|
11 months ago ::
Jul 04, 2012 - 5:58AM
#1
|
|
|
I'm interested in finally taking the plunge and learning how to design worlds and DM. I have most of the 3.5 books and Pathfinder books and was wondering how many DM's would recommend using the newer Pathfinder rules even if the game will be set, say, in the Forgotten Realms?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 04, 2012 - 6:13AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2005
|
Considering that the description for PF on Paizo's website specifically states that it's compatible with 3.5, I don't think there's a big deal.
"Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same. If you are too attentive to the former, you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter." -Condoleezza Rice
"My fellow Americans... I've just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. Bombing begins in five minutes." - Ronald Reagan
This user has been brought to you by the letters "O-R-C" and the numbers "2, 3, 4, and 6"
Resident Pithed-Off Dragon
Buttler of the House of Trolls
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 04, 2012 - 6:24AM
#3
|
|
|
Since my experience with D&D is limted to playing in a few online games and Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2, would you say that the Pathfinder classes and rules are generally superior and an upgrade? I ask because I haven't read many of the books beyond the D&D core Player's Handbook and a few of the Forgotten Realms book, and those mainly for the lore material.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 04, 2012 - 9:31AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
If you've never played 3.5 or pathfinder its an interesting choice. This forum is mostly 3.5 based, and I generally prefer it. PF is still publishing books, and the PFRD contains tons of free stuff to use. So content wise for someone without many books, that might be the way to go. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ The conversion between the two isn't actually as easy as it sounds, and is sort of a pain. I'd say go all PF or none. There are a lot of little changes that you miss and don't quite match up easily.
5e comments and thoughts all in one place. Check it out to provide feedback, mock, or steal ideas.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28835423/Krusks_5e_Design_Goals?sdb=1
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 04, 2012 - 11:57PM
#5
|
|
|
Thanks. I actually have most of the books on both sides at this point, but I think what you suggest would be best. Going with the D&D material first would be the logical course. Once I get confident enough with the mechanics, I might want to had Pathfinder material.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 06, 2012 - 3:34AM
#6
|
|
|
I quite like a lot of what they've done with Pathfinder, it's like 3.5th but just a tad different. Improved in many ways? I'd say so, but I think what it lacks is just the fact that there's so much cool 3.5 stuff which isn't converted.
Can you use PF in a Forgotten Realms setting? Sure. You may have to disentangle things a little, since the PF rules assume a Golarion (PF) setting, but to be honest, the 3.5th rules pretty much assume an FR or similar setting anyway.
Can you use PF stuff with 3.5 stuff? Some stuff is actually not hard to convert. A lot of 3.5 classes I reckon you could just play in PF and just take the larger number of feats, etc. A lot of 3.5 feats and spells will work just fine. However, despite PF being mechanically very similar to 3.5, it's far more annoying than you might expect, because odd little things keep cropping up.
From NWN(2), you should find using either 3.5 or PF fairly straightforwards. The biggest things will probably be the combat manouevre stuff, especially grappling (note combat actions work differently in 3.5th and PF) and mounted combat. A lot of little things designed to make life harder more realistic were stripped out of 3(.5) for NWN(2) as well, so be sure not to assume you can just e.g. cast spells without a spellbook or component pouch.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 09, 2012 - 7:34PM
#7
|
|
|
I recommend going with PF first, actually.
PF did a lot of spell control, and class editing, eliminating a lot of the broken stuff that tends to pigeonhole 3.5. It buffed classes and rewarded single classing, while eliminating a lot of broken spell power. Now, being a sorceror is cool because you're a sorceror, NOT because you have access to the wizard spell list and can choose broken spells. Heck, the balance to the polymorph line saves a LOT of trouble.
Etc, etc. PF was definitely a big buff up for the melee classes, although I have to say that the Paladin came out better then all the others, followed by the barbarian. But the fighter definitely got some helpful crunch.
Still doesn't address a few glaring problems with the system, especially melee, but it's definitely got more balance then 3.5, which frankly suffers from excesses of rules, items and classes that aren't made with one another in mind, which can lead to some very terrifying synergies (I'm looking at you, Pouncing Frenzied Berserker Shock trooper Charger).
And you definitely can't import all of 3.5 into Pathfinder without some serious consideration. For instance, the spell Wraithblade is probably never going to see the light of day in Pathfinder.
They still have the problem of having to try and balance spell lists, however...:P
===Aelryinth
Fighter vs Warblade analysis http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19573526/Analyzing_the_Fighter_vs_The_Warblade
The Lockdown F/20 iconic build http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19856162/A_little_Lock_build_for_you
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 10, 2012 - 1:12PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
PF was definitely a big buff up for the melee classes, although I have to say that the Paladin came out better then all the others, followed by the barbarian. But the fighter definitely got some helpful crunch.
Pathfinder is refered to as "Caster edition" because noncasters got some severe nerfs and a few minor buffs. Meanwhile casters got no nerfs and a few minor buffs.
They still have the problem of having to try and balance spell lists, however...:P
This doesn't help the caster edition problem. Especially when PF made their own pile of also broken spells to add in.
5e comments and thoughts all in one place. Check it out to provide feedback, mock, or steal ideas.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28835423/Krusks_5e_Design_Goals?sdb=1
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 10, 2012 - 8:13PM
#9
|
|
|
Have to disagree with you there, Krusk. The lack of breaking PrC's and the nerfing down of a lot of spells is a good control factor.
As for not having easy access to Pounce, well, I agree melee should have it, but it doesn't break melee NOT to have it. And Power Attack is only a nerf if you allow unlimited TH or Touch Attacks everywhere ... otherwise, it's actually stronger then 3E's.
Fighters Not Having Good Things still hit. They still have crappy defenses. But their base combat numbers are no longer overshadowed by other melee classes until you get into niche cases.
==Aelryinth
Fighter vs Warblade analysis http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19573526/Analyzing_the_Fighter_vs_The_Warblade
The Lockdown F/20 iconic build http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19856162/A_little_Lock_build_for_you
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 11, 2012 - 9:26AM
#10
|
|
|
Pathfinder is refered to as "Caster edition" because noncasters got some severe nerfs and a few minor buffs. Meanwhile casters got no nerfs and a few minor buffs.
Pathfinder is also said to hate casters, because of the Concentration nerfs (Concentration is not a skill and is hard(er) to boost, whilst the DCs are higher, especially for casting defensively) and things like the feat which lets you follow someone who 5ft-steps away from you, thus making it quite tricky to cast anything in melee range without provoking.
As much as anything, the lack of 100 splatbooks' worth of spells stops casters from spiraling out of control in quite the same way.
Pathfinder is still essentially 3.5, but I like a lot of what they did, at least in principle.
|
|
|
