Is Paizo's Pathfinder really compatible with 3.5?

[Remathilis]

And I fail to see why this is a problem. I have never understood why, with a robust multiclassing system, there has been this yearning for single classed characters to be common. Why is it a problem if there are almost no 11-20 level wizards, rather than a bunch of 11-20 level wizard multiclassed characters?

It goes back to the problem of system mastery. Just as there are good feats and bad feats (power attack vs. fireball) and good spells and bad spells, classes and builds get tossed into the mix. A fighter 20 is no-where as powerful as a fighter5/purple dragon knight5/knight protector10, nor is an evoker as powerful as an evoker5/master specialist10/archmage5. Both keep their primary function (fighter: heavy armor, good hp, 1:1 Bab; wizard 9 spell levels) but they gain so much more than if you had both in the same game, the straight 20 guy is very underpowered.

Like all the other problems of system-mastery, it creates false choices (I'll just stick with fighter, I don't like any of these PrCs), promotes min-maxing and cherry picking (woah! all that for two levels of ranger?) and ultimately forces DMs to micromanage PCs to avoid run-away PC power. (If you only use the PrCs in the DMG for example, wizards still get two of the best: archmage and loremaster. Fighters get... dwarven defender and duelist?) Oh, and it can trample base classes (ask a bard what a rogue2/wizard3/virtuoso10 looks like).

Oh, it ruins the flavor of the archetypes being presented. I wept when I saw on the CharOp boards the best build for a rogue was rog3/ftr2/bbn1/guild thief4/Prestige Class X. Really? Only three levels of rogue? In a rogue build?

Multi-classing should be there to create interesting combination (like the ever popular fighter/wizard) or to represent character growth (my rogue's had it with traps, I'm learning arcane magic!) but not to build Frankenstein PCs with no rhyme or reason beyond "Kewl powerz".

rant over.

 

[Krensky]

And I fail to see why this is a problem. I have never understood why, with a robust multiclassing system, there has been this yearning for single classed characters to be common. Why is it a problem if there are almost no 11-20 level wizards, rather than a bunch of 11-20 level wizard multiclassed characters?

This is just me, although it is reinforced by the design philosophy in Spycraft 2.0 and Pathfinder. It's not that I feel that single classed characters are preferable to multiclassed ones, but that multiclassing - while desirable, robust, and fun - should not be or be perceived as de rigueur. In many cases in 3e, continuing to take levels in a base class after level X was either counter productive or boring. I am not a power gamer or optimizer but, for example, taking more then four levels in fighter was usually not as fun (for me and, anecdotally, a large number of other players) as multiclassing into a prestige class or another base class.

In Spycraft 2.0, for example, the equivalent to Fighter is the Soldier. At level 5, you can enter an Expert class, and you can with some planning, enter almost nay Expert class from any Base class. A Soldier might like the idea of being a tank and ignoring damage that drops even typical Soldiers, and take One Man Army. Or he might decide to focus on heavy weapons and take levels in Grunt. Or focus on CQB and go Counter-Terroist, or dual pistols and Triggerman. Or melee and choose Edgemaster. Or play against type and take Medic or Stuntman. All of them give ten levels of specialized awesome.

Or, he could decide to stay with Soldier and gain ten levels of more general awesome, including some of the most powerful comabt abilities in the game (including the ability to declare an attack is a natural twenty and a critical without rolling one a session).

It's not that single classing is preferable to muticlassing, but that single classing should be as viable and fun a choice mechanically as multiclassing. I, and apparently a signifgant number of others, feels that a game shouls support and embrace multiclassing, it shouldn't (whether in design, play, or perception) require it.

 

[nightwyrm]

3e multiclassing is seen as a problem because of the misconception that 3e is a class based system. It's not. At best, it can be described as a level based system. Every time you go up a level, you pick a set of prepackaged abilities (a particular level of a particular class) and add that to your character. The problem is that 3e tried to sell itself as a class based system where a class is thematically linked to some character archetype and that levelling up a particular class represents some sort of universally accepted character progression along that archetype. However, a detailed analysis of the multiclassing mechanics shows that it really isn't, and the major conflict arises between those who bought into the idea that 3e classes have some sort of "class integrity" and those who only sees 3e classes as ability packages.

Please note that I'm not talking about class based systems in general. I'm specifically talking about classes in 3e. Classes in 3e tried to link themselves to archetypes but the actual mechanics of classes and multiclassing supports the "ability packages" interpretation.

 

[billd91]

And I fail to see why this is a problem. I have never understood why, with a robust multiclassing system, there has been this yearning for single classed characters to be common. Why is it a problem if there are almost no 11-20 level wizards, rather than a bunch of 11-20 level wizard multiclassed characters?

It's a question of dominant strategies. You never want a particular development choice to be dominated by all other ones. Every choice should have relative benefits to them, otherwise, why include the dominated choices at all?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

3e multiclassing is seen as a problem because of the misconception that 3e is a class based system. It's not. At best, it can be described as a level based system. Every time you go up a level, you pick a set of prepackaged abilities (a particular level of a particular class) and add that to your character. The problem is that 3e tried to sell itself as a class based system where a class is thematically linked to some character archetype and that levelling up a particular class represents some sort of universally accepted character progression along that archetype. However, a detailed analysis of the multiclassing mechanics shows that it really isn't, and the major conflict arises between those who bought into the idea that 3e classes have some sort of "class integrity" and those who only sees 3e classes as ability packages.

Please note that I'm not talking about class based systems in general. I'm specifically talking about classes in 3e. Classes in 3e tried to link themselves to archetypes but the actual mechanics of classes and multiclassing supports the "ability packages" interpretation.

...and Pathfinder muddies these waters. A lot of people view 3E in terms of "class integrity" and Pathfinder was certainly written along those lines, but the 3E system itself follows the ability package model. Pathfinder's changes are along the lines of swimming upstream, against the current.

 

[BryonD]

...and Pathfinder muddies these waters. A lot of people view 3E in terms of "class integrity" and Pathfinder was certainly written along those lines, but the 3E system itself follows the ability package model. Pathfinder's changes are along the lines of swimming upstream, against the current.

I'd call this assessment simply wrong.
At the extreme the classes have been recalibrated. The "class integrity" has always had a range that various classes fell into. Putting the core classes more squarely in the mainstream of that range is a good thing and quite the opposite of "against the current".

 

[BryonD]

It goes back to the problem of system mastery.

System mastery is a symptom of trying to "win" the game.

 

[nightwyrm]

System mastery is a symptom of trying to "win" the game.

System mastery is understanding the system so that you can make it do what you want. You need a certain level of system mastery if you want to make a powerful character on purpose, but there's nothing preventing you from making a subpar character after you've understood the system. Also, powerful and weak characters can also still be made by accident by someone without system mastery.

I never quite understood what ppl mean when they accuse others of trying to "win" the game. Which "game" are they talking about? When I try to fight my DM's monsters, or when I try to solve a NPC murder, or when I try to accomplish my character's goals, am I not trying to "win" whatever challenge my DM places before me?

 

[Andor]

It goes back to the problem of system mastery. Just as there are good feats and bad feats (power attack vs. fireball) and good spells and bad spells, classes and builds get tossed into the mix. A fighter 20 is no-where as powerful as a fighter5/purple dragon knight5/knight protector10, nor is an evoker as powerful as an evoker5/master specialist10/archmage5. Both keep their primary function (fighter: heavy armor, good hp, 1:1 Bab; wizard 9 spell levels) but they gain so much more than if you had both in the same game, the straight 20 guy is very underpowered.

Like all the other problems of system-mastery, it creates false choices (I'll just stick with fighter, I don't like any of these PrCs), promotes min-maxing and cherry picking (woah! all that for two levels of ranger?) and ultimately forces DMs to micromanage PCs to avoid run-away PC power. (If you only use the PrCs in the DMG for example, wizards still get two of the best: archmage and loremaster. Fighters get... dwarven defender and duelist?) Oh, and it can trample base classes (ask a bard what a rogue2/wizard3/virtuoso10 looks like).

Oh, it ruins the flavor of the archetypes being presented. I wept when I saw on the CharOp boards the best build for a rogue was rog3/ftr2/bbn1/guild thief4/Prestige Class X. Really? Only three levels of rogue? In a rogue build?

Multi-classing should be there to create interesting combination (like the ever popular fighter/wizard) or to represent character growth (my rogue's had it with traps, I'm learning arcane magic!) but not to build Frankenstein PCs with no rhyme or reason beyond "Kewl powerz".

rant over.

This is a problem that exists only from the perspective of you looking down at a character sheet.

Your wizard doesn't know he's not a straight-laced wizard. He just knows he studied secrets of magic that most spellcasters never guess even existed, and he earned his way to it by gaining entry to secret societies and passing intiations that would break lesser men. (No one should ever have to see an illithid bellydance.)

Suppose we took two guys from our world, Joe and Frank. Both want to learn to fight and sign up for classes at the local gym. Joe sticks with it and starts working his way up through the ranks of the boxing world. Frank wants more breadth and starts taking Tae Kwon Do. Joe becomes a semi-professional boxer about the same time Frank travels to thailand to learn Mui thai. Joe becomes a world class champion after years of hard work, while Frank has several black belts.

Now: What are their classes, class levels and who would win in a fight? Nobody knows. They could both be drawn up in d20 modern or Spycraft 2 or the system of your choice and they still wouldn't know.

Classes don't exist from the characters perspectives (although levels might.)

So I'm left wondering: What are you complaining about? If it's the degree of system mastery required to optimize a character or it's performance there isn't a game on earth that will please you. It's an inherent part of any system with random outcomes. If it's that you finding having to write Ftr 2/ Rngr 3/ X of Blah 7 less aesthetically pleasing on a character sheet than simply Fighter 12, but you don't want to pay your your aesthetic preference with the slightest loss of "power" .... I don't think I can help you there either. Sorry. Except to say that if your only gauge of a characters worth is how well a character can blow stuff up, perhaps you're not playing in the right campaigns? If the ability to heal with a song is not ever worth an extra smidge of damage at your table it might leave you with a skewed perspective.

 

[Voadam]

This is a problem that exists only from the perspective of you looking down at a character sheet.

Your wizard doesn't know he's not a straight-laced wizard. He just knows he studied secrets of magic that most spellcasters never guess even existed, and he earned his way to it by gaining entry to secret societies and passing intiations that would break lesser men. (No one should ever have to see an illithid bellydance.)

Suppose we took two guys from our world, Joe and Frank. Both want to learn to fight and sign up for classes at the local gym. Joe sticks with it and starts working his way up through the ranks of the boxing world. Frank wants more breadth and starts taking Tae Kwon Do. Joe becomes a semi-professional boxer about the same time Frank travels to thailand to learn Mui thai. Joe becomes a world class champion after years of hard work, while Frank has several black belts.

Now: What are their classes, class levels and who would win in a fight? Nobody knows. They could both be drawn up in d20 modern or Spycraft 2 or the system of your choice and they still wouldn't know.

Classes don't exist from the characters perspectives (although levels might.)

So I'm left wondering: What are you complaining about? If it's the degree of system mastery required to optimize a character or it's performance there isn't a game on earth that will please you. It's an inherent part of any system with random outcomes. If it's that you finding having to write Ftr 2/ Rngr 3/ X of Blah 7 less aesthetically pleasing on a character sheet than simply Fighter 12, but you don't want to pay your your aesthetic preference with the slightest loss of "power" .... I don't think I can help you there either. Sorry. Except to say that if your only gauge of a characters worth is how well a character can blow stuff up, perhaps you're not playing in the right campaigns? If the ability to heal with a song is not ever worth an extra smidge of damage at your table it might leave you with a skewed perspective.

This is absolutely a problem when looking down at the character sheet and not from the character's perspective.

But it is still a problem.

When wanting to create Joe or Frank as a character is it significantly different if I go straight classed monk, a mix of straight classed fighter and monk, or a mix of five classes including two or three prestige classes?

D&D has a martial artist base class in the core PH, if I do significant contortions using a bunch of supplements and multiclass dipping do we get a significantly more effective martial artist?