Pathfinder 1E "Pathfinderizing" Non-Core Classes and Races

[FentonGib]

And if anything, the spellcasters seem stronger than ever!

Spellcasters are much more powerful now I agree - though I actually see this as a good thing. In 3e wizards and (especially) sorcerers didn't get decent till mid-level. Bards, Clerics and Druids at least could hold their own in melee but spellcasters were quite weak. So spellcasting players often felt a bit underpowered at first. At high levels they were amazing though.

When they did go the full course, the players liked the fact that at low levels the fighters could easily kill the enemy (low hps) but wizzies were fairly useless, but at high levels the fighter was fairly useless (1d8+Strength + greater weapon specialisation often does little against creatures with high hp and/or damage reduction/regeneration) whilst the wizzie was the main destroyer.

Pathfinder states that it has upped the power curve a bit, ostensibly to make things more heroic. My wizzie player now feels more capable of holding his weight in the group then he did before we upgraded. As they're hitting mid-level the spellcasters are feeling more useful, whilst the melee fighters feel that they're becoming more adaptable and versatile (and more survivability), so they're all happy.

My problem with D&D has been that 7 out of the 11 core classes are all spellcasters. When playing low-magic settings (e.g. Ravenloft) that seriously limits options (or makes certain classes VERY common). Personally, I'd love to see a non-magic Bard just like you had the non-spellcasting Paladin and Ranger variants in the Complete Champion book (the Artiste heritage path of my Patrician custom class is a bit of an attempt to address this).

Anyone feel that the pathfinder revisions need some revision themselves?

I do agree that some things could use a little revising - but then again, it is only a beta system so far, and they have been changing things on their website (e.g. the Paladin was recently upgraded).

 

[saucercrab]

Some of the pathfinder revisions seem suspect to me. Take the new fighter for example. Yes, it is undeniably an improvement, but for me, it seems like a step in the wrong direction, in that it does not appear to solve the crux of what made the fighter so crappy in 3e.

IMO, the last thing a fighter needs is more damage/better AC, because it had no problems dealing ample damage back then. Rather, its biggest concern (which pathfinder apparently still fails to address) was options (or rather, the lack thereof), which the warblade solved rather admirably.

I liked what they did to fighters. IMO, the fighter is the most basic martial class & doesn't need special tricks & maneuvers; it's pure purpose is to deal & soak damage, & PF just upping the raw offense & defense suits me fine. YMMV.

And if anything, the spellcasters seem stronger than ever!

Spellcasters do have more low-level/miscellaneous abilities now, but have you checked their spells? Quite a few were nerfed to an extent, & that seriously cuts back on the total power level of main casters.

 

[Runestar]

I liked what they did to fighters. IMO, the fighter is the most basic martial class & doesn't need special tricks & maneuvers; it's pure purpose is to deal & soak damage, & PF just upping the raw offense & defense suits me fine. YMMV.

In theory, it shouldn't. But ToB and 4e proved beyond reasonable doubt (to me at least) that more options = more fun in play. The fighter now deals more damage on each hit and can get better AC (together with a reasonably cool capstone ability you may or may not care about), but at the expense of losing options like power attack and trip, 2 options that actually made a fighter worth playing in the first place! In short, they get boosts to areas I never felt were problems in the first place, while taking hits in aspects that now made the fighter even more of a 1-trick pony than he was before.

I don't need to deal more damage or make myself harder to hit, I want different and imaginative ways to deal damage (like diamond nightmare blade), as well as more options to better deal with various scenarios (eg: iron heart surge to remove debilitating status effects, moment of precise mind to aid in will saves, shadow blink to teleport out of sticky situations, iron heart endurance to heal and the like).

Is there a pathfinder'ized warblade anywhere?

 

[saucercrab]

In theory, it shouldn't. But ToB and 4e proved beyond reasonable doubt (to me at least) that more options = more fun in play. The fighter now deals more damage on each hit and can get better AC (together with a reasonably cool capstone ability you may or may not care about), but at the expense of losing options like power attack and trip, 2 options that actually made a fighter worth playing in the first place! In short, they get boosts to areas I never felt were problems in the first place, while taking hits in aspects that now made the fighter even more of a 1-trick pony than he was before.

Then YMDIV (your mileage does indeed vary). Feat chains are good enough for me to provide options for fighters. And my groups still uses 3.5 Power Attack (I do disagree with some PF revisions). CMB does need some work from what I've read over on the Paizo boards, but I try to follow those threads & see what modifications are tested that seem to work.

I don't need to deal more damage or make myself harder to hit, I want different and imaginative ways to deal damage (like diamond nightmare blade), as well as more options to better deal with various scenarios (eg: iron heart surge to remove debilitating status effects, moment of precise mind to aid in will saves, shadow blink to teleport out of sticky situations, iron heart endurance to heal and the like).

(Again, YMDIV.) IMO, that's not what the fighter is for. (And Shadow Blink is usually for the swordsage, which is better compared to monk, not fighter).

Is there a pathfinder'ized warblade anywhere?

You're kidding, right? Because the warblade (along with crusader & swordsage) don't need a power upgrade. If anything, maybe a power downgrade.

 

[Runestar]

(Again, YMDIV.) IMO, that's not what the fighter is for. (And Shadow Blink is usually for the swordsage, which is better compared to monk, not fighter).

Perhaps, but the martial study feats allow my warblade to take cross-discipline maneuvers, so more "monk'ish" moves are not solely limited to only swordsages. My warblade too can teleport or imbue his attacks with fire.

You're kidding, right? Because the warblade (along with crusader & swordsage) don't need a power upgrade. If anything, maybe a power downgrade.

I don't necessarily mean to strength the warblade any more, but was simply wondering if work is being done to make it compatible with the other pathfinder classes (or is it already playable as is)?

 

[FentonGib]

Alternate version

For anyone who was interested in my Aristocrat (Patrician) class, I've made an alternate version which I'm attaching here.

I was a bit unhappy with a few things, such as the fact you got two heritage talents quite early and nothing until level 20, and too many bonus feats (Patrician Focus, Combat Style and Bonus feats ultimately amount to more-or-less the same) so I've refined it so that it's more (I think) balanced and evenly spread.

Again, feedback appreciated.

 

[saucercrab]

Perhaps, but the martial study feats allow my warblade to take cross-discipline maneuvers, so more "monk'ish" moves are not solely limited to only swordsages. My warblade too can teleport or imbue his attacks with fire.

Yeah, whoops, forgot about that. But I did say, "usually."

I don't necessarily mean to strength the warblade any more, but was simply wondering if work is being done to make it compatible with the other pathfinder classes (or is it already playable as is)?

Only thing I can think of off the top of my head is to revise the class skills, & each discipline's key skill (which might turn out weird); also, check/change HD to PF's standard, but I disagree with that blanket change.