Pathfinder-izing some classes

[roguethree]

The level 20 capstones are a nice idea, but I don't like the idea of making anything so valuable that it's mandatory.

I don't think any of the suggested capstones make pure-classing it the only way to go. I think they make the pure classes viable from a mechanical standpoint. A fighter could still go weaponmaster for the improved threat range, superior weapon focus, and ki strikes. A paladin could still go Divine Champion or *twitch* Triadic Knight for a different set of feats and abilities.

These four classes uniquely, though, are less effective when played to 20 than Warlocks, Druids, Clerics, Rangers, Bards, Wizards, Sorcerers, and especially Favored Souls and Spirit Shamans, which were designed with pure class functionality in mind.

[Kaeldorn]

I just like mixing and matching abilities that support a character concept that I have in mind. Going with 20 levels of a single class means everything statistical is predetermined (except of course your skills and feats). That just feels a bit limited. It's like playing with a box of Legos that will only let its pieces fit together exactly as shown on the picture.

But as I said, to each his own.

[Lothoir]

I just like mixing and matching abilities that support a character concept that I have in mind.

You mean feats?

[Kaeldorn]

I mean the full package. And class abilities are a big part of that. Class abilities and skill choices lay the basis, while feats flesh it out a bit.

[Philosopher]

Lets not get off track here. The point is, that these four classes are certainly underpowered compared to others, and the solutions represented here are definitely a step in the right direction, and should be considered fully.

Whether it is creative or not to go 20 levels in class is irrelevant. The reason to encourage 20 levels on one class is to discourage blatant power-building, by giving players more options than just Fighter/FB, or Fighter/WeaponMaster.

[Kangleton]

I would like to disagree with the original statement that Paladins can hold their own. I have a history of playing evil characters, and a history of killing Paladins with waaaay too much leisure. I'd like to be afraid of them, please.

[Root]

Pathfinder....

<3

[Cornuto]

I actually love all these suggestions.

[Catastrophe]

rogue just wants his horse.

But I do like the suggestions.

[Dragor]

Um...if you can't use the fighter bonus feats "effectively", you don't play a decent fighter. Ursus would LOVE the free feats mentioned to free up some more slots for bonus feats he did NOT get to take. I took both AC feats with him and would have loved to have the slots open to take KD and Imp KD. There is almost no feats he has that are not used in most fights.

Maybe you should reword this with the ending with "against evil undead."

I can tell you from experience that a certain paldin who shall remain nameless didn't stand much of a chance against a certain fighter who shall remain nameless in one-on-one fighting (even after buffing).

Who wouldnt love free feats? The problem with using Ursus is an example is making an effective two wep fighter TAKES alot of feats. The standard sword/shield model you wind up taking Wep Spec in more than one Wep

Paladins are tricky not because of there feats/buffs (or lack of) but because of how you have to spend their ability points

Paladins become a Divine Caster with not enough spells and a fighter with not enough Dmg (except against undead)...I mean your basically spending ability points like a High CHA Cleric and not getting Divine Power

[Dragor]

Lets not get off track here. The point is, that these four classes are certainly underpowered compared to others, and the solutions represented here are definitely a step in the right direction, and should be considered fully.

Whether it is creative or not to go 20 levels in class is irrelevant. The reason to encourage 20 levels on one class is to discourage blatant power-building, by giving players more options than just Fighter/FB, or Fighter/WeaponMaster.

I disagree on both points entirely

Saying they should be rebalanced because they are underpowered is using the same arguement that the Anti-Caster faction uses to try to get spellcasters nerfed

A rogue gets access to some very usefull rogue only feats starting at lvl 12 gets access to more skill points than any other class opens up more PrC's than any other class and feels underpowered because of the lack of need of a rogue on this server

And you have more options than just Figh/FB, Figh/WM its just those are the best 8 Figh/5 FB/7 WM can do between 350-400 damage on a crit why would you go a different route aside from an RP perspective?

If you want to discourage Power building the method that needs to be followed is requireing a minimum number of lvls in each class

[Zoberraz]

I'm going to come up and ask an obviously very biased question:

Rangers get anything nice too?

[gbbishop]

hey I am all for any pathfinderizations... we stopped using any none PF materials for PNP. was the best move we ever made. better than 2ed to 3ed that is for sure.

[DM_Equinox]

I never quite saw the appeal of that.. 20 levels in a single class just seems a bit bland and uncreative to me.

But a level 20 Monk is a thing of beauty. A level 20 anything for the most.

[Thief Of Navarre]

I never quite saw the appeal of that.. 20 levels in a single class just seems a bit bland and uncreative to me.

But hey, to each their own I suppose.

The prereqs for FB are getting changed to make it easier for barbarians to get.


Some of those look interesting and would be pretty easy to implement.. might revisit them later.

Ohh please do! I havnt played a barbarian since Icewind Dale 2 came out for that reason. Making FB easier for barbarians is also thumbs up

*edit* Any idea what the FB is going to require when you change it? Rage, skills, fort save, bab?
*edit2* Ohh vigorous rage, make it have big prereq like rage 3x a day or something Thanks Kael