# Is Paizo's Pathfinder really compatible with 3.5?



## iwarrior-poet (Mar 23, 2009)

I have been looking at Paizo's Pathfinder for awhile now. At first I was very interested in it. It seemed to bring some good reforms to the 3.5 gaming system (it is dubbed 3.75). It has been billed as compatible with 3.5.
paizo.com - Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
However, the more I read it, the less I think it could really fit into an existing 3.5 campaign. The revisions to feats, skills and base classes---while helpful, would be very difficult to easily adapt to a lot of 3.5 material. Stat blocks from many resource based NPC's and monsters would be invalid. I know I could Houserule partial implementation of Pathfinder---but I would rather do an all or nothing switch. The conspiracy theory part of my brain wonders if Paizo is promoting Pathfinder as backwards compatible---but really wants everyone to drop their old stuff and only purchase other Pathfinder Products. This might have worked if I didn't already have a large investment in 3.5 stuff.
My friends and I have been doing a Forgotten Realms Campaign for over seven years. We have spent over $1000 combined on various 3.5 materials. I HATE how 4e pushed a giant reset button on the entire FR (let along the actual gaming mechanics). I really would like to move into a reformed gaming system (in particular one that might eventually get a good digital gaming aid) that allows me to retain my investments in materials, but Paizo is looking like less of an option.
Thoughts?
Suggestions?
(Preemptory----I am will staunchly resist 4e suggestions and I already know about PCGen and CMP datasets. That is another nasty problem... Don't get me started...)


----------



## Vorput (Mar 23, 2009)

Admittedly, I haven't been actively following pathfinder's changes.  I did read their beta phb released awhile back.

I think it's doable.  I was able to convert from 3.0 to 3.5 without too much trouble- and for a year or two kept using my 3.0 MM (I was DMing).  Some things with mechanics were probably off, but it's nothing the players ever noticed.  Things won't fit exactly, but I think you can make it work without too much hassle.

But again- I haven't looked at all of Pathfinder's more recent changes.


----------



## resistor (Mar 23, 2009)

My group runs the Pathfinder APs (3.5e) against Pathfinder-rules characters, and it pretty much Just Works(tm) without any conversion, except a few skill consolidations that are easy to do on the fly.  The characters are slightly more powerful vs. the competition, but the APs are fairly tough to begin with, so it works out.  For easier adventures, just lower the "expected party level" on the cover by one.

Yes, the monsters and NPCs are using outdated versions of some rules/powers, but nobody ever notices or cares.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 23, 2009)

James Jacobs has said on more than one occasion that the final version of Pathfinder, released August of this year, will have less changes than the Beta release does; hence, it'll be more compatible with straight 3.5 than the Beta is.


----------



## Kerrick (Mar 23, 2009)

As someone who's done a variant system with a lot of similar changes, I can tell you that a) revising skills (especially monster skills) is a LOT easier; b) revising classes is a bit harder, because of all the new abilities. The fighter and sorcerer are probably the worst because they didn't have much to start with. It doesn't "invalidate" anything, not like 4E did - it just requires a little bit of work to make your classes, monsters, and whatnot PF-friendly. It's like going from 3E to 3.5; it's just that the changes are a little more obvious and sweeping.

I'd just check out the Beta, try it for a session or two, and see how it goes - that's really the only way to see if it will work for you or not.


----------



## Grymar (Mar 23, 2009)

I'm running a Pathfinder in Eberron game right now and it is a total hodgepodge between 3.5 and Pathfinder. For instance, the party has two fighters (PF), a scout (3.5), a ninja (3.5), a bard (PF), a duskblade (3.5), and a monk (PF). I had to change the skills on the scout, duskblade and ninja, but otherwise they fit in very well. 

I'm running monsters right out of the MM's with just some skill tweaks (if even needed) and I have to keep in mind a few changes to the more common feats like power attack and cleave. 

Spells haven't been an issue yet since most of the changes are on the higher levels and we aren't there yet, plus I don't have many pure casters in the group. 

Had I gone pure PF and not allowed the Complete classes, it would have been easier, but still I'd say that PF is 90% compatable with 3.5 and as mentioned, the final release promises to be closer to 100%


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 23, 2009)

Before going any further:  Define Compatable.

If you define it as:  works in complete harmony with absolutely no different whatsoever, you're looking for identical.

If you define it as:  withs with minimum effort, has differences, but the base foundation is is the same, that is compatable.  

Pathfinder is the latter.  Sticking with 3.5 is the former.  Pathfinder is to 3.5 what 3.5 was to 3.0.  Detect Magic in 3.0 required a spellcraft roll to know what school the spell was from and allowed you to see an aura even if you could not see the item; Detect Magic in 3.5 allows the caster to know the school instantly but requires that you be able to see the item to see the aura.  So for all tense and purposes 3.0 Detect Magic is a different spell than 3.5 Detect Magic, but they serve the same purpose.  That's what makes them compatable.

In the same way, Disarm is different in Pathfinder and in 3.5, but they serve the same purpose.  3.5 has Disarm being opposed attack rolls.  Pathfinder has it being a CMB roll vs a static defensive value.  Different procedure, same purpose, accomplishing the same things.  

And yea when you're talking skills, some judgement calls will have to be made.  If you want to port over a PrC from 3.5 and it has spot, but not listen, you're going to have to make a judgement call as to whether or not perception is a class skill or not.  But is it really that big of a deal?  A 20th level 3.5 NPC with max ranks in a cross class skill has 12 rank while its Pathfinder counterpart has 20.  But how many NPCs have max ranks in a cross class skill?

Class abilities:  If an NPC sorcerer gets a spell like ability ray that they can do at will at 1st level, does it make a difference if the NPC dies before using all its spell and needing its ray?  If you assign a barbarian to have 2 rage powers simply because you do not feel it will survive long enough to have better options, does that make a difference.  

Most of the changes between 3.5 and Pathfinder are small, small enough to ignore on most NPCs, as long as you know how differences in things like Channel Energy vs Turn Undead or some of the other big things.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 23, 2009)

iwarrior-poet said:


> Stat blocks from many resource based NPC's and monsters would be invalid.




PCs don't have to follow the same rules as NPCs.

Just because the player sitting on the other side of your DM screen uses Pathfinder rules for his sorcerer does not mean that the sorcerer written down in your 3.5 module has to change in *any *way.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 23, 2009)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Before going any further:  Define Compatable.
> 
> If you define it as:  works in complete harmony with absolutely no different whatsoever, you're looking for identical.
> 
> ...



This is true, but it isn't a good thing.

At least I felt completely cheated by Wizards when they made 3.5E. With so many changes it was like re-learning the game from scratch. In fact, it would probably have been easier to learn a completely new game, because you wouldn't actively have to unlearn old details as you learn the new ones.

If compatibility is defined by Wizards 3.5E then I don't want my games to be compatible.

Unfortunately Steven Cooper seems to have taken down his excellent summary of 3.0 -> 3.5 changes. There he showed there was _hundreds_ of little changes. Some made sense, but only when looked at in isolation. 

As a whole, it was certainly a new edition (that 1) came to early and 2) didn't change the fundamental flaws of 3rd Edition, i.e. the mind-boggling complexity at higher levels).

As our memories tend to be short, as a blast from the past, consider this critical review of 3.5E: Thumbs Down to D&D 3.5 Edition by Daniel R. Collins

I imagine the reaction to Pathfinder will be much the same. So my answer (not having seen the end product) will regrettably have to be "no, it won't be compatible. As the DM, you need to check and recheck every little detail, essentially keeping two hugely complex rulesets in your head at the same time."

Because it changes the details around without actually _fixing_ anything. Case in point; Paizo's own rpg contest. Here is a NPC created specifically for the new rules - and a winning entry at that: paizo.com - Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / RPG SuperstarTM / Round 3 - Top 16: Create a Villain Stat Block / Gulga Cench, Scion of Cyth-V’sug

I rest my case.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 23, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> PCs don't have to follow the same rules as NPCs.
> 
> Just because the player sitting on the other side of your DM screen uses Pathfinder rules for his sorcerer does not mean that the sorcerer written down in your 3.5 module has to change in *any *way.




Indeed. This is one of the awesome things about 4e, and if Pathfinder follows along the same design model that is a good thing for Pathfinder players and DMs. Especially DMs.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 23, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Here is a NPC created specifically for the new rules - and a winning entry at that: paizo.com - Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / RPG SuperstarTM / Round 3 - Top 16: Create a Villain Stat Block / Gulga Cench, Scion of Cyth-V’sug
> 
> I rest my case.




Its looks confusing because the superstars are to show their math.  Take out the stuff in blue and you get the normal Paizo statblock with CMB thrown in.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> I imagine the reaction to Pathfinder will be much the same. So my answer (not having seen the end product) will regrettably have to be "no, it won't be compatible. As the DM, you need to check and recheck every little detail, essentially keeping two hugely complex rulesets in your head at the same time."



Using an old 3.5 module an npc and a PF character both need to try to notice an ambush before they walk into it.   The 3.5 npc rolls 1d20+ Spot,  the PF character rolls 1d20+ perception.  Both compare their result to the DC.

Running a 3.5 module using PF requires zero adaptation.
Anyone who finds it in the least daunting probably should not be DMing in the first place.   Not because they can't handle it but because of the mindset to create something that needs to be handled.  A good DM in ANY system needs to be able to roll with vastly more complex issues than anything here.  

It is less than trivial.

CONVERTING a character would take some work.  But that would be easy.  But more importantly, there is zero need to bother unless purely for personal preference.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> Indeed. This is one of the awesome things about 4e, and if Pathfinder follows along the same design model that is a good thing for Pathfinder players and DMs. Especially DMs.



One of the awesome things about 4E is its built in compatability with prior editions?


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 23, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Using an old 3.5 module an npc and a PF character both need to try to notice an ambush before they walk into it.   The 3.5 npc rolls 1d20+ Spot, the PF character rolls 1d20+ perception.  Both compare their result to the DC.




Truth. 

Personally I add the 3.5 (Spot + Listen) and divide by 2 and that becomes the perception rank. But it's something that I'm just able to look at and do in my head. Even if I wasn't able to do it in my head jotting down 2 numbers adding them and then dividing by 2 is something that most people should be able to do without slowing down their game, right? 




BryonD said:


> Running a 3.5 module using PF requires zero adaptation.
> Anyone who finds it in the least daunting probably should not be DMing in the first place.   Not because they can't handle it but because of the mindset to create something that needs to be handled.  A good DM in ANY system needs to be able to roll with vastly more complex issues than anything here.




Seriously. 
I ran the first two parts of Burnt Offerings with the Pathfinder Beta rules without really having to do a massive conversion of any sort. Most of the stuff I just do on the fly. *shrugs*


----------



## Grymar (Mar 23, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Using an old 3.5 module an npc and a PF character both need to try to notice an ambush before they walk into it.   The 3.5 npc rolls 1d20+ Spot,  the PF character rolls 1d20+ perception.  Both compare their result to the DC.
> 
> Running a 3.5 module using PF requires zero adaptation.




Exactly. 

I pull up a griffon off of the SRD for my pathfinder game...what do I need to change?

Size/Type:         Large Magical Beast 
Hit Dice:         7d10+21 (59 hp)                   
Initiative:         +2 
Speed:         30 ft. (6 squares), fly 80 ft. (average)                   
Armor Class:         17 (-1 size, +2 Dex, +6 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 15                   
Base Attack/Grapple:         +7/+15 
Attack:         Bite +11 melee (2d6+4)                   
Full Attack:         Bite +11 melee (2d6+4) and 2 claws +8 melee (1d4+2)                   
Space/Reach:         10 ft./5 ft.                   
Special Attacks:         Pounce, rake 1d6+2 
Special Qualities:         Darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision, scent 
Saves:         Fort +8, Ref +7, Will +5 
Abilities:         Str 18, Dex 15, Con 16, Int 5, Wis 13, Cha 8                   
Skills:         Jump +8, Listen +6, Spot +10 
Feats:         Iron Will, Multiattack, Weapon Focus (bite)                   
Environment:         Temperate hills                   
Organization:         Solitary, pair, or pride (6-10)                   
Challenge Rating:         4                   
Treasure:         None                  
Alignment:         Always neutral                   
Advancement:         8-10 HD (Large); 11-21 HD (Huge)                  
Level Adjustment:         +3 (cohort)

Size? No change
HD? No change
Init? No change
Speed? No change
Armor Class? No change
*BAB/Grapple? Rename Grapple CMB.*
Attack? No change
Full Attack? No change
Space/Reach? No change
Special Qualities? No change
Saves? No change
Abilities? No change
*Skills? Jump becomes Athletics, 3+1/2HD+STR is how I've been doing it...+10. Listen/Spot become Perception, which is +8*.
Feats? No change
Environment? No change
Organization? No change
Challenge Rating? No change
Treasure? No change
Alignment? No change
Advancement? No change
Level Adjustment? No change

So I just converted a standard 3.5 creature to pathfinder and it took...1 minute? Less, even if I didn't type out all of the "no change" text.  I generally do this on the fly, taking 15 seconds to calculate the skill changes if it comes up since so often I don't even need skills for monsters.

Yes, it would be more difficult if it was an awakened Griffon with four levels of cleric and three of wizard, but still it would take very little time.

{edit: formatting fixes}


----------



## chaotix42 (Mar 23, 2009)

BryonD said:


> One of the awesome things about 4E is its built in compatability with prior editions?




No, Dragonblade is saying one of the awesome things about 4e is that PCs and NPCs use mostly different sets of rules. Check the quote in his post.


----------



## Caliber (Mar 23, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Pretty much what I felt.




3.0 and 3.5 were pretty compatible; you could make the same arguments people are offering here for 3.5 to PFRPG for 3.0 to 3.5. But me and the good capn here can't have been the only people to find said "compatibility" intensely irritating. How many times did things need to be double checked because no one knew if it had changed or not? The example above about Detect Magic is a perfect showcase here. Someone at the table remembers it changed, but not precisely how. Things grind down as we look up how it changed. Multiply that out for dozens of different rules, over and over again. 

It is much easier for me to just learn a new ruleset; the rules in 4E I have the most trouble grokking are generally those which are similar to 3E rules, or analogues. I still catch myself trying to 5' step as a free action, frex. YMMV and whatever though.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> No, Dragonblade is saying one of the awesome things about 4e is that PCs and NPCs use mostly different sets of rules. Check the quote in his post.




My bad.  I went and got myself hung up on the context of the conversation.


Yes, in 4E npcs use different rules.
In context, the statement that it does not cause an incompatibility if npcs are built a different way than pcs is radically different then the total different utility idea that 4E embraces.  


Somehow the requirement of removal of context for the pro-4e claim to fit in seems quite poetic.


----------



## Knight Otu (Mar 23, 2009)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Detect Magic in 3.0 required a spellcraft roll to know what school the spell was from and allowed you to see an aura even if you could not see the item; Detect Magic in 3.5 allows the caster to know the school instantly but requires that you be able to see the item to see the aura.  So for all tense and purposes 3.0 Detect Magic is a different spell than 3.5 Detect Magic, but they serve the same purpose.  That's what makes them compatable.




Bad example, actually. I'm looking at it, and detect magic barely changed, in fact, and is almost like a copy&paste from my 3.0 PHB and my 3.5 PHB. The most notable changes are the area and the length certain auras linger. You'd probably want something like scrying, which required a healthy rewrite.

But yeah, from the looks of it, Pathfinder should be compatible with 3.5. I'm not judging whether it is a "problematic" compatibility as with 3.0->3.5, though. I'm not familiar enough with those rules.

(And while it's kind of hard to make meaningful changes that don't change things, I can agree with the sentiment that the 3.5 changes were too much of fiddly details. It changed too much too little, in a sense.)


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 23, 2009)

Knight Otu said:


> Bad example, actually.




Dang homebrewed version.  Sometimes its been so long that you use the real version that you forget.  Oh well.


----------



## Stereofm (Mar 23, 2009)

resistor said:


> My group runs the Pathfinder APs (3.5e) against Pathfinder-rules characters, and it pretty much Just Works(tm) without any conversion, except a few skill consolidations that are easy to do on the fly.  The characters are slightly more powerful vs. the competition, but the APs are fairly tough to begin with, so it works out.  For easier adventures, just lower the "expected party level" on the cover by one.
> 
> Yes, the monsters and NPCs are using outdated versions of some rules/powers, but nobody ever notices or cares.




Doing the same just now, and have met no problems at all so far. And that's with a split 3.5/3.P party. Just use common sense, and everything is fine.

Go Paizo !


----------



## smug (Mar 23, 2009)

I've been DMing RotRL but with PFRPG rules and so far it's just worked.

Using 3.5 splats for PCs might take more thought, of course (although they also took thought in 3.5...). Overall I'm happy with it (and prefer PFRPG to 3.5 inasmuch as they are different).


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 23, 2009)

Grymar said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I pull up a griffon off of the SRD for my pathfinder game...what do I need to change?
> 
> *Skills? Jump becomes Athletics, 3+1/2HD+STR is how I've been doing it...+10. Listen/Spot become Perception, which is +8*.




As long as we're borrowing good ideas from 4e, here's another one:

Skills don't really matter much for monsters, except to provide a "target DC" against which the PCs will test their own skills.

If a monster is "good" at a skill-- as a griffon should be for Perception-- then give it (HD+3) ranks.

All other skills get (1/2 HD) ranks.

Never, ever count another skill point again.


----------



## Grymar (Mar 23, 2009)

Wulf, that's fraking brilliant.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 23, 2009)

I find 3.0, 3.5, d20 Wheel of Time, d20 Modern, Arcana Evolved, Conan RPG, Pathfinder and even Iron Heroes all compatible with slight variations in power levels. I've mixed and matched elements from the systems and used modules from different ones without significant conversion work.

True 20's damage mechanic knocks it into incompatible for me as well as the older d20 Star Wars stuff I have using vitality and wound points.

Pathfinder's most significant change for conversion work IMO is recalculating CMB for monsters as you change the grapple numbers (size mods change between the systems). NPC skill names are trivial and the numbers rarely important IMO so I don't generally worry about them.

I considered basic, 1e, 2e, and hackmaster compatible with each other as well.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 23, 2009)

What is CMB?

Not to derail, but I am very interested in hearing those using PF rules for AoW. 

At least, when it comes to the end modules and high level play.


----------



## MonkeyDragon (Mar 23, 2009)

My group has played 3.5 since it came out, just finished our first Pathfinder campaign and is starting up our second.  This is what I think from my limited experience.

The rules are similar enough that we transitioned without a ton of effort.  Some of the changes we like, others we don't.  The biggest change seems to be that the core races and classes seem stronger, which afaik was a deliberate attempt to make them as cool as the options presented in books like the completes.

As far as compatibility...I don't know if I would say that Pathfinder is BACKWARDS compatible, so much as I would say it is designed so that 3.5 is FORWARDS compatible.  I can't imagine trying to work pathfinder character options and feats into my 3.5 campaign.  Others may have had great luck with that, though.

What is so far working quite well is using 3.5 stuff with the Pathfinder rules.  I've just put together a 3.5 warlock (with feats according to pathfinder) and a pathfinder fighter, and they both look equally rockin.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 23, 2009)

Rechan said:


> What is CMB?
> 
> Not to derail, but I am very interested in hearing those using PF rules for AoW.
> 
> At least, when it comes to the end modules and high level play.




Combat modifier bonus. BAB, plus strength bonus, plus size modifier (+/-1 per size category away from medium). This is used for grappling and other combat maneuvers instead of having different formulas for each maneuver.


----------



## James Jacobs (Mar 23, 2009)

MonkeyDragon said:


> As far as compatibility...I don't know if I would say that Pathfinder is BACKWARDS compatible, so much as I would say it is designed so that 3.5 is FORWARDS compatible.




And that's why I'm not a fan of the phrase "Backwards Compatible." That, and because it infers that 3.5 is "backwards" or "not as good." While I, personally, like what we've done with PF RPG better than 3.5, the 3.5 rules are still perfectly usable as is.

In any event, yes, Pathfinder RPG will be compatible with 3.5. The final game, which is currently in editing, is closer to 3.5 than the beta; the beta was (like the alpha, but less so) where we threw out some crazy ideas to see how folks responded in the public playtest. Some were well-loved. Other changes, not so much. And in some cases, we realized that the 3.5 rules were more robust and elegant than we thought they were, but only realized that when we took the rules and started tweaking them in an attempt to improve them; in cases where this didn't work, we reverted.

The final game will be, I suspect, about as compatible with 3.5 as 3.5 was with 3.0. You should be able to pick up a Pathfinder RPG adventure and run that adventure using the 3.5 rules without having seen the Pathfinder RPG rules ever. Likewise, someone should be able to pick up a 3.5 adventure and run it using the PF RPG rules without having ever seen the 3.5 core rules.

We'll also have a free conversion booklet PDF available for folks who want to mix and match 3.5 and PF RPG. In any direction.

EDIT: The underlying mechanic of the rules is 100% compatible, so at the very least, you should be able to treat the PF RPG as a 3.5 expansion or alternate in much the same way Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed book works. Although PF RPG is a lot closer to 3.5's core assumptions than Arcana Unearthed is. In any case... we at Paizo would LOVE to have everyone buy the PFRPG, but we also realize the chances of that happening are cosmically tiny. Keeping every adventure and sourcebook we publish for PF RPG compatible with 3.5 is thus important for us.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 24, 2009)

Grymar said:


> Wulf, that's fraking brilliant.




I live to serve, efendi.

To serve, and to frake.


To frake brilliantly.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 24, 2009)

See my problem is this with all the core classes being upgraded (and I REALY wish I were a fly on the wall when someone said "Lets give the wizard MORE) what happens to non core classes.  If I want to play a Psion, or Warlock, thenI need the DM to remake the class. 

     Now maybe there are people who argue psion is op (I do not belive they are any more op then sorcerer), but no one thinks the Warlock is. If the sorcerer gets his base cool stuff and better HD and an at willl ray attack, then they totaly blow warlock out of the water. 

  then we can have those great arguements "well X class is equal to the new stuff" "No Y class is too strong"  "Z class is too weak." 

     then repate this with every feat, spell, item.

So how do you fix that, simple only use Pathfinder...oh, wait then you have a new edtion anyway...


----------



## Merlin's Shadow (Mar 24, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> Indeed. This is one of the awesome things about 4e, and if Pathfinder follows along the same design model that is a good thing for Pathfinder players and DMs. Especially DMs.



I guess I have a hard time understanding this attitude. The people I have gamed with never had a problem "not playing by the rules" behind the screen. Even if the game seemed to encourage it, we always tweaked and twisted to our heart's content while DMing whatever the "rules" said. That just seemed like the natural way of things to us. :shrug:


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 24, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> See my problem is this with all the core classes being upgraded (and I REALY wish I were a fly on the wall when someone said "Lets give the wizard MORE) what happens to non core classes.  If I want to play a Psion, or Warlock, thenI need the DM to remake the class.
> 
> Now maybe there are people who argue psion is op (I do not belive they are any more op then sorcerer), but no one thinks the Warlock is. If the sorcerer gets his base cool stuff and better HD and an at willl ray attack, then they totaly blow warlock out of the water.
> 
> ...




That's my problem as well. Its great if your game is mostly core-only, but 3.5 is full of great options (duskblade, knight) and some not-so-great (hexblade, swashbuckler) that could use some love. Sadly, the nature of the beast is that your core-stuff is golden, monsters can be fudged, but you knight/warmage/spellsword is going to need some work to figure out if its balanced...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 24, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> That's my problem as well. Its great if your game is mostly core-only, but 3.5 is full of great options (duskblade, knight) and some not-so-great (hexblade, swashbuckler) that could use some love. Sadly, the nature of the beast is that your core-stuff is golden, monsters can be fudged, but you knight/warmage/spellsword is going to need some work to figure out if its balanced...




You know what I find funny, people who on one hand complain "I don't want to buy new books I spent $X on 3.5 so I want to keep it" then in there next breath say "Pathfinder is the best"


----------



## gribble (Mar 24, 2009)

Grymar said:


> *BAB/Grapple? Rename Grapple CMB.*



Err... you mean subtract 3 and rename to CMB, right? One of the things PF did was change the size modifiers to grapple from +4/8/16/etc to +1/2/4/etc.

Small change, but one that makes a big difference. And one I don't personally like because it does hurt backwards compatibility a bit.

I've been running a Rise of the Runelords campaign this last year with PFRPG PCs - finished Sunday in fact with a TPK in the final encounter... 

But I digress. I've found as a GM it's very easy to convert on the fly. The two main things are CMB and skills (I tend to just use these as printed, taking the higher of Spot & Listen for Perception, etc). I also tend to give opponents a few more HP as well - generally an extra 10-20%.

I have found the PCs to be quite overpowered though. I'm not sure it's a problem with the PF rules per se, but more with how they interact with a lot of the 3.5 splatbooks. For the next campaign (Curse of the Crimson Throne), I gave the players the choice of either Pathfinder only or 3.5 only. They chose 3.5...


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Mar 24, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> You know what I find funny, people who on one hand complain "I don't want to buy new books I spent  on 3.5 so I want to keep it" then in there next breath say "Pathfinder is the best"



Allow me then if possible to take some of the humour out of it. Let's say I have spent a whole heap of money on 3.5 (I have most of the splats) and I'm looking for some new material. Since I no longer have the option of buying much new stuff specifically for 3.5, I then look to getting into either 4E or possibly Pathfinder. If I get into 4E, I have a new ruleset to learn as well as at least the 3 core books before I even get started - my previous collection gets put on the backburner. Since, I like my splats, I'm looking at a whole heap more dollars (which may be cool if you like where 4E took the game or not). Or, I can get into Pathfinder which means my 3.5 collection is not invalidated and I get "new" material for a system I enjoy. If I like the changes pathfinder made then even better. Pathfinder seems like a valid option.

I don't know, seems a reasonable position to me.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 24, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Allow me then if possible to take some of the humour out of it. Let's say I have spent a whole heap of money on 3.5 (I have most of the splats) and I'm looking for some new material. Since I no longer have the option of buying much new stuff specifically for 3.5, I then look to getting into either 4E or possibly Pathfinder. If I get into 4E, I have a new ruleset to learn as well as at least the 3 core books before I even get started - my previous collection gets put on the backburner. Since, I like my splats, I'm looking at a whole heap more dollars (which may be cool if you like where 4E took the game or not). Or, I can get into Pathfinder which means my 3.5 collection is not invalidated and I get "new" material for a system I enjoy. If I like the changes pathfinder made then even better. Pathfinder seems like a valid option.
> 
> I don't know, seems a reasonable position to me.
> 
> ...




That's pretty much how I see it. I can use all of my 3x material easier with Pathfinder than I can with 4E. I have the 4E core rulebooks, I've tried doing conversions from Basic modules even to 4E and it's really too much of a pain in the arse to do so. Not to mention that a lot of the 3x crunch are useless with 4E, they are in essence 2 completely different games.


----------



## Krensky (Mar 24, 2009)

MonkeyDragon said:


> As far as compatibility...I don't know if I would say that Pathfinder is BACKWARDS compatible, so much as I would say it is designed so that 3.5 is FORWARDS compatible.  I can't imagine trying to work pathfinder character options and feats into my 3.5 campaign.  Others may have had great luck with that, though.




You've got those backwards.

Pathfinder is backwards compatible because it accepts input from 3.5 with no conversion of note. 3.5 would be forwards compatible if it could use Pathfinder with no conversion of note.


----------



## Krensky (Mar 24, 2009)

James Jacobs said:


> And that's why I'm not a fan of the phrase "Backwards Compatible." That, and because it infers that 3.5 is "backwards" or "not as good." While I, personally, like what we've done with PF RPG better than 3.5, the 3.5 rules are still perfectly usable as is.




Pathfinder is a new version of the 3.5 rule set. It can use material from it's direct ancestor with little to no adjustment. Pathfinder is backwards compatible with 3.5.

Where's the inference to 3.5 being anything other then older?


----------



## Wicht (Mar 24, 2009)

Grymar said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I pull up a griffon off of the SRD for my pathfinder game...what do I need to change?Size? No change
> HD? No change
> ...




As pointed out already, the change from grapple to CMB will change the bonus.

In the end though, your point stands.  Even if you forget that the size bonuses have changed its really no big thing in the long run.  I've been running 3.5 adventures using the Beta rules and about the only changes I make to the NPCs is recalculating their grapple.  Normally I don't even bother updating the class abilities and it all works out fine in the end.  If anything it gives my players a little edge which is fine.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 24, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> You know what I find funny, people who on one hand complain "I don't want to buy new books I spent  on 3.5 so I want to keep it" then in there next breath say "Pathfinder is the best"




You really don't see the difference in:

"Hey, 4e!  Time to create an entire new class and race from scratch to play my character!  Oh, better not forget the forty odd powers to go with it!"

and:

"Hey, Pathfinder!  Time to tweak-oh hey, done!"


----------



## Aus_Snow (Mar 24, 2009)

Yes, it really is compatible with 3.5. As has been mentioned, we're talking 3.0 -> 3.5 equivalency, or thereabouts. Not difficult at all, basically. I've done some 'conversions', if you can even call them that. Not heaps, but enough to get an idea of the processes involved.

But then, I've never had much issue with mixing 3.0 and 3.5, even during play. YMMV, as always.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 24, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> You know what I find funny, people who on one hand complain "I don't want to buy new books I spent  on 3.5 so I want to keep it" then in there next breath say "Pathfinder is the best"



Examples of someone saying both these things?
For myself, I was very much looking forward to buying stacks of 4E books until I saw the details.


My response to the inability to use non-core classes is the same as for everything else.    That is just plain silly.  
Just as a random example lets look at psions.  There is talk that psionics are likely coming up in the not to distant future.  I'm not 100% certain, but I look forward to spending the cash not going to 4E on it.
But that is the future.  
If one of my players wanted to run a psion in a game this week, we would be up and running in 10 minutes.  Tweaking the class based on how mages, sorcerers or even clerics work would be very simple.  When the official PF version comes around we look at it and either adapt or not based on what we want.  Easy easy stuff.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 24, 2009)

Another critically important point is the distinction between compatibility and balance.

A straight from the book 3.5 psion is 100% compatible with PF with zero effort and zero tweaks required.  If I was running something with a 3.5 psion npc I would not change it any more than I tend to change npcs to suit my own preference anyway.

If a player wanted to run a straight 3.5 psion in a PF game they may (or may not) find that they are slightly less powerful than the other characters.  They would be 100% compatible with no problem.  
Tweaking power by adding some per day abilities or whatever is both trivial and optional.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 24, 2009)

I never had any problem mixing 3.0 and 3.5. We're playing 3.0, with a bunch of house rules, but I've been using 3.5 sourcebooks (especially the Monster Manual) for years without converting anything.

If Pathfinder's changes are on a similar level I expect I could plug that stuff right in in the same way.


----------



## roguerouge (Mar 24, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> See my problem is this with all the core classes being upgraded (and I REALY wish I were a fly on the wall when someone said "Lets give the wizard MORE) what happens to non core classes.  If I want to play a Psion, or Warlock, thenI need the DM to remake the class.




While I agree with you about the wizard, they did tamp down the power of the druid.

As far as non-SRD core classes being overshadowed? Well, we can talk about that issue when a player of a beguiler or a warmage feels overshadowed. I'm not really concerned about the warlock or the swashbuckler, as they were designed behind the power curve in all but their niche campaigns (the no-rest for the former and the no-armor for the latter).


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 24, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> While I agree with you about the wizard, they did tamp down the power of the druid..




I think the idea with the wizard (and similar classes) was to make it appealing in the later levels.  In core 3.5, at around 11th level there's much more incentive to switch to a prestige class than stay a standard wizard (as you get most of the Wizard benefits with prestige classes that are +1 spellcasting/level anyway).


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 24, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> I think the idea with the wizard (and similar classes) was to make it appealing in the later levels.  In core 3.5, at around 11th level there's much more incentive to switch to a prestige class than stay a standard wizard (as you get most of the Wizard benefits with prestige classes that are +1 spellcasting/level anyway).




I have never understood why multiclassing or a system that encouraged multiclassing was bad.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Mar 24, 2009)

iwarrior-poet said:


> I have been looking at Paizo's Pathfinder for awhile now. At first I was very interested in it. It seemed to bring some good reforms to the 3.5 gaming system (it is dubbed 3.75). It has been billed as compatible with 3.5.




Based on my read-through of the Beta, I found Pathfinder to be less compatible with 3.5 than 3.5 was with 3.0. I found it sufficiently incompatible to effectively kill my interest in it.

I write that as someone who found the only significant compatibility issue between 3.0 and 3.5 to be (a) the revision to damage reduction and (b) the changed names of the skills.

I have played at tables where players are using both 3.0 and 3.5 PHBs, and with the exception of people getting confused regarding Wilderness Lore and Survival, run into nary a problem. I've DMed 3.0 modules using the 3.5 rules and, with the exception of tweaking damage reduction, never had a hiccup.

I would consider that to be effectively not possible with Pathfinder.

Easy conversion. But not compatible.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Mar 24, 2009)

Storm Raven said:


> I have never understood why multiclassing or a system that encouraged multiclassing was bad.




I've got no problem with multiclassing. But when levels 11-20 of Wizard are just flat-out superceded by dozens of prestige classes, then there's something wrong with levels 11-20 of Wizard.

Of course, I'd argue that the problem here is bad prestige class design: No prestige class should _ever_ give you everything the core class gives you + even more nifty stuff. But WotC let that cat out of the bag years ago. If it's to be fixed, Paizo has to fix it from the other direction.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 24, 2009)

I can live without prestige classes.


----------



## DM_Jeff (Mar 24, 2009)

In my Rise of the Runelords game, the party was:

A 3.5 Binder
A PF Paladin
A 3.5 Spirit Shaman
A PF Ranger/3.5 Scout

In my Curse of the Crimson Throne game, the party was:

A 3.5 Green Ronin Noble from Black Company Campaign setting/PF Rogue
A PF Monk
A PF Cleric
A 3.5 Warlock

Once you standardized hit points via PF's ideals and moved a few skill names around, all these classes interacted seamlessly with each other and whatever 3.5 stuff I threw at them, no problem.

-DM Jeff


----------



## BryonD (Mar 24, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> But not compatible.



Example?


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 25, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> I've got no problem with multiclassing. But when levels 11-20 of Wizard are just flat-out superceded by dozens of prestige classes, then there's something wrong with levels 11-20 of Wizard.




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?


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 25, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> Based on my read-through of the Beta, I found Pathfinder to be less compatible with 3.5 than 3.5 was with 3.0. I found it sufficiently incompatible to effectively kill my interest in it.




One more time...the final release of Pathfinder will have less changes than the Beta did. Hence, it will be more compatible with 3.5 than the Beta release is. I refer you to James Jacobs from earlier in this very thread:



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> In any event, yes, Pathfinder RPG will be compatible with 3.5. The final game, which is currently in editing, is closer to 3.5 than the beta; the beta was (like the alpha, but less so) where we threw out some crazy ideas to see how folks responded in the public playtest. Some were well-loved. Other changes, not so much. And in some cases, we realized that the 3.5 rules were more robust and elegant than we thought they were, but only realized that when we took the rules and started tweaking them in an attempt to improve them; in cases where this didn't work, we reverted.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 25, 2009)

Storm Raven said:


> 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?



What's the point of having levels 11-20 of the wizard class if no one is going to use them?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 25, 2009)

I've been running Rise of the Runelords using the Pathfinder Beta rules and it's working just fine. We're just about on module 3 and the only thing I ever find myself having to do is figuring out the CMB for an NPC on the fly because one of the PCs thinks they should go wrestling. Next time they do that I'm going to call the wrath of Andy Kauffman's ghost on them.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Mar 25, 2009)

The amount of compatibility is highly subjective, depending mostly upon how much respect your game has for RAW. I've seen a lot of games that were very loose in terms of RAW, and didn't sweat the small details. Players didn't powergame, and there were lots of houserules and/or 3rd party books used with little regard for how everything tied together. I've seen other games based more on a system mastery/CharOp vibe, where the little math and synergies really matter, or a heavily houseruled game that still respects RAW and cares how the math behind the system works. 

Its all a question of how easily you want Pathfinder to fit together with 3.5E. If you don't care so much about a clean fit, its great. If you want the numbers to add up and for everything to work seamlessly, it isn't. 

Let us not forget the 3.0-3.5 conversion. While some people still used their 3.0E splats, for the vast majority of D&D players, 3.5E largely invalidated people's 3.0E collections. If Pathfinder is being compared to upgrading to 3.5E from 3.0E, I don't expect a seamless transition.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 25, 2009)

Storm Raven said:


> 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?




The goal is for different charachters of level X to be roughly equivalent in power and able to handle challenges of EL X both to survive and have an impact on overcoming the challenges. The more that different options do the same thing but make one option more powerful than the other then the farther from the goal you get. Ideally single classed characters should not be suboptimal, just as multiclassed characters should not be suboptimal. Deciding not to take a prestige class should not be suboptimal.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 25, 2009)

Like many debates, "is Pathfinder really compatible with 3.5?" really depends on *what 3.5 you're talking about*. If you're talking SRD released materials, then there is a reasonable amount of compatibility: an NPC Fighter is a Pathfinder Fighter, after all.

If you're talking about any of WotC's closed content, the answer is "not really, nor is it going to be." A Warblade, Marshall or other non "core" class can't be updated by Paizo, so they're not going to *necessarily *be compatible anymore. I say not necessarily, because if Pathfinder doesn't make more than superficial changes to the core 3.5 rules they'll still be mostly usable. I suppose it's up to the individual to determine if the changes in Pathfinder are superficial...they certainly don't seem that way to me.

...But I think that's good. One positive thing that Pathfinder will do (it must do  this because of the OGL) is to cut away all of the closed content from 3.5, since they can't include it. To my mind, all that splat-bloat was what broke 3.5, and it's *gone*. What they get is the option to recreate the material from the 3.5 splats with design knowledge of the problems that these classes caused. 

Just my $.02...

--Steve


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 25, 2009)

Storm Raven said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2009)

Storm Raven said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2009)

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 (Mar 25, 2009)

Storm Raven said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> ...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 (Mar 25, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> It goes back to the problem of system mastery.



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


----------



## nightwyrm (Mar 25, 2009)

BryonD said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> 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).
> 
> ...




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 (Mar 25, 2009)

Andor said:


> 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.)
> 
> ...




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?


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 25, 2009)

BryonD said:


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




Then by converse, wouldn't un-optimization equate to losing? 

Actually, I thought SysMast was a symptom of Rat-Bastard DMs, Goodman Modules, and Paizo AP's, but I could be wrong. 



Andor said:


> This is a problem that exists only from the perspective of you looking down at a character sheet.
> 
> Classes don't exist from the characters perspectives (although levels might.)




Arguing narrativism doesn't do much here; the point of the rant was not whether a wizard is less a wizard then a multi-classed uber-caster, its the fact that statistically he's under performing. 

Take my fighter example; the ftr/PDK/KP has a boatload of options available to him; bolstering allies, bonuses to saves, new offensive and defensive manuevers, better skill choice, etc. What did he surrender for it? seven feats (while nothing to sneeze at, he gained well over seven unique abilities in this build). The trade-off ratio doesn't equal.


----------



## Andor (Mar 25, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Arguing narrativism doesn't do much here; the point of the rant was not whether a wizard is less a wizard then a multi-classed uber-caster, its the fact that statistically he's under performing.
> 
> Take my fighter example; the ftr/PDK/KP has a boatload of options available to him; bolstering allies, bonuses to saves, new offensive and defensive manuevers, better skill choice, etc. What did he surrender for it? seven feats (while nothing to sneeze at, he gained well over seven unique abilities in this build). The trade-off ratio doesn't equal.




The thrust of the multi-classing mechanic is allowing the character to choose breadth vs depth. Usually a MC gains depth and looses breadth although your particular example is the other way around since he'd lose access to the upper level fighter specialization feats in exchange for his abilities. Is it worth it?

That very much depends on who you ask. It probably depends on the exact party composition and campaign type. From a pure damage output stance I suspect he's lagging the straight fighter who has access to the mastery feats. And at some tables that's what would matter. 

My point is that there is no one "right" way to play the game in any aspect, including character creation and growth. There may be wrong ways, a hyperactive, caffine overdosed teenager trying to figure out why his bard 1, psion 1, sorcerer 1, wizard 1, healer 1 makes a poor front line fighter type is not doing himself or his team any favors no matter what he claims to be trying to roleplay. 

Can multiclassing be abused? Absolutely, but that's part of the GMs job, to rein in the guys who haunt the CharOps boards. 

But if you can intelligently apply those choices to optimize your character for your campaign at your table _of course_ he's going to be more effective than a character who is optimized for some different set of circumstances. If he wasn't, what's the point of haveing options anyway?

If you mean that some PRCs are strictly, under all circumstances and for all purposes better than the base class... then I agree with you. Because that sets up a sub-optimization trap. Less severe than our Mt Dew sucking friend, but still a trap. There are, I think, only a few such PRCs out there. I suppose there shouldn't be any, but that 3e contains some mistakes across a couple of dozen books  and a few thousand pages is no great shock and (IMHO) not rant worthy.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 25, 2009)

Andor said:


> The thrust of the multi-classing mechanic is allowing the character to choose breadth vs depth. Usually a MC gains depth and looses breadth although your particular example is the other way around since he'd lose access to the upper level fighter specialization feats in exchange for his abilities. Is it worth it?




Are you referring to the +1 to hit and +2 to damage he'd lack from GrtrWpnFocus & GtrWpnSpec? He'd still qualify for most other feats and while he'd have to be a bit more selective in his choices, he's certainly no worse off than the barbarian or paladin that regard.

(Unless you're referring to Weapon Supremacy in PHB2. Then the fighter finally has a high-level goal to aim for.)



Andor said:


> That very much depends on who you ask. It probably depends on the exact party composition and campaign type. From a pure damage output stance I suspect he's lagging the straight fighter who has access to the mastery feats. And at some tables that's what would matter.




Again, see above. 



Andor said:


> My point is that there is no one "right" way to play the game in any aspect, including character creation and growth. There may be wrong ways, a hyperactive, caffeine overdosed teenager trying to figure out why his bard 1, psion 1, sorcerer 1, wizard 1, healer 1 makes a poor front line fighter type is not doing himself or his team any favors no matter what he claims to be trying to roleplay.




Awww, I thought one the great features of 3e was the fact that a brd1/psi1/sor1/wiz1/hlr1 is a viable character concept if you don't mind being underpowered. We all can't be clr5 after all.

(thats not a dig at you, btw.)



Andor said:


> Can multiclassing be abused? Absolutely, but that's part of the GMs job, to rein in the guys who haunt the CharOps boards.
> 
> But if you can intelligently apply those choices to optimize your character for your campaign at your table _of course_ he's going to be more effective than a character who is optimized for some different set of circumstances. If he wasn't, what's the point of having options anyway?




No question. I actually don't mind some level of optimization, the PC quoted above would be laughed away from our table (if he wasn't slain due to normal play). However, when certain builds clearly overpower all others, somethings got to give.



Andor said:


> If you mean that some PRCs are strictly, under all circumstances and for all purposes better than the base class... then I agree with you. Because that sets up a sub-optimization trap. Less severe than our Mt Dew sucking friend, but still a trap. There are, I think, only a few such PRCs out there. I suppose there shouldn't be any, but that 3e contains some mistakes across a couple of dozen books  and a few thousand pages is no great shock and (IMHO) not rant worthy.




Actually, PrCs are a double-edge sword. 60% of all PrCs aren't worth the ink used to print them because they take away from a classes given role (warrior, nuker, healer, trapfinder), 10% are so good they're no brainers (archmage, radiant servant) except in very specialized builds, and 20% are flavorful, unique, but not over-powering or watering down. I'd say 10% are worthy enough choices to be balanced, but against the other 30% of too-goods (or simply good), they fall in with that bottom 60%.

Such is life.


----------



## nightwyrm (Mar 26, 2009)

When we talk about the power of multiclassing, shouldn't we distinguish between casters and non-casters. Wizards 20, druid 20, cleric 20 aren't optimal (in the sense that you can grab a fullcasting PrC and get more stuff), but those classes are still stronger than most non-caster characters you can build with a bunch of multiclassing and PrCing. A caster can take PrCs to increase their power, but only because those PrCs are able increase their spell casting. The most important thing in a caster PrC is spell casting advancement. If a PrC doesn't have full casting, it needs to have really good features to be considered, and probably anything less than 8/10 casting is useless no matter what feature it gets.

A ftr 2/barb 3/PrC X/PrC Y/PrC Z is messy and inelegant, but is probably still behind the power curve compared to a druid 20 or wiz 20.

If you want to nerf a caster, force him to multiclass into something that doesn't advance his casting.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 26, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> If you want to nerf a caster, force him to multiclass into something that doesn't advance his casting.




I saw a lot of "low-power" variants that forced spellcasters to multi-class one caster/one non in alteration, so that at 20th level, they only had 10th-level caster powers. IMHO, it missed the point; if I want to be a caster, I want to be a caster, not a half-caster. It'd be better just to remake caster classes with progression like bards than force me to to be a fighter/wizard. 

But that's just me.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 26, 2009)

BryonD said:


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




At it's core, system mastery is about understanding the language that underpins RPGs.

Going back to the OP... I don't mind the idea of twinks, I just wonder if the final result will be such that new published products will need to dual-stat in order to be Pathfinder-ready. That would be a shame.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 26, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I don't mind the idea of twinks,





Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Mar 26, 2009)

Sometimes its hard to find players to fill out your game, and you have to deal with twinks and noobs. 3E didn't handle either very well without a lot of effort, especially in mixed groups.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 26, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Then by converse, wouldn't un-optimization equate to losing?



Only if you have a "win/lose" mindset to begin with.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 26, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> 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?



If you don't understand what I mean, then read the post I replied to.

Clearly being more powerful is a requirement and completely trumps playing a character.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 26, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> At it's core, system mastery is about understanding the language that underpins RPGs.



In the context of the post I replied to "system mastery" was specifically in reference to creating a character of maxmium power and pushed (if not mandated) selection of one build over another.

I accept your defintion and have no problem with it.  But the term is a typical buzz word with multiple implications of varying priority.  You are not using it the way Rem used it  He may have been thinking the same thing as you.  But if so he fell into the trap of presuming one possible outcome and ended up being all about power build optimization.

In the broader sense, system mastery can and should mean having the tools to build whatever style of character you want.

Limiting that freedom to only those options which are power optimized is a bad thing caused by a win/lose mentality.  IMO



> Going back to the OP... I don't mind the idea of twinks, I just wonder if the final result will be such that new published products will need to dual-stat in order to be Pathfinder-ready. That would be a shame.



Not needed in the slightest


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 27, 2009)

BryonD said:


> In the context of the post I replied to "system mastery" was specifically in reference to creating a character of maxmium power and pushed (if not mandated) selection of one build over another.
> 
> I accept your defintion and have no problem with it.  But the term is a typical buzz word with multiple implications of varying priority.  You are not using it the way Rem used it  He may have been thinking the same thing as you.  But if so he fell into the trap of presuming one possible outcome and ended up being all about power build optimization.




This brings to mind the Character Optimization board on Wizards. Every so often, someone would wander in and say, "Help me optimize by 11th level dwarf cleric" or whatever, and usally the first reply would be, "As what?"

Not only is power building a limited perspective, it ignores that all power builds are context dependent. Generating obscenely high melee damage means little against a mobile flying opponent, and even a powerful archmage faces some hurdles in fighting opponents with defenses against magic.


----------

