Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder-Bo9S hotswapping

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Wow, bashed on by the entire community for not liking Bo9S for 3E. I've never felt so popular

I've stated my three reason for not allowing it

• Bo9S flavor is out of place in 3.5. In my mind, its a clear beta for 4E with it's unique encounter style mechanics
• The power level of the three base classes are absurd when compared against Fighter, Paladin, Monk, Rogue and other core melee classes
• 1/2 Level is the Initiator Level for dipping into is out of line with the rest of the spell/psionic caster level style

As for the other books that Jhaelen mentioned, I can't comment on them. We did not use them extensively during our 3.5 playing days save for PHB2. I've got no problem with Dragon Shaman or Beguiler. I've not seen enough of Duskblade and the other class to form an opinion about them (I think it's Knight, but I could be wrong). I've never cracked open a copy of Dungeonscape, MM4 or MM5 and I've only browsed CM and CS.

Do I like Bo9S. Yes, I think it was incredibly innovative when it was released. My affection for it faded after 4E was released and my desire to run a more classical style of DnD game developed. I experimented with running 2E again, but I found I enjoyed the diversity of builds that the 3E multiclass and feat system allowed both as a player and DM.

If I was to allow Bo9S, I'd rather play 4E then 3.5 (and yes, I know that Bo9S is a 3.5 book not a 4E book). The power system that grew from Bo9S is one of the corner stones of 4E. The 4E combat system is pretty fun and I enjoy it for a certain styles of gaming and storytelling. And no, I don't think it's bad-wrong-fun to allow Bo9S in 3.5, it's just not my preference for what I want out of 3.5 or Pathfinder.

 

[Walking Dad]

Wow, bashed on by the entire community for not liking Bo9S for 3E. I've never felt so popular

...

I didn't want to bash you.

Bo9S flavor is out of place in 3.5. In my mind, its a clear beta for 4E with it's unique encounter style mechanics

- The out of place is clearly subjective. If you don't like it, no problem. I would never force someone to use it

The power level of the three base classes are absurd when compared against Fighter, Paladin, Monk, Rogue and other core melee classes

- The reason could be, that the Bo9S classes are overpowered. Or that Fighter, Paladin, Monk, Rogue were underpowered. Looking at the other core classes, IMHO it is the later. (BTW, rogue is a skill, not melee combat class. If you want a deadly rogue striker, you have to play 4e. I do.)

1/2 Level is the Initiator Level for dipping into is out of line with the rest of the spell/psionic caster level style

- Yes, out of line, but that makes it not bad or false. Also the others got the 'Practiced Caster' feat. So they just removed the feat tax for multiclassing. Would do the same for the other.

 

[Azgulor]

Transbot9, it's your game and if you think it'd be cool, go for it.

That said, I found the Bo9S to be one of the worst books in the 3.x line. As others have pointed out, it was clearly a pre-cursor of 4e.

It's your game, your campaign, and your gaming table, so if that's your cup of tea then by all means have at it.

However, one of the cited reasons why the PFRPG was created was because it allowed Paizo to write adventures/tell stories with a system that better suited the play style and genres (in their estimation) than 4e did. You're mixing products that were developed with widely diverging design goals.

Can they be mixed? Perhaps. Trailblazer successfully incorporated some 4e-themed material into 3.x/PF.

Sometimes, you get peanut butter mixed with chocolate. Sometimes, you get rotten sardines mixed with chocolate. I see Bo9S mixing more like the latter than the former. YMMV.

 

[Walking Dad]

The question is: Why does someone wants material from ToB in his/her game? If one states the goals, a more mutual advice would be possible.

- Some feel some of the core classes (fighter,...) underpowered.
- Some wish for options in combat than 'I swing my sword... again.'
...

Telling someone who is happy at it is to incorporate new material is mostly futile.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

I didn't want to bash you.

My tongue in cheek smilie failed there

- The out of place is clearly subjective. If you don't like it, no problem. I would never force someone to use it

Agreed. This is totally subjective (similar to Psionics or Eastern Monk debates that crop up from time to time).

- The reason could be, that the Bo9S classes are overpowered. Or that Fighter, Paladin, Monk, Rogue were underpowered. Looking at the other core classes, IMHO it is the later. (BTW, rogue is a skill, not melee combat class. If you want a deadly rogue striker, you have to play 4e. I do.)

In relation to the caster classes, I'd agree that the melee classes fall behind, especially in later levels. I do subscribe to the notion of a sweet spot in 3.5 (around 6-12) where PHB core stuff is pretty well balanced. I reject the idea that a Fighter needs to be on par with a Wizard 1-20 in DnD. Mechanics are important, but not the end all be all of the RPG experience.

You might take that to mean that the mechanics of Bo9S shouldn't interfere with the enjoyment of a game. I accept that point and can only counter that it affects my enjoyment of a 3.5 game for reasons enumerated above

- Yes, out of line, but that makes it not bad or false. Also the others got the 'Practiced Caster' feat. So they just removed the feat tax for multiclassing. Would do the same for the other.

Agreed. It's not bad, it's just different. Allowing a Practiced Initiator feat and removing the 1/2 Initiator level would probably resolve this issue for me. If you stepped into Cleric at 10th level, you wouldn't be a 5th level caster (without a feat), nor would you have rapid access to higher level spells.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Guys I heard while they were doing 3.5 they were thinking about 4e.

All 3.5 material should be banned for being too close to 4e.


Incidentally, as far as balance goes, fighter/ranger/rogue/monk were all mechanically terrible. They weren't mediocre, they were just flat out garbage, especially the monk. ToB characters aren't overpowered, they just let martial characters do something other then serve as the casters' meat shield for a few levels.

Here's the thing: D&D is a fantasy game. It's supposed to be fantastic. Wizards fly through the air and shoot fireballs. Clerics bring back the dead and imbue themselves with holy energy. Druids take on the shape of mystic and powerful animals and call nature to their aid.

Fighters? They don't do anything.

What Tome of Battle did was say "Know what? Fighting should be cool." And it made fighting cool. It has nothing to do with 4e. It's a simple statement: being a fighter should be something awesome.

Some people hate the idea of fighting classes being nothing more then level 1 infantry man. Me? I find that boring and stupid.

 

[Walking Dad]

...

Wizards fly through the air and shoot fireballs. Clerics bring back the dead and imbue themselves with holy energy. Druids take on the shape of mystic and powerful animals and call nature to their aid.

...

Agreed, that a gritty game style has to avoid this, too.

 

[blargney the second]

Are Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage more powerful than Cleric, Druid and Wizard/Sorcerer? If no, Fighter, Paladin, and Monk/Rogue were just to weak.

I can attest to a warblade being at least on par with a druid. I munchkined the hell out of both the characters in a campaign that got up to 16th level, and the druid certainly never overshadowed the warblade, although the converse did occur occasionally. I also ran in another party where the cleric and crusader were fairly evenly matched.

As to the OP, my understanding is that Pathfinder was designed to bring the core material up to the same power level as the options available in late-run 3.5 books. If that's the case, then you should be fine to mix in some Bo9S stuff.
-blarg

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I can attest to a warblade being at least on par with a druid. I munchkined the hell out of both the characters in a campaign that got up to 16th level, and the druid certainly never overshadowed the warblade, although the converse did occur occasionally. I also ran in another party where the cleric and crusader were fairly evenly matched.

As to the OP, my understanding is that Pathfinder was designed to bring the core material up to the same power level as the options available in late-run 3.5 books. If that's the case, then you should be fine to mix in some Bo9S stuff.
-blarg

...Not to call your experience into question, but that confuses the hell out of me.

Warblades are good, don't get me wrong. But they're not CoDZilla levels, not at all. Full casting is better then everything else, and having full casting + full access to wildshape is pretty much "No, it's cool, I'll do everything"