Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder questions

[Remathilis]

Agreed; and hopefully there will be other conversion notes (particularly what you have to do to 3.5 monsters and NPCs to "Pathfinerize" them - generating/calculaing the Combat Maneuver Bonus, for example, to replace Grapple etc.).

Figuring out CMB should be the same for monsters as it is for PCs: Base Attack + Str + Size. What would be peachy is a quick "conversion chart" that lists all the SRD monsters and their "dirty conversions" until the Pathfinder MM comes out...

 

[EricNoah]

But what's different is the size modifier, right? Or at least it was in an early version of PF. It would be handy to have a little conversion chart (for large creature with a published Grapple modifier, subtract 3 to get the CMB or whatever). A lot of DMs are good at remembering this sort of thing on the fly, but I would personally want to get that into my stat blocks and/or monster manual(s) ahead of time.

I guess that would be easy enough to figure out on my own though.

Refresh my memory - what is happening with Improved Grab in PF? I have a vague recollection that it wasn't going to be around as much or in a different form or something. That may be a faulty memory on my part. (In my games, most creatures do not get Improved Grab; and those that do are the ones with tentacle-like attacks, and they have an accompanying weakness that allows their tentacles to be cut off).

 

[DaveMage]

I believe they have said that there will indeed be a conversion manual.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But what's different is the size modifier, right?

Hrm, which is a little bit annoying-- since otherwise one could simply use the existing "Grapple" entry in all those 3.5 statblocks as the CMB entry. Conversion done!

All the special maneuvers in RAW use the +/- 4 per size category modifier, right?

 

[James Jacobs]

I'm curious whether the PF book will have any guidelines on how to change spells from 3e supplements to better fit the PF ethos. For example, it's been stated that PF got rid of save-or-die spells. It would be nice if there was a text box somewhere in the book that said what was changed, and why, so GMs would know what to avoid or change from 3e supplements.

While the book itself is pretty jam-packed and thus had no room to do "design notes" like this, once the book's out and folks have questions about why we made choices the way we did, we'll be here on ENworld and over at Paizo.com to answer the questions and talk about the reasons we did what we did.

There'll also be a conversion guide PDF available that will talk about how to convert 3.5 material to PFRPG and back again; I'll chat with Jason and see if I can't get him to include a lot of those designer note type things in there.

In any event, the conversion PDF will certainly help in showing folks how to convert 3.5 material we can't directly convert due to not all 3.5 content being open content.

 

[Remathilis]

Hrm, which is a little bit annoying-- since otherwise one could simply use the existing "Grapple" entry in all those 3.5 statblocks as the CMB entry. Conversion done!

All the special maneuvers in RAW use the +/- 4 per size category modifier, right?

Yes, but the change is neccessary to fix the "huge monsters cannot lose a grapple" problem that comes at the mid-uppper levels.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Yes, but the change is neccessary to fix the "huge monsters cannot lose a grapple" problem that comes at the mid-uppper levels.

I consider it converse compensation for, "You can't miss a Huge creature with a touch attack."

 

[billd91]

I consider it converse compensation for, "You can't miss a Huge creature with a touch attack."

They don't feel like a very good trade-off to me. Personally, I'm in favor of the reduction of the size bonus. I think the +4/size over medium is probably closer to reality than +1/size, but the latter makes for a better game.

I'd rather find something else to reduce the vulnerability of creatures like dragons to touch attacks.

 

[Eridanis]

All I can say is, "C'mon, August!"

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Interesting. I am currently DMing a 4E game (I love 4E for the record)

I am also a player in a 3.5 game (I am also quite fond of 3.5) So I thought the next logical step would be to check out Pathfinder. Im currently trying to see if there is any interest in it with my 3.5 group (at least to try a one shot or 2). I just wanted to see what people thought of it, from those that have been playing with the beta rules.

Yes, I think I would agree. Depending on how long you are playing 3.x, I think Pathfinder will bring a breath of fresh air to the game. While I greatly prefer 4E now, that's what I really liked about PF - it's still 3.5, but there is new stuff to play around with, and there are quite a few good ideas in it to make the overall experience just better. (Though there are also some changes I didn't like - but it appears as if at least the "worst offender" for me will be gone in the final release. )

The Pathfinder adventure paths themselves are also great, probably some of the best modules you'll find. They should be easily usable with 3.x and Pathfinder, and it seems as if there are lots of fans converting the modules to 4E, too, some of them making their material public. So if you are in need of modules, especially some that provide an ongoing story and resolve a conflict over the course of an adventuring career, the modules are a great pick.

My only complaint would be that adventure paths are relatively linear - you might be able to go slightly different routes, but you will still end up at certain fixed points, otherwise the path can't continue. But that's inevitable if you want to keep a game focused on a specific storyline.
They might also be a little too combat heavy for some groups. (Certainly not for mine. )