Pathfinder vs. D&D 3.5 for IKRPG?

[Nyarlathotep333]

OK, I've not yet tried Pathfinder since my gaming budget is very limited right now and I've been unable to pick up the books so I don't know much about the differences between the two systems. My question is: Would Pathfinder be a better system to run IKRPG with? Some things like Alchemists, for instance, seem really clunky to deal with in 3.5 and the rules for crafting mechanika can sometimes be a bit confusing as well. Perhaps it is because we are still learning (being our first time running an IK campaign) but if the Pathfinder system deals with things like these better it might be good for us to look into picking up the books and converting to it. It looks like there is a good amount of folks here who have done so and I'd love to hear about their experiences with it.

[Ger]

Pathfinder really is 3.75. It seems like a lot of feedback about what was bad/wonky about 3.5 was taken into account with it. I mean its really close and obviously backwards compatible. However, it's also really different. Most of the issues you may have with the "clunky-ness" of the rules won't be solved with it. Though some may and it's a good excuse for some house rules.

Your alchemist thing specifically makes me think of a feat I glanced called "Throw Anything". I think a different thread would be more appropriate to get into it things better.

I know I plan to eventually convert my 3.5 to Pathfinder now that Ive perused the changes. Overall really happy with every change Ive seen.

[maynardstardust]

Here is the Pathfinder online reference document to see if you like where they are going.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

If you are familiar with 3.5 it works fine, it is what was in mind for the IKRPG. I like what pathfinder has done with the rules, but because the IKRPG wasn't made with pathfinder in mind some things need to be changed like the base classes matching up in power level.

Pathfinder is now open playtesting new classes that will be released in their advanced players guide, the Alchemist is one of them, and I remember hearing something about a 2-handed potion tossing thing, but I am not that into that sort of thing, check it out, its a free download.

http://paizo.com/store/downloads/pat.../v5748btpy8bt0

[KrielMaster]

Although I heartily support Paizo, and the whole Pathfinder project as a massively worthy and necessary effort, I do not recommend running IK-RPG with this OS.
The setting was designed from the ground up to use 3.5 Core Rules.
Add to this all of PP's materiel being geared to that standard, I feel it's just fine the way it was intended. This is how I run IK.
Note: I do NOT include the volumes cash generating dross that WotC inflicted on the Game, nor do I support any but the most minimal House Rules modification {fully 40% of my 'take it easy on the PCs' House Rules have been phased out of play, everything else I use is added to increase Setting Feel, and verisimilitude}
The crew at PP worked long and hard to supply a working set of rules, and modified the Core to give a very finely tuned setting.
My vote goes to 'run it like they meant it'.

[Feverdream]

Pathfinder is now open playtesting new classes that will be released in their advanced players guide, the Alchemist is one of them, and I remember hearing something about a 2-handed potion tossing thing, but I am not that into that sort of thing, check it out, its a free download.

http://paizo.com/store/downloads/pat.../v5748btpy8bt0

Thanks for this link. I've been lurking in this forum for a while, but seeing this made me perk up.

While the core classes are pretty much essential to the game, these classes can, I believe, fit some unique roles in Immoren.

Feel free to trash my ideas.

Cavalier - While this class may be limited in low-level campaigns, it could be good for high-level ones. With Warmachine, the Steelheads immediately jump out as a Cavalier (with things like Oath of Greed or Oath of Loyaty, but so do the various mounted units in other lands (Exemplars, Drakhuns, etc). Since you folks are much better informed - I have the books, but I still haven't read them all - would anything but a mercenary work for this class? After all, one can just play a fighter with the appropriate mount-based feats.

Oracle - I don't see how this fits into the IK universe. Someone else would have to chime in, but at first glance, I get nothing.

Summoner - Infernalist is all I can think of. As such, it would be one of those "GMs are advised not to allow players to choose this class" things, much like a cleric of Toruk.

Witch - An arcanist. Warwitches of Garlghast is an obvious thing, to me, for an evil witch. I think a chaotic witch would be an Orboros thing. Neutral ones could be Dhunia. But does the hex/familiar system work out? If using the "standard" ideal party (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard), a "wild" party could consist of a Barbarian, Druid, Rogue, and Witch. But how many play the game for the baby-eating wildman concept? I tend to prefer my characters coughing up ash and black smoke.

Alchemist - I wish my friend would give me my No Quarter back that has the Combat Alchemist class. Though this guy looks to be quite combat-oriented, with a skill called "Bomb 1d6" at first level, increasing every other level or so. That, and the Throw Anything feat seems to have the flavor of the Combat Alchemist [that I remember, albeit hazily].

Inquisitor - Another one of those things that could have an equivalence from the IKCG, but damned if I can't think of how it would fit. I think they would have a very limited role overall in Immoren, and thus may not make good PCs. Don't Scrutators have a bigger spell list? And the judgements. Hrm. Maybe something like the Reclaimers of Menoth. Orrin Midwinter was an Inquisitor of Cygnar, was he not? But just because he had that in name, doesn't mean he was something like the core class presented by Paizo.

I think these classes are great ideas over all, but for IK, of course, would need some background information of how they fit, and of course, tweaks here and there to keep the IK flavor.

Now I need to make a good Farrow equivalent so I can play a Farrow alchemist. We dunn blown it up reaaaaaaal good!

[Nyarlathotep333]

I did take a quick glance through the conversion rules, as well as a quick scan through the Alchemist - I'm going to try and read some more on it tonight if I can. It seems like they did a lot of great stuff, especially by making the core classes a lot more playable in comparison to taking a PrC.

The Alchemist looks like it could be a fun character but I'm not sure that the 'affects only you' thing for most of his creations is really going to make it a viable character to play. It seems light on the combat skills once their daily allotment of explosives are gone. I could be totally off base here though as I still haven't read it through in-depth.

Mostly now I've got to figure out if the conversion for IK rules is really worth the time and effort. I may wind up simply taking some of the Alchemist stuff and convert that to 3.5 instead.

Of course I'm going to be one of the first in line to order any new IKRPG material that Privateer Press has said will (one day) be released. I'm very interested to see the PP staff's take on this. Hopefully it will be sooner than later, but I know that they've had their hands full with MKII stuff so far.

[Jumbley]

My group and I are just getting started running IK in a modified Pathfinder rules set, and so far we all love it to pieces! With all the house rules its a very different beast to 3.5, but I find the base system is more than adequate and indeed could breathe some life into a game if you're finding your players aren't meshing with 3.5 very well.