| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Wenin |
Posted - 18 Nov 2009 : 18:36:52
I'm wanting to incorporate the Spell-less Ranger class that was outlined in Kobold Quarterly #11, into my 3.5 campaign. Looking over the class progression, I'm thinking that it is a little more powerful than the standard 3.5 Ranger with spells.
What are your thoughts?
Are Pathfinder classes more powerful on average than their 3.5 counterparts? |
| 4 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Dec 2009 : 20:58:45
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
All hail Paizo!
......or not.  |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 06 Dec 2009 : 02:15:01
All hail Paizo! |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Nov 2009 : 04:03:02
I wouldn't say they're more powerful just less reliant on additional supplements and Prestige classes. Take the Barbarian for example: The class's ability to rage is designed for high level progression. While this makes class-dipping pointless now it makes the class seem more powerful than it's 3.5 counterpart.
But the main problem I still have remains, wheather your using Pathfinder or 3.5, is the over abundance of Save-or-die spells there are in additiona to high level play for non-spellcasters. To me, multipul attacks per round don't equal to creating an area of negative gravity.
However, Paizo did an amazing job with the revisions and I hope my friend is still going to purchase their material so we can play. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 18 Nov 2009 : 19:56:36
I would say that the 11 classes in the PFRPG are a little more powerful than their namesakes in the 3.5 PH. However, I think that they are pretty balanced with all of the base classes introduced in the myriad of other 3.5 accessories (i.e. the Complete series, the Tome series, et cetera). |
