-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Pathfinder 1E Me Oh, My Oh! A Pathfinder Forum!
- Thread starter Erik Mona
- Start date
Desdichado
Hero
Not to be the voice of dissent, but I thought the point was compatability with existing material? Some basic SRD monsters would be great, so you can, if you want, use JUST the Pathfinder book (that fact that D&D still comes in 3 books instead of one is a personal pet peeve of mine and has been for years), but at some point you have to say, "look, if you change too much, then you've got a harder sell to convince people that this is still compatible."Zebster said:
I think the bump up in character race power has officially crossed that threshold for me. If I can't import shifters, changelings, warforged, all the FR subraces of elves, or whatever other variant race I want from 3.5 without it being underpowered relative to the Pathfinder basic races, then all my 3.5 material that includes variant races isn't compatable with Pathfinder anymore, in my view, which undermines the main draw of Pathfinder in the first place. If fragility of low level PC's is a concern, a more elegant solution would be one that doesn't mess with the balance of Pathfinder races and classes and 3.5 races and classes. A default chargen system that has a bit more oomph or something, regardless of the source of the race/class combo. Like the hit point options tossed around in the Alpha document, although maybe broader in scope.
Anyway, I've already said my piece in the other thread, but I don't know if Paizo is reading that or not. I spend too much time online as it is to try and figure out how to navigate Paizo's website, so hopefully my feedback will be duly noted here.
Other than that, I'm liking what I see quite a bit.
Last edited:
Hunter In Darkness
First Post
dude the extra +2 to one state isnt that big a deal.just give any ported over races an extra +2 or just use 3.5 races only not an issue.
dmccoy1693
Adventurer
Hunter In Darkness said:
Seriously. I like the fact that elves and gnomes now have a bonus to the stat that most directly affects their favored class. I always thought that that was the biggest "DUH!" someone could imagine. Really, why are gnomes good at being a bard? Because their favored class says so? Why are elves good a wizardry? At least now you have something that helps them. It makes sense.
As far as the classes go, I can see what you guys are trying to do with it, remove the christmas tree effect, Best I can say is to put in some designers notes that these additions to the classes are to help reduce the dependency on magic items, weapons, and armor. More class features like that make it easier to do regional locaitons, alternate class levels, etc. Sounds fun to me.
One thing I don't get from those that don't like the power ups is that they feel that classes from 3.5 supplements may become obselete or lower in power. Well, really how overpowered is the warlock? Or stuff from the Bo9S? How underpowered is the Samurai? Do people think these classes are balanced on the head of a pin that a slight tip of the scales is going to unhinge the entire game? No way. Munchkining out characters is a time honored tradition in D&D and the newer classes are prime munchkin material. The Paizo base clases, IMO, balance out the "always able to throw ranged touch attacks at enemies" warlock.
Now I do agree that 1 feat/2 levels is a bit much. I would make that an option if GMs wanted, but I feel the base should be as per the PHB currently. And lastly, I hate Saga-ized skills.
Last edited:
Hippy
Explorer
Skills and Class Powers
Mr. Mona and Paizo Crew:
First let me say I am thrilled that you have decided to keep on with the 3.5 OGL. I for one (and I know I am hardly alone) have hundreds of dollars invested in 3.5 materials, ranging from hardback books to softcover manuals, supplements, and modules. A major reason for me not to "convert" to a 4E system anytime soon. My concern is that from the rules as they have been presented so far. It is difficult to manage the power level of the new core classes to the "add on" classes from the "Complete" series from WOTC and others. I understand the need to create something "Paizo", but IMHO it comes to close to making my 3.5 materials difficult to use without house ruling new powers and abillities to "keep up with the Jones'" as it were. I am concerned that we are getting into too much power creep that is not needed for Pathfinder to be a great system.
Your skill system as currently presented I am not a fan of as it creates to generic a list of skilled PCs. No longer can I tweak my PC or NPC to be the great 2nd story man, or "Mr. Shadow" with hide, as these skills effectively become the same for each PC leveled character that has them. Yes I realize there are some skills that need revision, and I applaud your efforts to makes these positive changes, however please consider doing so within the confines of the individual point system of 3.5. It will make it easier for us to utilize with our other materials and will still allow for individuality.
Best wishes,
Hippy
Mr. Mona and Paizo Crew:
First let me say I am thrilled that you have decided to keep on with the 3.5 OGL. I for one (and I know I am hardly alone) have hundreds of dollars invested in 3.5 materials, ranging from hardback books to softcover manuals, supplements, and modules. A major reason for me not to "convert" to a 4E system anytime soon. My concern is that from the rules as they have been presented so far. It is difficult to manage the power level of the new core classes to the "add on" classes from the "Complete" series from WOTC and others. I understand the need to create something "Paizo", but IMHO it comes to close to making my 3.5 materials difficult to use without house ruling new powers and abillities to "keep up with the Jones'" as it were. I am concerned that we are getting into too much power creep that is not needed for Pathfinder to be a great system.
Your skill system as currently presented I am not a fan of as it creates to generic a list of skilled PCs. No longer can I tweak my PC or NPC to be the great 2nd story man, or "Mr. Shadow" with hide, as these skills effectively become the same for each PC leveled character that has them. Yes I realize there are some skills that need revision, and I applaud your efforts to makes these positive changes, however please consider doing so within the confines of the individual point system of 3.5. It will make it easier for us to utilize with our other materials and will still allow for individuality.
Best wishes,
Hippy
Desdichado
Hero
Well; again; are we expecting an all new game here, or a "fixed" version of third edition that's still more or less compatible with existing material? If you're solution is "just give everyone a floating +2" or even worse, "don't use the Pathfinder races" then that's not a fix anymore; that's something that I need to fix.Hunter In Darkness said:
Maybe I'm an outlier here, but the whole reason Pathfinder is a more intriguing option to me than 4e is because it'll still be compatible with 3.5. As compatability wanes because of things like this, so does my interest. If it changes to the point where I can't use existing 3.5 material without a number of "fixes" of my own to make it work, then I might as well just play 4e after all. Or just stick with 3.5, and ignore Pathfinder.
OK, I misspoke a little bit. That's not the whole reason; the idea of getting "D&D" (even if it's called Pathfinder) in a single book is very attractive too. Ever since d20 Modern came out in a single book, I've been annoyed that D&D couldn't figure out how to do it too.
Hunter In Darkness
First Post
Well hobo I understand were your comeing from. but just dont see the issue you seem to.A few people have been running games and have not adjuseted anything and seem to think its not as big an issue as it seems to be.It does make a lot of low +1LA races +0
LA now like tieflings and such really. as for adding a +2 . hell man thats done on the fly.
gonna take a fast look at Races from the FRCS
DAWAVES
*shield as pathfinder
*Gold add+2 wis
*Grey prob +1LA now
ELVES
*Drow same
*Sun add +2 wis
*Wild add +2 str
*Wood take away -2 to int and cha
GNOMES
*Deep prob same maybe +2LA
*Rock same
HALFELF/ORC
as pathfinder
HALFLING
*Ghostwise same +pathfinder
*Lightfoot as pathfinder
*Strong heart same as book+pathfinder
PLANETOUCHED
all +0LA now
see it isnt a real issue man I eyeballed it and went. with the elves the changes match fluff better really.
LA now like tieflings and such really. as for adding a +2 . hell man thats done on the fly.
gonna take a fast look at Races from the FRCS
DAWAVES
*shield as pathfinder
*Gold add+2 wis
*Grey prob +1LA now
ELVES
*Drow same
*Sun add +2 wis
*Wild add +2 str
*Wood take away -2 to int and cha
GNOMES
*Deep prob same maybe +2LA
*Rock same
HALFELF/ORC
as pathfinder
HALFLING
*Ghostwise same +pathfinder
*Lightfoot as pathfinder
*Strong heart same as book+pathfinder
PLANETOUCHED
all +0LA now
see it isnt a real issue man I eyeballed it and went. with the elves the changes match fluff better really.
hewligan
First Post
I understand the concerns about power-creep. I will almost certainly move to Pathfinder over 4e, but it is dependent on keeping the power-creep low, and keeping AS MUCH compatibility as possible, but while still giving the designers scope to fix those bits of 3.5e that are borked, and adding a few new cool features.
I don't like the extra hit points very much. I don't like some of the extra power at level 1. I do like the fighter changes a lot (especially after feat chaining was removed), and I like the wizard's specialisation rules. I like the skill simplification, and I like the armour ideas.
I LOVE the fluff that goes with it, but then I am GMing a Pathfinder game already, so I am clearly sold on that aspect of it.
For me the order of importance should be:
1) Keep it as compatible as possible
2) Add as many simplifications to the ugly bits (grapple, skills, etc) as you can think of
3) Tweak races to make them much more relevant (so far so good)
4) Avoid power creep in classes
5) Absolutely avoid making first level characters too powerful (fear is a good thing)
6) Keep wizards and sorcerors useful after they exhaust their POW stuff
7) Make the bard sexy
8) Give me a Pathfinder Goblin as a playable race
I don't like the extra hit points very much. I don't like some of the extra power at level 1. I do like the fighter changes a lot (especially after feat chaining was removed), and I like the wizard's specialisation rules. I like the skill simplification, and I like the armour ideas.
I LOVE the fluff that goes with it, but then I am GMing a Pathfinder game already, so I am clearly sold on that aspect of it.
For me the order of importance should be:
1) Keep it as compatible as possible
2) Add as many simplifications to the ugly bits (grapple, skills, etc) as you can think of
3) Tweak races to make them much more relevant (so far so good)
4) Avoid power creep in classes
5) Absolutely avoid making first level characters too powerful (fear is a good thing)
6) Keep wizards and sorcerors useful after they exhaust their POW stuff
7) Make the bard sexy
8) Give me a Pathfinder Goblin as a playable race
Similar Threads
