured class, so there I mentioned the page (again, core rulebook, p.31)I'm a bit confused here. So you do or don't like multiclassing? Either way, it's still the same - it's good only as a way to meet prerequisites of PRC'sBards are not for power players, that's simply not the intention of the class. But with PF skill system, they're far more effective as jacks of all trades. They can make untrained knowledge checks.At 10th level, they can use any class in such way. from 5th level onwards, he can take a "20" on any knowledge check once a day (more as he progresses). On 19th he can take a "10" on any skill.Bards still get awful rep, but that's mostly due to old habits (similarly I keep hearing from DM's who don't go online that Druid is weak <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ).Of course, their relevance to combat scales with the number of party members, as they give bonuses to all allies. So a 3-man group is better off with someone other, but for 5-man group with someone having leadership feat? Power Boost to hell and back. This might have been the reason they seemed "weak" in previous editions - the developers, and hence first testers often preferred having a lot of hirelings around.<s>Won't provide any quotation, as I'd have to recount too many, too large chunks of MM and Core</s> Heh, found it while building encounter <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" /> Core Rulebook p 397+, but yeah - it fixed it. 1st off - CR is what is written. A lot of players were killed, because 3.5 designers though that dragons should be more challenging, and then the DM though the same so he took higher CR to account for it - effectively doubling the handicap. I'll elaborate a bit more below.Well, 3.X still is a great system. But when returning to 3.X I found that Pathfinder saved me a lot of houseruling, kept the power dispersion at bay, and made my beloved bards actually playable.I can't see 3.5/PF compatibility as a problem though - it was a move purely to save on space. 3.5/PF monsters are still interchangeable, only if you want to put 3.5 criters against PF PC's - you add one CR.As a sidenote, because of ease of this conversion, the main reason to buy PF Bestiary is to get the great and easy PF encounter building method. back in a day I was as heavily prejudiced against PF as you appear to be, and I read the books only to see what the fuss about PF encounter building was. Didn't actually win me back (not a big fan of the art direction (at least as far as PC's go - I love many of the monsters), and I thought the initial power boost to martials equalled power creep) at first, but it solves a lot of things in actual play (ie - cantrips seem like no big deal, but they make non-combat problems much more interesting).But as 3.x was a great system, all it needed was fine tuning, not a revolution. Hence if you want me to provide quotation as to where 3.X problems were addressed? Best I can do is this:Pathfinder Roleplaying Game (core rulebook), 2009, ISBN 978-1-60125-150-3</blockquote>

Verification