Pathfinder and Dragonlance

[Tinker]

Now that Pathfinder is out, what are your opinions on using it for running a Dragonlance game. I do not have the Book or PDF, but I am looking over the Pathfinder Reference Document.

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

Looking over it some, I find that I am still unsatisfied with the Sorcerer for Dragonlance use. As Sorcery is a learned thing for me, so I would have to maybe reflavor the "Bloodlines" as paths that the Sorcerer could choose to learn.

[Vidar]

Im still looking the manual and i don't like some things...things that i already didn't like in 3.X so..no problem

I like the sorcerer,the monk,the paladin and specially the cleric and the rogue.I don't see any problem to match them with Dl.Specially the new schools are specially fluffy with the Three Orders.

I like the new metamagic.At least is interesting for something.I dont like some new skills.I hate the new druid.And as always...i love the races.

[nighttree]

We have been implimenting some of the Pathfinder Beta changes for many months now, and have really liked some of the changes.
I'm still looking over the reference document, and although there are some things I was hoping for from the Beta that have been changed, I'm over all pleased with what I am seeing.

[Nepenthe]

I've got the book, but haven't had the time to familiarise myself with it enough. Any thoughts on how the Dragonlance 3e base classes fit in? Do they look like they've been pummeled with the nerf-bat, or is it just one big happy family? Any thoughts about the PrCs?

/N

[Roderrik_Turnkey]

I've had my book since the release date, and I've been using any moment of free time to look through it.
I love everything about it, with the exception that I begged them to remove the ranger spell list.

All of the changes made seem to fit perfectly fine in the Dragonlance world, the system is designed to fit any Third Edition system and a number of playtesters including myself put the beta through the world without much issue.

Though I've come up against a question, should mystics have access to channeling positive energy.

[nighttree]

All of the changes made seem to fit perfectly fine in the Dragonlance world, the system is designed to fit any Third Edition system and a number of playtesters including myself put the beta through the world without much issue.

Though I've come up against a question, should mystics have access to channeling positive energy.

I'm still torn as to how I want to go about creating Mystics.

The Clerical domains have changed a bit since the Beta version (scaled back a bit), partially I think because of the ability to channel energy.

So I think I'm going to try using the cleric as is, except for changing the spell list to spontaniouse/spells known progression to match the Sorcerer, and see how it goes for a while.

I'm going to leave domain spells where they are, which means a Mystic will gain one spell slot of each level for his domain spells, earlier than any other spells of that level, but that makes some sense (at least to me).

[Cam Banks]

You could tweak the cleric by switching out the turn undead channeling and giving them broader domain choices. Mystics can all be defined by their ability to channel divine power through them to achieve their goals, but unlike clerics they don't have any hard-wired "trick" that all of them share.

Take another look at what they've done with the sorcerer and consider blending elements of that with the cleric to get a more spontaneous and focused class.

Cheers,
Cam

[Roderrik_Turnkey]

Correct me if I am wrong but there were mystic only domains yes?
It could be that a mystics have accesss to something akin to the bloodlines for them made up of those mystic only domains.

If I do end up giving them access to the positive channeling and negative channeling I think that I'd nerf it to maybe 1d4 as opposed to 1d6, since while the power of the heart is strong it shouldnt be on the scale of a god sending his or her force through a cleric.

[DarthBeckett]

I'm really torn with the final. Dragonlance has always been pretty strong with Clerics, and Pathfinder has essentually made them into white mages. Paladins have a huge upgrade, but not really anything like the Knights of Solomnia. Not that they are super different, it's just they are not very knightly and more miraculous warriors.

Rogues are so powerful, I just can't see the Dragonlance kender not being the new power player.

Wizards and the Curse of the Magi takes a different direction with casting in melee, (nearly impossible now), but this also applies to Clerics. Rangers are now pretty much exclusively foe hunters. It's really just about as far from Dragonlance as Dragonlance is from 4E.

Additionally, Dragonlance has always been about the common hero, while Pathfinder is heavily about the superhero.

[Roderrik_Turnkey]

I see where you are coming from and while I don't completely disagree, I can't help but scratch my head, I'm not so sure I follow you on the white mage theory for Clerics, from how I look at the 3.5 vs. Pathfinder the only real differences I see is Orisions, Channel Pos, and some skill changes, but I mean I'm just going off memory here.
As for Paladins, I think they're not worth worrying about unless you really feel the need to incorporate them into your game.
Pali's have never been much a part of the DL universe in my mind, since we often see the Knights of Solomnia taking up that role anyways.
I disagree about rogues being powerful, just because a player CAN select something, dosn't mean a GM should LET him select it. I've already had to tell players "No" and explain that in keeping with the setting material they cannot select x power.

Rangers have always been foe hunters in my games anyways, so this change is actually welcome at my table. The player I have that likes to play the Ranger class loves having his character specialize in taking down types of enemies, it's his favorite schtick.

Casting in melee...Explain what you mean?

I think that Dragonlance is about the uncommon-ness of a true hero, the fact is, that while we might see the "everyman" in our favorite characters, they rise up past that point and become something entirely different. Pathfinder wanted to make sure that people could realize that potential on the character sheet as much as through great roleplaying, and I salute their attempt.
My players have always used their exceptional roleplaying and acting skills to say and do things that allowed me to see their characters rise past the normal-ness of a "level four fighter" to something really great, now they can see that change in a much more solid way via their awesome stats.
I know that it feels a little away from established guidelines in the Dragonlance world but maybe that's not so bad, I mean we're at a point where we have to let our players feel as awesome as they think guys like Raistlin, Tanis, Sturm, etc etc were. So I think that Pathfinder gives them that "oomph" on the sheet and we as GM's should give it to them via their RP too.