| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Azgulor |
Anyone interested in an official Pathfinder version/update of AE races/classes? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 2 (08/31/09 18:34:15) |
What the title says. I'd love to see an official Pathfinder update to the Arcana Evolved Races and Classes to bring them to parity with the PF races and classes. Anyone else think this would be a good product? Not a full-on re-release necessarily but perhaps a PDF conversion/update doc.
|
||
|
Tarondor |
|||
|
Posts: 2118 (09/01/09 07:21:13) The Old Assassin |
Not me!
Those are two flavors I'd just as soon remain separate. |
||
 Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
Posts: 8335 (09/01/09 10:02:13) Enigma |
Nor am I sure that it's necessary. I'll grant, I've only gone over the Pathfinder classes a couple times, but I'll take a magister over a PF
wizard or sorcerer in a heartbeat. One of the major goals of the PF classes was, eliminate the incentive to get out of the base class, and get into a PrC, that
exists in many of the 3.5 classes. That already exists in AE.
|
||
|
Azgulor |
|||
|
Posts: 3 (09/01/09 20:10:37) |
So, do you feel the AE classes are already on par balance-wise with PF classes? Just curious.
|
||
|
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
Posts: 8336 (09/02/09 08:01:40) Enigma |
I haven't done a line-for-line comparison, but in terms of power, such a comparison is only necessary if you intend to have both in your game. And if you
do, it may well be that certain classes, in either system, might benefit from reconsideration. Philosophically, tho, they're similar...give interesting
stuff so one doesn't feel compelled to shift into a PrC at the earliest possible moment.
|
||
|
Azgulor |
|||
|
Posts: 4 (09/02/09 09:20:39) |
Well, that's the scenario I'm contemplating - a mix of PF classes and AE classes.
What I envision: Non-spell casters from PF Monk or Oathsworn (or both) AE classes for spell users Unfettered Akashic My thought was that the AE classes need to fill in some/all of the dead levels to be on-par with PF classes. Best-case scenario would be an official Malhavoc update, thus the reason for my post. |
||
|
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
Posts: 8338 (09/02/09 10:39:15) Enigma |
Nah. Pathfinder fell into a couple traps, IMO, with how they built their classes. One is, "we have to define a class special at every level!" Not. A
few empty levels is No Big Deal. What you don't want is stuff like the wizard, which has nothing but a few bonus feats. Also, in many cases the PF classes
make the specials look busier than they are, because every regularly scaling ability (like rogue sneak attack, +1d6 every 2 levels) is given its own entry in
the special abilities line. Thus, it looks busier than it is...especially since PF has several more of those.
And, note that, for the most part, you don't have apples to apples comparisons anyway. The apples to apples comparisons are limited to caster-caster, fighter-fighter, specialist-specialist, and skillmonkey-skillmonkey. You've said you're gonna use the AE casters. Fighter-fighter would be PF Fighter and Barbarian compared to Unfettered, and monk vs. oathsworn. Specialist-specialist would be paladin vs. champion, and ranger vs. totem warrior. Specialist vs. specialist is akashic vs. rogue and bard. |
||
|
varianor |
|||
|
Posts: 12200 (09/03/09 04:41:58) Moderator Supreme |
Which "dead spots" are you talking about? Some classes could use that. (Others, like the witch, could just use a complete overhaul, starting with
giving them a d8 for hit points.)
I noticed the Pathfinder "fill in" method of completing their class tables, and actually I thought it was a good move because it looks like there's something going on. Many players don't take the time to deconstruct their class of choice and realize that while nothing is listed, they are getting a benefit. From reading through the races, classes, skills and feats chapters in Pathfinder so far, I think that the changes they made will bring a base D&D 3.5 class up to more on par with an AE class, rather than worrying about the other way around. I think you would still want to consider giving Pathfinder classes a Talent. You would have to do some work on feats to decide which ones prevail since I like what Pathfinder does with minor but good tweaks to feats (like dodge being +1 to AC instead of +1 to one opponent). Either that or AE PCs would have to get AE feats, and Pathfinder PCs the PF feats. Tiburon, I think a more accurate comparison is fighter vs warmain. There the PF fighter may have some interesting options that I can't evaluate fully until I see them in play. (There are several cool fighter-oriented feats that let them more easily disrupt spellcasting.) Lands of the Jade Oath. Coming soon from Rite Publishing. Beware the Bakemono. |
||
|
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
Posts: 8340 (09/03/09 09:20:01) Enigma |
Oops, yes, it's fighter and barbarian vs. warmain and unfettered. And definitely, the most direct comparison is fighter to warmain, as the PF fighter is
also strongly linked to be the heavy-armor tank guy.
I just gave the feats list a very cursory glance, but yes, there did appear to be melee feats that would really help both flesh out and differentiate the melee guys in PF. But that's independent of classes and races. 
And there are some AE classes that do have dead spots, even factoring in that certain abilities happen to improve 'invisibly' at certain levels. Personally, I prefer the AE approach cuz it makes a good player intelligence test.....
|
||
|
Azgulor |
|||
|
Posts: 6 (09/16/09 08:56:36) |
Thanks for the feedback guys. You've made me feel a bit better about using the AE classes as-is without having the PF classes steal the limelight.
|
||
|
Azgulor |
|||
|
Posts: 7 (09/16/09 09:02:42) |
Tiburon Silverflame wrote:While I can appreciate the meta-game aspect of good player choices, it's not why I play RPGs. Also, since I'm teaching the system to new players, I need to be forgiving of mistakes made by uniformed choices or mistakes made by me since I'm learning the AE nuances. Thus, the reason for my wanting to ensure one set of classes wasn't overpowered vs. the other. I'm not really concerned about all classes being balanced equally, but if one set of classes is nerfed compared to the other, no one's going to want to play those classes so why include them? That said, thanks again for the advice! |
||
|
Doctor Simon |
|||
|
Posts: 240 (10/08/09 06:06:53) Just showed up |
I think the fingerprints of Monte Cook are all over Pathfinder if you look. Certainly the Book of Experimental Might is cited as a source in the OGL.
Something AE did compared to D&D was to remove the front-loading aspect of the classes. In D&D, non-spellcasters get very little after 6th-8th level apart from increases in the uses of x/day powers. Spellcasters at least have the joy of using higher level spells. AE, on the other hand, spreads interesting class abilities over all 25 levels. Most AE classes have fewer 1st level abilities, but this is counterbalanced by the extra starting feat, so the first *character* level is still quite meaty for abilities, but it discourages cherry-picking for the first *class*-level abilities. Pathfinder still has a fair amount of front loading but, with aspects like a fighter's weapon training, rogue special abilities, barbarian rage abilities etc. it gives you more things to aim for in those higher levels.
<A HREF="http://www.creativeconclave.co.uk">The Creative Conclave</a>: Building a World of Wonders
|
||
|
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
Posts: 8403 (10/08/09 07:46:17) Enigma |
The negative aspect to that, tho, Doc, is that it makes multiclassing painful.
|
||
|
Qwilion |
|||
|
Posts: 1072 (10/21/09 19:39:07) Just showed up |
I am rather more interested in seeing Pathfinder Versions of the races. hmmm... requires more thought.
Steve "Qwilion" Russell \
"There is no wrong way to game, but there is a Rite way" Rite Publishing Our newest release: Agate Companion (PFRPG) Our Patronage Projects: Heroes of the Jade Oath, Rituals of Choice Adventure Path (AE), Coliseum Morpheuon (PFRPG) and Litorians |
||
|
Hydromaster113 |
|||
|
Posts: 4114 (11/12/09 22:13:32) Some guy posting for a long time |
I loved AE, and have entertained thoughts of restarting an old AE game I ran a few years back, but I think it's really starting to show its age. And
I'm largely pleased with the apparent balance levels of the classes (though, even if you powered up the unfettered and warmain to be as good as a
Pathfinder fighter, I suspect you'd still need to nerf the high-level magister to bring him in line with them. Or even mid level, for that matter. The
whole "Press sorcerous blast to win" issue).
Once upon a time I had actually planned on tearing the whole thing down and rebuilding it using Iron Heroes rules (so that all magic was token-driven, for instance. Your magister stockpiles tokens in his staff, your greenbond draws them from the land around him, and your mageblade gets them for attacking). Pathfinder seems like it might be a much easier baseline to work with, though. |
||
|
JediSoth |
|||
|
Posts: 1922 (11/13/09 05:08:57) Boba Faen |
Qwilion wrote:Definitely. Plenty's been done with classes, and others make some very good observations about Pathfinder Classes vs. AE Classes. I wanna see the races converted!
Hans, the original JediSoth
ENnie Awards Submissions Coordinator & Publisher Relations 
I have a blog: The Dark Side of My Mind |
||
|
Hydromaster113 |
|||
|
Posts: 4115 (11/13/09 08:49:50) Some guy posting for a long time |
Giants: Wisdom bonus
Litorians: Wisdom bonus* Sibeccai: Int bonus* Verrik: Dex bonus (hyper-coordination) Mojh: Let them keep their human ability bonus** Dracha: ? Faen: Charisma bonus for both quicklings and loresongs (alternately, you could make their stat boosts the same; i.e, +2 dex and int for both) * Assume you've flopped their stat penalties. If you're still using brash litorians and dim sibeccai I don't know how you'd frame that. ** One issue is whether or not to allow a human's stat boost (if they put it in INT) to stack with the mojh INT boost. You could say no, but that smart humans get to become mojh without taking the con penalty The sibeccai int bonus is a slight stretch, and is basically just there because they need a mental boost (I see them as being on the clever, opportunistic side, but conversely their description says they don't like books and learning. And they have bonuses to a bunch of social skills already, which I think covers the "city slicker" vibe much, much better than an actual CHA bonus would). I have no idea what to do with dracha. As with the sibeccai and litorians, I kind of want them to get a charisma bonus, even though they're written with a penalty there. Maybe I'm just contrary. I also think that every race should have at least a couple racial features that aren't "+2 to skill" or "+2 to ability". I never really liked the way that Monte took all the fun stuff and squirreled it away in racial/evolved levels (mainly looking at you, giants. It may not be much but at least sibeccai and litorians get low-light vision). |
||
