PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder?



Seatbelt
2009-07-27, 04:29 PM
I've seen it pop up a lot lately and I'm not sure exactly what it is. I haven't googled the website yet to find out exactly. Frankly though I'd like a bit of a community review. I have a vague notion that it uses 3.5 rules and releases new content for that rules system. But are they any good? Balanced (whatever that means when looking at core) to existing WotC books? Worth my investment even?

Spiryt
2009-07-27, 04:30 PM
Certainly gives few interesting options to characters. Rangers can choose few new things, so can rogues, and Barbarians have something to choose from finally. :smallamused:

Generally some things are good implementation IMHO.

DragoonWraith
2009-07-27, 04:31 PM
It's a bit of an overhaul to 3.5, updating it. Some good ideas (no dead levels in core classes, several related skills combined to ease skill monkeys' lives, etc), but they miss the gorilla in the room (substantial improvement to Sorcerers and massive improvement to Wizards of all things, plus little to no nerfing of most of the best spells in 3.5 - they make a big deal of nerfing Polymorph and Glitterdust, but do nothing about dozens of other things)

RTGoodman
2009-07-27, 04:38 PM
Essentially, Pathfinder is an official set of houserules that change/update various aspects of the game but still keep it essentially 3.x. Whether or not it's a particularly good set of houserules is up to debate (I've heard a lot from both sides), but you'll just have to figure that out for yourself.

I recently saw a Pathfinder SRD (http://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/), modeled after d20srd.org, but I haven't looked at it yet. You might could check that out, if you don't want to buy/download the whole Pathfinder Beta or the full version when it comes out.

Lappy9000
2009-07-27, 04:59 PM
Personally, I think that Pathfinder has some cool ideas, but just ends up with a whole new set of problems instead of fixing the old ones.

peacenlove
2009-07-27, 05:04 PM
It officially continues 3.5 edition (even though its not wizards), has sparked many discussions for 3.5 problems and the material it contains its kinda good although not revolutionary.
Its basically A 3.6 with more power to all classes at low levels and a wealth of new ideas (and kinda off topic it inspired me a lot in my homebrew :smallsmile: ) in all chapters.
I am waiting for the final edition since from the previews it seems they are changing a lot from beta.

Prime32
2009-07-27, 05:05 PM
The main purpose of Pathfinder was to create a system which was similar to 3.5 without being quite the same, for copyright reasons. It has plenty of stuff with very poor balance, but I don't know enough about it to tell how it compares to 3.5e

FMArthur
2009-07-27, 05:09 PM
Is it actually compatable with existing 3.5 materials, or do I need to undergo lengthy conversion procedures or houserules to use 3.5 books with it?

Quirinus_Obsidian
2009-07-27, 05:23 PM
Is it actually compatable with existing 3.5 materials, or do I need to undergo lengthy conversion procedures or houserules to use 3.5 books with it?

Melee fanboy checks in.

Not a very lengthy conversion process, no. There are written rules in the free Beta PDF available for conversions of prestige classes. Most of the base-non-core classes will carry over well, and there are only a few obscure feats and stuff that is just not compatible.

Sorcerer is much better. Paired with the new Dragon Disciple (now with shiny new 7/10 Spellcaster progression!) it becomes soooo much more. :smallbiggrin:

Wizard is still too overpowered. Not enough nerfage. :smallfurious:

Druid is "nerfed" to a point; but still insanely powerful. wildshape has been fixed, but natural spell is still there. booo. :smallannoyed:

Cleric is better balanced and flavor-texted to being a healer and destroyer of mobile dead things. :smallamused:

Barbarian is more than a beatstick; they are now a beatstick with rusty nails in it. Barbarian was changed to a point to where Frenzied berserker cheese will not be compatible. This I like. Even as a melee fanboy. You now have Rage Points that allow you more effective attacks, defenses, etc. :smallcool:

Fighter is very good. Much better than previous. :smallbiggrin:

Rogue is awesomesauce covered in chocolate and sprinkles. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Bard is even better than before. Not too much experience with the bardic side of things. :smallwink:

All, I repeat, ALL of the base classes are worth taking a full 20 level progression. That is how Paizo designed it.

The game world is still a bit too magic-user friendly, but some of the new abilities and classes make it more balanced. The monsters are a lot tougher (GOOD!), the campaigns are much more "adult themed" and a lot harder, and there is more emphasis on teamwork.

The best change has been to trip, grapple, and bull rush. Now instead of hundreds of opposed checks, wasted time, and frustrated humans, it is now a DC roll for the creature doing the combat maneuver. This I LOVE. It really simplified things. Trip has been fixed. There is now no follow-up attack after a successful trip attempt.

Skill checks have also been simplified. It took some of the common skill checks like spot, search, and listen and rolled them into Perception (similar to 4e). Concentration is gone, it is now a part of the Spellcraft skill.

It all depends on how the DM runs it. It can either be the greatest thing ever, or it could be the worst thing ever.

Starscream
2009-07-27, 05:43 PM
I haven't gone through the whole Beta yet, but it's intriguing enough that I'll probably check out the full version when it comes out. Looks really cool so far. And I love 3.5 so I'd like to see some new compatible material for it.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2009-07-27, 05:54 PM
"You fail me yet again, Starscream."

sorry, had to. Immoral Imperative :smallbiggrin:
I wonder how many times you've read that? :smallwink:

In all honesty though Seatbelt; give Pathfinder a shot. It's worth it. If you blow chunks at the sight of the new core classes and feats, then it may not work for you.

sonofzeal
2009-07-27, 05:59 PM
Pro: fills in dead levels, several of the most powerful spells have been nerfed, general power boost to most base classes.

Con: generalist wizards get free metamagic, power attack is nerfed, trip is nerfed. That, right there, is why people ridicule its attempts at rebalancing.

Starscream
2009-07-27, 06:00 PM
"You fail me yet again, Starscream."

sorry, had to. Immoral Imperative :smallbiggrin:
I wonder how many times you've read that? :smallwink:

About once a week since I started using that nickname. Considering that was when I was 5, and I am now 24, I'd say about 988 times.

When I hit a thousand I'm pretty sure Frank Welker and Peter Cullen show up at my house and beat me up.

Epinephrine
2009-07-27, 06:02 PM
We'll know more about it August 13, as that's the release date. Everything so far has been based on the beta, and on snippets from the Paizo blog.

My group really likes it, we switched to Pathfinder mid-campaign.

Gnaeus
2009-07-27, 06:03 PM
When I hit a thousand I'm pretty sure Frank Welker and Peter Cullen show up at my house and beat me up.

Make sure to post that on YouTube please.

Mando Knight
2009-07-27, 06:05 PM
About once a week since I started using that nickname. Considering that was when I was 5, and I am now 24, I'd say about 988 times.

When I hit a thousand I'm pretty sure Frank Welker and Peter Cullen show up at my house and beat me up.

The question is: will you get beat up by Frank Welker on a day he feels like Megatron, Soundwave, or Dr. Claw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Claw)?

Starscream
2009-07-27, 06:08 PM
The question is: will you get beat up by Frank Welker on a day he feels like Megatron, Soundwave, or Dr. Claw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Claw)?

Maybe if I politely tell them how much I like Dungeons & Dragons, Frank will do the Tiamat Roar and Peter will talk like Venger.

DragoonWraith
2009-07-27, 06:09 PM
They also nerfed Power Attack hard. Strongly recommend homebrewing it back to normal 3.5 Power Attack. There was another Feat that got absolutely beat down, trying to remember what it was.

That said, the Rogue changes are great and the Barbarian changes are pretty solid. The Fighter got some new stuff but not nearly enough, IMO (they are still "I Full-Attack whatever is standing in front of me" round in and round out). Not familiar enough with the Divine casters or the half-casters, in 3.5 or Pathfinder, so I can't comment. Sorcerers actually get something for staying in class, which is nice, and the flavor's pretty solid, but it's still a substantial power boost to an already-overpowered class.

And then the Wizard gets rather powerful class abilities. Like this:

Generalist 8th Metamagic Mastery (Su)
You can apply any one metamagic feat that you know to a spell you are about to cast. This does not alter the level of the spell or the casting time. You can use this ability once per day per two caster levels you possess. Any time you use this ability to apply a metamagic feat that increases the spell level by more than 1, you must use an additional daily usage for each level above 1 that the feat adds to the spell.Free Divine Metamagic, anyone?

EDIT: Hmm... Is that allowed? I mean, it was part of the free Beta, but then they do eventually intend to sell this (though hopefully without the above), so I'm not sure.

Starscream
2009-07-27, 06:15 PM
I actually like that they are giving the Wizards some nice class abilities. Not only are they already the must powerful class in the game, but there is almost no reason for them to not take PrCs.

You almost never see a Wizard 20, because all they give up is Familiar progression and a couple of bonus feats. So the strongest class in the game gets even stronger. A couple of nice class features at higher levels might encourage them to stay with the class and avoid pure cheese.

Zore
2009-07-27, 06:25 PM
But some of what they get is cheesier than just PRCing out whenever. What prestige class gives a wizard free divine metamagic?

DragoonWraith
2009-07-27, 06:31 PM
I agree that it's a good thing that Wizards actually have something going on each level, but only after you've nerfed the Sorc/Wiz spell list. Which they have only barely started to do.

Epinephrine
2009-07-27, 06:39 PM
They also nerfed Power Attack hard. Strongly recommend homebrewing it back to normal 3.5 Power Attack. There was another Feat that got absolutely beat down, trying to remember what it was.

Have you seen the non-beta version? It's somewhat de-nerfed. Still weaker, but I like the final version.

Frosty
2009-07-27, 06:46 PM
They also nerfed Combat Expertise of all feats. Now characters really have no reason to take it, what with Improved Trip nerfed and all.

jmbrown
2009-07-27, 06:51 PM
Melee fanboy checks in.

Not a very lengthy conversion process, no. There are written rules in the free Beta PDF available for conversions of prestige classes. Most of the base-non-core classes will carry over well, and there are only a few obscure feats and stuff that is just not compatible.

Sorcerer is much better. Paired with the new Dragon Disciple (now with shiny new 7/10 Spellcaster progression!) it becomes soooo much more. :smallbiggrin:

Wizard is still too overpowered. Not enough nerfage. :smallfurious:

Druid is "nerfed" to a point; but still insanely powerful. wildshape has been fixed, but natural spell is still there. booo. :smallannoyed:

Cleric is better balanced and flavor-texted to being a healer and destroyer of mobile dead things. :smallamused:

Barbarian is more than a beatstick; they are now a beatstick with rusty nails in it. Barbarian was changed to a point to where Frenzied berserker cheese will not be compatible. This I like. Even as a melee fanboy. You now have Rage Points that allow you more effective attacks, defenses, etc. :smallcool:

Fighter is very good. Much better than previous. :smallbiggrin:

Rogue is awesomesauce covered in chocolate and sprinkles. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Bard is even better than before. Not too much experience with the bardic side of things. :smallwink:

All, I repeat, ALL of the base classes are worth taking a full 20 level progression. That is how Paizo designed it.

The game world is still a bit too magic-user friendly, but some of the new abilities and classes make it more balanced. The monsters are a lot tougher (GOOD!), the campaigns are much more "adult themed" and a lot harder, and there is more emphasis on teamwork.

The best change has been to trip, grapple, and bull rush. Now instead of hundreds of opposed checks, wasted time, and frustrated humans, it is now a DC roll for the creature doing the combat maneuver. This I LOVE. It really simplified things. Trip has been fixed. There is now no follow-up attack after a successful trip attempt.

Skill checks have also been simplified. It took some of the common skill checks like spot, search, and listen and rolled them into Perception (similar to 4e). Concentration is gone, it is now a part of the Spellcraft skill.

It all depends on how the DM runs it. It can either be the greatest thing ever, or it could be the worst thing ever.

And yet the monk is completely untouched...

Epinephrine
2009-07-27, 07:05 PM
And yet the monk is completely untouched...

Except for all the changes...

Full BAB to all combat maneuvers, full BAB to flurry of blows, new ki points to self haste, gain AC, jump better, go ethereal, etc., new improved monk feats (scorpion style, gorgon's fist, medusa's wrath), stunning fist is now free for all monks, bonus feat every 4 levels (1st, 5th, 9th, 13th, 17th), new effects for stunning fist (At 8th level, fatigue opponents until they rest, or sicken them for 1 minute. At 12th level, you can stagger foes for 1d6+1 rounds, at 16th level permanently blind or deafen enemies, and at 20th level paralyze them for 1d6+1 rounds).

Decoy Lockbox
2009-07-27, 07:44 PM
I was excited when I first started reading it, thinking that they had addressed the problems with 3.x; sadly, I was mistaken. However, the art is pretty spiffy!

I think my absolute favorite thing in pathfinder is the bard capstone ability that lets them kill with perform checks. I found the idea of a literal face-melting guitar solo, or a lapdance del muerte too funny to resist. Better yet, you could make a breakdancing bard and go up to some low-fort guy, dance, then say "you got served!" and have your opponent actually die due to your amazing dance skills.

Eh, I'm stickin' wth 4th for now.

jmbrown
2009-07-27, 07:53 PM
Except for all the changes...

Full BAB to all combat maneuvers, full BAB to flurry of blows, new ki points to self haste, gain AC, jump better, go ethereal, etc., new improved monk feats (scorpion style, gorgon's fist, medusa's wrath), stunning fist is now free for all monks, bonus feat every 4 levels (1st, 5th, 9th, 13th, 17th), new effects for stunning fist (At 8th level, fatigue opponents until they rest, or sicken them for 1 minute. At 12th level, you can stagger foes for 1d6+1 rounds, at 16th level permanently blind or deafen enemies, and at 20th level paralyze them for 1d6+1 rounds).

Based on the srd link someone posted they changed nothing so if this is from a source I don't know about then cool beans.

Epinephrine
2009-07-27, 08:04 PM
Based on the srd link someone posted they changed nothing so if this is from a source I don't know about then cool beans.

They've done a lot of changes since beta, it's on the Paizo blog.

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog

Scroll down to Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Preview #9, the monk.

9mm
2009-07-27, 08:04 PM
Based on the srd link someone posted they changed nothing so if this is from a source I don't know about then cool beans.

the biggest change is the Ki pool, which is pretty awesome in my opinion, drop a point to add another attack to the flurry or a decent ac boost. though I'd like clarification if multiple points could be used in one swift action.

GoatToucher
2009-07-27, 08:10 PM
I think my absolute favorite thing in pathfinder is the bard capstone ability that lets them kill with perform checks. I found the idea of a literal face-melting guitar solo, or a lapdance del muerte too funny to resist. Better yet, you could make a breakdancing bard and go up to some low-fort guy, dance, then say "you got served!" and have your opponent actually die due to your amazing dance skills.

AHAHAHAHAHA!


Oh, SNAP!

Eldariel
2009-07-27, 08:10 PM
The biggest problems are nerfing of the melee types (Power Attack & Trip without giving comparable buffs to the other options - in fact, the combat maneuvers by and large suck right now), not nerfing most spells that need it (Polymorph-line and Glitterdust got nerfed; nobody remembered Planar Binding-line, Time Stop, Gate, Web, Color Spray, Solid Fog, Slow, Stinking Cloud, etc.) and yeah, the new caster buffs...

They might manage a good final version, but they're going to have to get their heads outta their asses and start listening to rules savvy people.

GoatToucher
2009-07-27, 08:50 PM
Power Attack has been de-nerfed in the final version, and Improved Trip was as broken as any other broken rule in 3.5. You can't really complain when they fix a broken rule just because it's the only rule broken in the fighters' favor.

DragoonWraith
2009-07-27, 08:53 PM
No, Improved Trip was not broken. That is where the Fighter should be in power. Disarm, Bullrush, and Grapple should be just as good - but they're not. But nerfing Trip was definitely the wrong answer.

sonofzeal
2009-07-27, 09:05 PM
Power Attack has been de-nerfed in the final version, and Improved Trip was as broken as any other broken rule in 3.5. You can't really complain when they fix a broken rule just because it's the only rule broken in the fighters' favor.
Trip suffers from too many limits to be really "broken". It's an ability score check, which means it's pretty hard to pump; it's difficult to use against things bigger and stronger than humans (which is most of them, and ridiculously so at high levels); it's a highly feat-intensive strategy; it can't really be used in the air, or underwater, or against incorporeal things, or things without legs, or things that don't need to stand to do whatever nasty thing they're doing to you. Now, good optimization can overcome a lot of these weaknesses. It's possible to get a really high Trip score, and tackle things in the Large or Huge categories. But it's still a fairly steep investment for a fairly situational power. So hey, if it's pretty useful inside that situation, I don't see too much of a problem.

Riffington
2009-07-27, 09:36 PM
Trip suffers from too many limits to be really "broken". It's an ability score check, which means it's pretty hard to pump; it's difficult to use against things bigger and stronger than humans (which is most of them, and ridiculously so at high levels); it's a highly feat-intensive strategy; it can't really be used in the air, or underwater, or against incorporeal things, or things without legs, or things that don't need to stand to do whatever nasty thing they're doing to you. Now, good optimization can overcome a lot of these weaknesses. It's possible to get a really high Trip score, and tackle things in the Large or Huge categories. But it's still a fairly steep investment for a fairly situational power. So hey, if it's pretty useful inside that situation, I don't see too much of a problem.

Sure, from a mechanical balance point of view this is true. But the problem is the flavor/versimillitude perspective. Let's say you're a knight, and you are fighting a guy with a guisarme. This guy trips your fracking horse. WTF? So you get off it and charge him, and he trips you. Ok, that's fair. You get up and are wary he's gonna try to trip you again - and he does. It works even though you see it coming. Repeatedly. WTF.

From a flavor perspective, trip should be something that is useful about once per combat. Someone who expects a trip attempt should be nigh-untrippable. Charging is something that should be done at most once per opponent. Sundering and feinting can be done as often as desired, if one is a hulking brute.

So that's what the rules should strive towards. Feinting should be a useful tactic. Tripping should be an occasional trick useful primarily against the unsuspecting. Yet the rules don't do this in 3.5 They make tripping a thing to do over and over which makes combat a little too silly.

GoatToucher
2009-07-27, 09:53 PM
So that's what the rules should strive towards. Feinting should be a useful tactic. Tripping should be an occasional trick useful primarily against the unsuspecting. Yet the rules don't do this in 3.5 They make tripping a thing to do over and over which makes combat a little too silly.

I'm just picturing melee battles with all the fighter's sprawled on their backs like turtles, everybody tripping and re-tripping everybody else.

Some guy wants to trip four times a round: go for it, but tripping AND attacking four times a round each? Nah. Mix it up. Try to trip a guy, then lay the boots to him three times. If you get him, yay for you. If not, try again next round.

The other good thing Pathfinder did was including feats to make it harder to trip you.

Epinephrine
2009-07-27, 09:55 PM
I'm just picturing melee battles with all the fighter's sprawled on their backs like turtles, everybody tripping and re-tripping everybody else.

Some guy wants to trip four times a round: go for it, but tripping AND attacking four times a round each? Nah. Mix it up. Try to trip a guy, then lay the boots to him three times. If you get him, yay for you. If not, try again next round.

The other good thing Pathfinder did was including feats to make it harder to trip you.

Yep, and monks are HARD to trip. They add their wisdom bonus and monk AC bonus to their ability to resist trips, bull rushes, overruns and grapples (and maybe disarms too, but that seems weirder). I like that the monk isn't going to be fouled up by joe shmoe with a guisarme.

Eldariel
2009-07-27, 09:58 PM
Sure, from a mechanical balance point of view this is true. But the problem is the flavor/versimillitude perspective. Let's say you're a knight, and you are fighting a guy with a guisarme. This guy trips your fracking horse. WTF? So you get off it and charge him, and he trips you. Ok, that's fair. You get up and are wary he's gonna try to trip you again - and he does. It works even though you see it coming. Repeatedly. WTF.

From a flavor perspective, trip should be something that is useful about once per combat. Someone who expects a trip attempt should be nigh-untrippable. Charging is something that should be done at most once per opponent. Sundering and feinting can be done as often as desired, if one is a hulking brute.

So that's what the rules should strive towards. Feinting should be a useful tactic. Tripping should be an occasional trick useful primarily against the unsuspecting. Yet the rules don't do this in 3.5 They make tripping a thing to do over and over which makes combat a little too silly.

I don't know, in medieval combat, a downed opponent was as good as dead since the armor was too heavy for them to get up without outside assistance. "Tripping" (that is, trying to get the opponent prone) happened a lot in that combat especially once armors were too thick to be penetrated by swords.

Same reason jiujitsu was such an important part of the Samurai's arsenal; medieval combat just usually ended up with either one side down (Trip) or both down (Grapple). Tripping being an effective option in combat isn't really unplausible at all; the only reason it happens repeatedly is that getting up is so easy, but it's not game mechanically sensible to make downed people stay down.

As such, I find the present system for tripping to be actually rather accurate in addition to being useful and thus good, and would just hope Grapple would be similarly useful (mostly, GET THE FRIGGIN' FoM OUTTA HERE).

AstralFire
2009-07-27, 10:02 PM
Trip functions in the air, and I'm not sure why everyone thinks that it doesn't/shouldn't.

It's not core, but it's pretty good (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040706a)

Trip

Most creature using wings or other appendages to fly can be tripped. Incorporeal creatures with perfect maneuverability, and creatures that don't rely on their limbs to fly cannot be tripped when in flight.

Just decide that fly spell still uses your limbs somehow (I think that's reasonable given that armor still slows you) and woah.

Riffington
2009-07-27, 10:13 PM
I don't know, in medieval combat, a downed opponent was as good as dead since the armor was too heavy for them to get up without outside assistance. "Tripping" (that is, trying to get the opponent prone) happened a lot in that combat especially once armors were too thick to be penetrated by swords.

Same reason jiujitsu was such an important part of the Samurai's arsenal; medieval combat just usually ended up with either one side down (Trip) or both down (Grapple). Tripping being an effective option in combat isn't really unplausible at all; the only reason it happens repeatedly is that getting up is so easy, but it's not game mechanically sensible to make downed people stay down.

As such, I find the present system for tripping to be actually rather accurate in addition to being useful and thus good, and would just hope Grapple would be similarly useful (mostly, GET THE FRIGGIN' FoM OUTTA HERE).

If I understood correctly, the turtle thing was a brief period in the Renaissance. Until then, knights had lighter armor and much better mobility. If you knew someone was going to try to trip you, you can block the attack pretty easily with your sword. And if you were tripped, it would be something you didn't see coming.

Now, jujitsu is a different story. I have zero problem with a monk (or Samurai or Ronin) with some throws in his arsenal. Setting Sun is just cooler and makes a lot more sense than a chain-tripper - and all three of those classes should get a few maneuvers.

I definitely agree with you regarding Freedom of Movement.

9mm
2009-07-28, 12:33 AM
Sure, from a mechanical balance point of view this is true. But the problem is the flavor/versimillitude perspective. Let's say you're a knight, and you are fighting a guy with a guisarme. This guy trips your fracking horse. WTF? So you get off it and charge him, and he trips you. Ok, that's fair. You get up and are wary he's gonna try to trip you again - and he does. It works even though you see it coming. Repeatedly. WTF.

From a flavor perspective, trip should be something that is useful about once per combat. Someone who expects a trip attempt should be nigh-untrippable. Charging is something that should be done at most once per opponent. Sundering and feinting can be done as often as desired, if one is a hulking brute.

So that's what the rules should strive towards. Feinting should be a useful tactic. Tripping should be an occasional trick useful primarily against the unsuspecting. Yet the rules don't do this in 3.5 They make tripping a thing to do over and over which makes combat a little too silly.

The thing is, tripping can be exceedingly easy to do and hard to defend against in the real world. Get your opponent off balance, then prevent his movement to re-balance, and down they go; and that's just Judo. Also it's fluff is vague enough that it might be something as a quick shoulder block, a rocking blow, etc, not just a reaping swipe at the legs.

Now mechanical, tripping is a very powerful tool at low levels, only to lose power over time, solution would be a scaling feat that adds things as time goes by; or do what the pathfinder srd says they did, split it into two pieces, improved trip to avoid the AoO, and a BETTER version of the follow up as the second feat. Seriously, the tripped party provokes attacks of opportunity is better than the free attack, as your not the only one to benefit from the maneuver now. It's like how wizards split up improved grapple into improved
grapple and grasp of the scorpion during the 3.0 to 3.5 switch.

sonofzeal
2009-07-28, 12:57 AM
Sure, from a mechanical balance point of view this is true. But the problem is the flavor/versimillitude perspective. Let's say you're a knight, and you are fighting a guy with a guisarme. This guy trips your fracking horse. WTF? So you get off it and charge him, and he trips you. Ok, that's fair. You get up and are wary he's gonna try to trip you again - and he does. It works even though you see it coming. Repeatedly. WTF.

From a flavor perspective, trip should be something that is useful about once per combat. Someone who expects a trip attempt should be nigh-untrippable. Charging is something that should be done at most once per opponent. Sundering and feinting can be done as often as desired, if one is a hulking brute.

So that's what the rules should strive towards. Feinting should be a useful tactic. Tripping should be an occasional trick useful primarily against the unsuspecting. Yet the rules don't do this in 3.5 They make tripping a thing to do over and over which makes combat a little too silly.
Compare to wrestling. Let's say I'm a traditional fighter, and I'm against a wrestler. Just because I saw him outwrestle me two minutes ago does not give me any real advantage when he tries to outwrestle me now. There are some things people can adapt to (in D&D, this might be tweaking Combat Expertise, Defensive Attacks, Power Attack, etc), but an effective combat style is usually still an effective combat style, and if someone can force you to play their game then they're likely going to win at it. Maybe you can adapt out of it (use Combat Expertise and Total Defense to boost your Touch AC way up until you can get to a favourable position), maybe you can get lucky (most trip builds aren't going to have a +20 trip modifier), or maybe you lose. And really, that's how combat often goes. I'm not sure what the problem is.

Myrmex
2009-07-28, 01:25 AM
(Polymorph-line and Glitterdust got nerfed; nobody remembered Planar Binding-line, Time Stop, Gate, Web, Color Spray, Solid Fog, Slow, Stinking Cloud, etc.) and yeah, the new caster buffs...

Planar Binding and Gate have been removed, Web is greatly nerfed, partly due to the way combat maneuvers work, and they also greatly simplified the spell so it might deny a particularly dangerous opponent only 1 or 2 rounds instead of 10 or something stupid like that.

Slow, Stinking Cloud, and Color Spray, imo, are all fine without nerfage. Color Spray loses usefulness as creatures rapidly gain HD and 1st level spell slots become less rare. Stinking Cloud is great, but there are enough ways around it that make it fine. It's a huge radius, so it can potentially mess up the party in more confined spaces, and it only affects things that breathe. Slow is countered by Haste, and is a great way to mitigate damage from high damage "can-openers".


I don't know, in medieval combat, a downed opponent was as good as dead since the armor was too heavy for them to get up without outside assistance. "Tripping" (that is, trying to get the opponent prone) happened a lot in that combat especially once armors were too thick to be penetrated by swords.

Same reason jiujitsu was such an important part of the Samurai's arsenal; medieval combat just usually ended up with either one side down (Trip) or both down (Grapple). Tripping being an effective option in combat isn't really unplausible at all; the only reason it happens repeatedly is that getting up is so easy, but it's not game mechanically sensible to make downed people stay down.

As such, I find the present system for tripping to be actually rather accurate in addition to being useful and thus good, and would just hope Grapple would be similarly useful (mostly, GET THE FRIGGIN' FoM OUTTA HERE).

Most fist fights, IRL, end in a grapple/on the floor. MMA gives a pretty good idea of what a "real" fight looks like.


If I understood correctly, the turtle thing was a brief period in the Renaissance. Until then, knights had lighter armor and much better mobility. If you knew someone was going to try to trip you, you can block the attack pretty easily with your sword. And if you were tripped, it would be something you didn't see coming.

But you can make the same argument about any other form of attack. It's not necessarily not being able to see something coming, it's being off balance due to making a mistake and leaving an opening.


And really, that's how combat often goes. I'm not sure what the problem is.

The problem is that mechanically efficient combat forms don't match the heroic idea of two combatants encased in steel, holding large weapons, pounding the snot out of each other, trading blow for blow.

In my experience, unless you've got a half-giant psychic warrior spike chain fighter, don't trip anything near 100% of the time, since the variation between two d20 rolls is pretty high.

Dracomorph
2009-07-28, 01:48 AM
I don't know, in medieval combat, a downed opponent was as good as dead since the armor was too heavy for them to get up without outside assistance. "Tripping" (that is, trying to get the opponent prone) happened a lot in that combat especially once armors were too thick to be penetrated by swords.

There really wasn't ANY point in Medieval European history when armor (even plate) would hamper movement very much. This is a myth; see the real world weapons and armor thread for more information.

The reason a down opponent was in trouble was because he was unable to really defend himself without getting up. It's not impossible, or even really that hard to get up in armor, but it leaves you extremely vulnerable while you're doing it. They might not be able to stab you through the plate, but a dagger in the armpit would probably hit an artery.

Myrmex
2009-07-28, 01:58 AM
There really wasn't ANY point in Medieval European history when armor (even plate) would hamper movement very much. This is a myth; see the real world weapons and armor thread for more information.

The reason a down opponent was in trouble was because he was unable to really defend himself without getting up. It's not impossible, or even really that hard to get up in armor, but it leaves you extremely vulnerable while you're doing it. They might not be able to stab you through the plate, but a dagger in the armpit would probably hit an artery.

I've read that the stiletto was designed to be slid through the visor of a downed knight.

Nero24200
2009-07-28, 04:03 AM
Paizo is able to sort out a few problems, but creates a few of it's own in the process. Alot of the classes are still skewered and some of the ideas just plain don't work.

Barbarian: Get's a few more options, one of the few changes I like really.

Bard: Aside from horrendous experimentation, nothing really has improved. In the Beta the bard was actually nerfed a little due to having to have multiple perform skills. The team still seem to have some weird desire to keep this in the final by letting them use those skills for other skill checks (Like Perform (Act) instead of bluff) though I'm skeptical about that since it sounds so open for abuse. And well..if they keep that Beta capstone ability then that's it for me (For those unaware, the bard performs, everyone in range makes a save or dies. Those that pass the save cannot do anything until the bard's next turn, which means theres nothing to stop him doing it again).

Cleric: Not better, but different. Appearently the main problem with Clericzilla is that he's too much of a healbot. This is one big problem paizo hasn't even touched, let alone fix. They seemed to focus on upping the cleric's healing power (and appearntly, this makes them less focused on healing).

Druid: Little better, but not moreso than a PHB2 Varient druid.

Fighter: Still boring and bland. It's ironic, desptie the number of interesting fighter fixes I have ever seen online (including the paizo forums) they instead think "Hey, let's just give him better bonuses to hit and damage". Better numbers, but that's it, still as boring as before.

Monk: The final sounds miles better than the Beta version, though the monk still suffer's it's main problems. Again, another thing paizo point-blanked refused to shift on was giving the monk Full BAB, despite so many play-testers asknig for it. They do enjoy, however it seems, giving them Full BAB in round-about ways (such as for CMB or in flurry now).

Paladin: Better for the most part I agree with on this one. Though I'm skeptical of their new smite for their final version. It supposedly last's until the target is dead, which makes me think it's either going to A: Be horreendously overpowering or B: Nerfed to the high heavens to prevent that, making it next to useless.

Rogue: Alright I guess, though had much more potential than they gave it.

Sorcerer: Still humped. They havn't actually fixed what was wrong. What's worse is now the Sorcerer Heritage idea is no longer ambigious, they definately gain their powers from their bloodline. I feel this strongly encourages the "I gain a Level, I just hit puberty" mentality (for those unfamilier, it means that when a sorcerer gains levels, they grow claws, wings, teeth etc, even if they just happen to be old and miles past their teenage growth years or whenever it might be appropraite to grow such limbs. It also means you can tell what level a sorcerer is just by looking at him). Meanwhile the cleric, druid and wizard still have faster spell progressions.

Wizard: They made it more powerful...lot's more powerful. Some abilities he gains make's class feature's obsolete (what's that? Theres a more powerful version of the hexblade's curse that doesn't allow a save and automatically affect's foes in range?). It also pushes speicalists into specific areas. Despite some of the best anti-undead being necromancy, specialist necromancers must also be undead minion masters now (despite not having an alignment restriction).

Skills: Some good ideas, but still very poor. Skill consolidation has generated too many "must-have" skills. I have yet to see a single character that doesn't take Perception because it grants too many good bonuses not to. Having sait that, the new skill point system is an improvment, even if the consolidation isn't.

Races: Human's are more powerful. A free feat and skill point isn't enough, they appearently needed a +2 bonus on a single score of their choice. To be fair, I never did really expect to take paizo's races seriously considering 7 out of 11 iconics are human and there isn't even a half-orc iconic.

SUMMERY: Paizo thought they were fixing most of D'n'D's problems, but I don't think they really took that good a look at the problems that exist.

Though I suppose the worst thing about PFRPG is the fanbase. Really, trying to say anything even remotely negative on the forums spark's flame wars. I swear, some times when I read that forum I get the impression that some folk are actually doing things like crying or shouting at their computer when they post, that's how angry/upset some posts come across as. I myself have personally been flammed several times (apparently, I'm not allowed to dislike barbarian's getting elemental rage, or the cleric gaining a boost to healing even though neither was a problem before).

My advice? Get the Beta for free and have a look. Decide for yourself what you think. Don't touch the forums though, it's full of fan-boy's who will do nothing but whine and rant if you (heaven forefend) imply that their precious paizo might in fact not be infallable. Though personally if you think your game has problems I'd just write-up house-rules instead, that way you're not shelling out $50 for someone that might not even fix your problems.

Riffington
2009-07-28, 07:15 AM
The thing is, tripping can be exceedingly easy to do and hard to defend against in the real world. Get your opponent off balance, then prevent his movement to re-balance, and down they go; and that's just Judo. Also it's fluff is vague enough that it might be something as a quick shoulder block, a rocking blow, etc, not just a reaping swipe at the legs.


No, it always has to be a reaping swipe at the legs with your glaive. If you get your shoulder to touch me, you will have 3 feet of steel sticking through you. You (typical glaive tripper, not you personally) don't have Monk training or even Improved Unarmed Combat for that matter.

Now, monks know things like jujitsu, and I'm fine with them doing crazy stuff that real-life martial artists can't even do. But I'm not talking about monks, I'm talking about the Improved Trip feat.



Let's say I'm a traditional fighter, and I'm against a wrestler. Just because I saw him outwrestle me two minutes ago does not give me any real advantage when he tries to outwrestle me now.
It most certainly does. It lets you know he's coming in close so you can stab him when he does. If you meant you were a traditional boxer, then I'll grant you. You'll have some benefit because you now know to do longer punches and back up, wearing the wrestler down while keeping your distance, but you'll still lose because boxing is a sport rather than a combat technique.

Epinephrine
2009-07-28, 08:19 AM
Not a fan-boy, as I think Paizo certainly missed the boat on a few issues. Also don't like the arrogance their team displays, basically just saying that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. But I think (having played with the beta, and kept tabs on the blog) that there are a few misconceptions in your presentation.


Paizo is able to sort out a few problems, but creates a few of it's own in the process.

True.



Barbarian: Get's a few more options, one of the few changes I like really.

Druid: Little better, but not moreso than a PHB2 Varient druid.

Paladin: Better for the most part I agree with on this one. Though I'm skeptical of their new smite for their final version. It supposedly last's until the target is dead, which makes me think it's either going to A: Be horreendously overpowering or B: Nerfed to the high heavens to prevent that, making it next to useless.

Rogue: Alright I guess, though had much more potential than they gave it.

Yeah, these were decent changes. Barbarians were a bit too good, but they scaled back a few powers after beta; Paladins got a nice improvement, Druids get the more flavourful wild shape, while keeping the power level toned down - they can still be nasty. With mechanical trapfinding opened up to everyone the rogue's automatic trap detection ability (get a roll when passing within 10 feet) is pretty nice, maintains the rogue's supremacy in that regard. Speeds up play, too, as there's no need to state that you are checking every 5' - you get a free check anyway.




Bard: Aside from horrendous experimentation, nothing really has improved. In the Beta the bard was actually nerfed a little due to having to have multiple perform skills. The team still seem to have some weird desire to keep this in the final by letting them use those skills for other skill checks (Like Perform (Act) instead of bluff) though I'm skeptical about that since it sounds so open for abuse. And well..if they keep that Beta capstone ability then that's it for me (For those unaware, the bard performs, everyone in range makes a save or dies. Those that pass the save cannot do anything until the bard's next turn, which means theres nothing to stop him doing it again).

Cleric: Not better, but different. Appearently the main problem with Clericzilla is that he's too much of a healbot. This is one big problem paizo hasn't even touched, let alone fix. They seemed to focus on upping the cleric's healing power (and appearntly, this makes them less focused on healing).

Fighter: Still boring and bland. It's ironic, desptie the number of interesting fighter fixes I have ever seen online (including the paizo forums) they instead think "Hey, let's just give him better bonuses to hit and damage". Better numbers, but that's it, still as boring as before.

Monk: The final sounds miles better than the Beta version, though the monk still suffer's it's main problems. Again, another thing paizo point-blanked refused to shift on was giving the monk Full BAB, despite so many play-testers asknig for it. They do enjoy, however it seems, giving them Full BAB in round-about ways (such as for CMB or in flurry now).

Sorcerer: Still humped. They havn't actually fixed what was wrong. What's worse is now the Sorcerer Heritage idea is no longer ambigious, they definately gain their powers from their bloodline. I feel this strongly encourages the "I gain a Level, I just hit puberty" mentality (for those unfamilier, it means that when a sorcerer gains levels, they grow claws, wings, teeth etc, even if they just happen to be old and miles past their teenage growth years or whenever it might be appropraite to grow such limbs. It also means you can tell what level a sorcerer is just by looking at him). Meanwhile the cleric, druid and wizard still have faster spell progressions.

Wizard: They made it more powerful...lot's more powerful. Some abilities he gains make's class feature's obsolete (what's that? Theres a more powerful version of the hexblade's curse that doesn't allow a save and automatically affect's foes in range?). It also pushes speicalists into specific areas. Despite some of the best anti-undead being necromancy, specialist necromancers must also be undead minion masters now (despite not having an alignment restriction).

There's a nice mixture of good an bad in these. Fighters got some decent bonuses, which add to their combat maneuvers done with the weapons - yeah, they are just bonuses, but a fighter who wants to trip can use his weapon training to get really good at it. Additionally, while they've hit some of a fighter's feats, they've added others to help him. At really high levels they get some DR and they boost the critical multiplier on their weapon, which is handy - making your scimitar a 18-20 x3 (and getting the improved critical for 15-20), or your Greathammer a x5 weapon (and likely a 19-20, x5) is pretty cool.
I'm curious to see what they've done with Devastating Blow, which was a superb fighter feat in beta. For those who complain about the hit to power attack, it seems like they misssed the fact that a warrior can take a standard action and swing at -5 to hit, and get an automatic critical from it. With a x4 weapon (x5 at high level), that's as good as a pounce pretty much, instead of attacks at BAB, BAB-5, BAB-10, and BAB-15, you get a single attack at BAB-5 that deals the damage of 4 or 5 hits.

Monks are way better than they were, and are fun to play; the monk in the campaign I'm running is loving it.

Clerics have a nifty healing burst, this is nice, but they certainly aren't much less powerful on paper. In fact, the change to dispelling makes buffed clerics stronger, as you can't strip as many enchantments with a dispel magic. The healing burst does make it less essential that the cleric use spell slots for healing; you can easily manage in-combat healing at lower levels with your burst, and use wands out of combat. Doesn't resolve any power issue though, that has to be done by looking at spells and casting.

Wizards got treats they didn't need. Of course, they did try to weaken spells, which weakens spellcasters. I'm not going to say they finished that work, but I do think it's the right approach - it wasn't particularly wizards that are broken, but spellcasting as a whole.

Sorcerers got some nice powers - I'm actually really happy with them, since I always felt that sorcerers really got shafted compared to the more full casters. Nothing that breaks the game, but some nice flavour - and if you don't like it, there's the default sorcerer from a magical bloodline.

The bard looks to have suffered the worst, with the change to a round-based bard song. I like that it fixes the "sing all day" phenomenon, but it feels poorly balanced, like it was a last minute change that wasn't play tested. Bullman is insulting or obtuse about it, not seeming to get the complaints. Of course, the bard did get some really nice stuff to make him the all around skill monkey. I don't particularly like the killing performance (or, indeed, the paralysing performance), but I suppose it isn't too bad at 20th level - the stun if you make the save has to go though.



Skills: Some good ideas, but still very poor. Skill consolidation has generated too many "must-have" skills. I have yet to see a single character that doesn't take Perception because it grants too many good bonuses not to. Having sait that, the new skill point system is an improvment, even if the consolidation isn't.

Races: Human's are more powerful. A free feat and skill point isn't enough, they appearently needed a +2 bonus on a single score of their choice. To be fair, I never did really expect to take paizo's races seriously considering 7 out of 11 iconics are human and there isn't even a half-orc iconic.

There were too many skills before, this has helped, but I agree that it seems like overkill sometimes. Having a single stealth and a single perception is much cleaner than a listen, spot, hide, and move silently, though I can understand wanting to have separate skills.

As for racial power, humans did get the +2, but other races all got a +2 as well. Of course, the human chooses where his goes. The favoured class system and new +2 bonus does help with fantasy archetypes, though it takes some power away from those that don't fit the mould.

Now, the biggest things that I think people have missed are the proposed changes to combat casting, to tumbling to avoid AoO, the dispel magic changes, the feats being introduced to control movement (fighter-type stuff), and so on. While the spells are still powerful, the changes to the system make it harder to be a caster.

Concentration checks, from what I've read, will no longer be using the spell level, but instead double the spell level. While it used to be that your ranks quickly outstripped the increase in spell level, this will guarantee that your ability to get a spell off isn't really increasing thatfast - you can get a low level spell off with greater frequency, but you won't manage anything big. If they stick to the tumbling model it'll also be harder with multiple opponents.

Feats that prevent 5' steps, or that allow melee types to move with their opponent can deny the 5' step and cast quite easily.

The changes to tumbling require a substantial investment, since your DC is based on your opponent's BAB. No more getting just enough to get the 15; if you want safety moving about in combat you aren't doing it without maxed ranks in a class skill, a good dex, and probably some items. This further limits the ability to get away from melee types - you can manage it as a nimble rogue or the like, but the wizard trying to get away and cast a spell will be in trouble.

The dispel magic changes I'm iffy on. Dispel Magic will only affect a single spell (though the +10 max is gone), and Greater Dispel will scale to affect up to 4 spells (IIRC). This does two things - it boosts the power of buffs, as they can't be as rapidly stripped, and importantly, it boosts the power of scroll and potion based buffs, which were dispel fodder previously, but now may actually stick around. Scroll and potion-based buffs are good for melee types - a targeted dispel magic no longer strips every potion the warrior gulped. At the same time, it does strengthen the casters that are well buffed. I like that for the BBEG, since he's often outnumbered and thus actions spent dispelling his buffs were just sensible, while he couldn't afford to spend his time trying to dispel the party buffs (not as easily, at any rate). It's less good news if you have Clericzilla in the party, as he/she'll be tougher to strip of spells.

joela
2009-08-03, 05:41 PM
They might manage a good final version, but they're going to have to get their heads outta their asses and start listening to rules savvy people.

Uh, you're claiming the writers and editors of the once print Dungeon and Dragon magazines, plus Monte Cooke (who co-wrote 3.0) as consultant, are not "rule savvy"? :smallfurious:

I'd love to see your writing resume, Eldariel. :smallamused:

RTGoodman
2009-08-03, 05:48 PM
Uh, you're claiming the writers and editors of the once print Dungeon and Dragon magazines, plus Monte Cooke (who co-wrote 3.0) as consultant, are not "rule savvy"? :smallfurious:


Er, depending on who you ask, those "credentials" aren't necessarily the best references. :smalltongue:

Dragon and Dungeon during 3.x had a HUGE stigma for ridiculously broken material, and ask anyone around here where the biggest amount of broken stuff is in 3.x and I imagine you'll get a resounding reply of "Core!" They might KNOW the rules, but just knowing them isn't enough - you've got to realize the implications of those rules and how they relate to the metagame. (For instance, yeah, they got rid of dead levels for all the classes, but that ended up making THE most powerful class even moreso.)

Eldariel
2009-08-03, 05:56 PM
Uh, you're claiming the writers and editors of the once print Dungeon and Dragon magazines, plus Monte Cooke (who co-wrote 3.0) as consultant, are not "rule savvy"? :smallfurious:

I'd love to see your writing resume, Eldariel. :smallamused:

Have you read the Dragon Magazines? Or Player's Handbook for that matter? Or hell, any D&D 3.5 books printed before...Tome of Battle? That would be basically all of them, yeah. 'cause based on this data, yes, I could do much better.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-08-03, 08:35 PM
Uh, you're claiming the writers and editors of the once print Dungeon and Dragon magazines, plus Monte Cooke (who co-wrote 3.0) as consultant, are not "rule savvy"? :smallfurious:

I'd love to see your writing resume, Eldariel. :smallamused:They are spending a good amount of time and money printing a version of the rules that is more broken than 3.5...in the name of balance. They nerfed the 2 feats Fighters care about and gave the Wizards more power.:smallconfused: Yes, I think people like Eladriel have a better knowlege of how the rules work, but any time someone tries to give them feedback on the issues with their version, they get shouted down.

Also, the order of brokenness for 3.x: Dragon/Dungeon>Core>Setting Specific>the rest of the library. Your argument for their knowlege of the rules is that they wrote the most broken things in the game? Yeah, I don't know why that doesn't convince me.

thegurullamen
2009-08-03, 09:12 PM
a) The core goal of Pathfinder was never to balance the game as that's an impossibility, especially when placed alongside the real goal of keeping backwards compatibility while making all classes (more) fun to play. Whether they have succeeded at that goal is debatable, but it is the goal that should be debated.

b) Things are getting a little heated in here. Let's keep it civil before the gunslinger of winged-justice visits this gray path and takes the thread away.

bosssmiley
2009-08-04, 05:34 AM
(cross-posted from the the marketing hype thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120422))

Unofficial Pathfinder FAQ/critique (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083)

an extract:
I heard that Pathfinder is compatible with 3rd edition rules. As such, does it really make any difference if I use pathfinder or not?

Unfortunately, it does. Pathfinder makes a lot of minor rules modifications that really add up to being quite confusing. It even calculates defences and hit points slightly differently so that monsters out of the monster manual are not usable as-is. With almost inconsequential changes to almost every spell as well as the basic monster combat routines, you'll be running into something you have to look up almost every combat round - and that seriously slows down play. Pathfinder is less compatible with 3.5 rules than 3rd edition sourcebooks or d20 modern sourcebooks are. Quite a (negative) achievement for something for which compatibility was supposed to be a life goal.

Didn't Pathfinder do the biggest open RPG playtest in history? Doesn't that mean they solved all of D&D's problems?

No. In this case, the "playtest" was a lie. Destructive playtesting was not only not encouraged, it was actively and specifically rejected. The Paizo leadership only wanted to hear about whether people had fun or not. Which means that the most pried playtest reports were seriously ones in which the players spent all night in immersive roleplaying or where the fun centred around "awesome" artifacts that broke the rules. In short - things that didn't use the rules at all and didn't demonstrate anything. People who actually ran apples to apples comparisons, same game tests, or repeated experiments to get controlled results or regressed bugs were not only ignored, they were banned from their forums.

Their playtest was a marketing ploy and nothing more. It was never intended to uncover problems or produce real results.

Doesn't Paizo's system address some of the most broken parts of D&D?

Not really, no. If you talk to 95% of the D&D players who are aware of balance issues in the D&D game who don't eat paste they will probably describe the most central issue as either "Fighters suck" or "Spellcasters are broken" - these statements are mostly speaking logically equivalent in terms of central balance issues because they both describe the relationship Wizards > Fighters. So to make D&D less unbalanced, it would be logical to either make spellcasters less powerful or sword wielders more powerful. Pathfinder does the opposite, and mysteriously makes spellcasters more powerful and fighters less powerful. Thus, it's more unbalanced.

My personal take on the three stated design goals of PF:
Add Options - achieved, albeit in a mechanically clumsy, fiddly fashion. 0.75
Compatibility - failed. "Nul points!"
Improve the Game - (arguably) failed. 0.25

Final score: ~1 out of 3 - must try harder
"Mearls makes fail. Buhlman roots through his trash."

tyfon
2009-08-04, 06:52 AM
From my point of view it's better than 4e - but if I own 3,5e rulebooks, then why should I buy Pathfinder? It does not really improve the game...

Blackfang108
2009-08-04, 08:33 AM
I don't know, in medieval combat, a downed opponent was as good as dead since the armor was too heavy for them to get up without outside assistance. "Tripping" (that is, trying to get the opponent prone) happened a lot in that combat especially once armors were too thick to be penetrated by swords.
And this is pretty much the reason the Swiss Halbriders DOMINATED the era. The Halberd was made to faceplant people. It was the standard battle tactic of most midrange polearms.

Asbestos
2009-08-04, 08:58 AM
From my point of view it's better than 4e - but if I own 3,5e rulebooks, then why should I buy Pathfinder? It does not really improve the game...

This, and what bosssmilely quoted above are really key. Something I saw a lot in the anti-4e threads was "I don't want to spend money on a new system when I've already invested so much in the one I'm currently playing". If Pathfinder is not backwards compatible then it has, in my opinion, utterly failed at its [arguably] intended goal (to woo those slighted by WotC's 'greedy' edition change) and failed as a product. Why, if you already have 10, 20, or 30 3.x books invest in an exteremly similar system that is dissimilar enough to not be compatible? That is a question that the Pathfinder marketing team really needs to find an answer for.

Epinephrine
2009-08-04, 09:20 AM
If Pathfinder is not backwards compatible then it has, in my opinion, utterly failed at its [arguably] intended goal (to woo those slighted by WotC's 'greedy' edition change) and failed as a product.

Any time you deviate from what D&D was, you will no longer be fully backwards compatible.

Pathfinder changed some things, hence it's not fully backwards compatible.

I still find it a) better than 3.5, b) compatible enough that I tweak a few things to use the existing material (something I did ANYWAY, as I generally find I don't like material exactly as written). It's not perfect, but my players enjoy it more.

What does Pathfinder offer? Continued availability of a 3.5-like product, so that new players introduced to a 3.5-like game can continue to buy books. It also happens to offer changes that I like.

Don't like the changes, and have 3.5 books? Keep playing 3.5!
Want to get into D&D, but don't like the sound of 4E? Try Pathfinder, at least it's around and will be supported!
Want to try some new stuff in 3.5? Look at Pathfinder, find bits you like, and import them as houserules. Or run Pathfinder, and houserule the stuff you don't like. Practically everyone uses houserules anyway.

The biggest gripes I hear about PF are:

1) They changed Power Attack. Yes, they did, and then they changed it again for the final, but everyone overlooks the second change. They also added other feats (I'm looking at you, Devastating Chop) that allow fighters to be effective with a standard action, but that gets glossed over.

2) They made wizards stronger! Well, the class, sure. The class was never the problem, the spells are. Pathfinder makes it harder to cast defensively (not hard enough, IMO, I'll probably raise the DCs even more), made it harder to get away with a 5' step, made it harder to simply tumble away from a melee threat, while reducing the power of many spells. Those are exactly the kind of changes that are needed to reduce the power of spellcasters. If you feel they didn't go far enough (without even seeing the final), nerf more spells! The point is that the class isn't the issue, it's the power brought to the table by casting - make it harder to cast, make the spells weaker, and you've reduced the power of the casters.

DragoonWraith
2009-08-04, 09:24 AM
They gave the Wizard free Divine Metamagic. One of the most broken feats in 3.5, for free, just for being the most overpowered class in the game.

Sure, the Wizard class was not overpowered - but now it is.

Shisumo
2009-08-04, 10:30 AM
(cross-posted from the the marketing hype thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120422))

Unofficial Pathfinder FAQ/critique (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083)


It's really astonishing how much misinformation, hyperbole (despite the disavoal of same) and outright lies are in that "FAQ." The author has an axe to grind against Paizo, one whose size would make Paul Bunyan feel inadequate, but mysteriously fails to mention the fact; he repeatedly refers to Beta rules as though they were the final ones, even though the information otherwise has already been released in the previews (some of which he also refers to, so he apparently has read them); he either says or implies several things that are literally untrue (for instance, the idea that the Improved [Maneuver] feats are nerfed because they only give a +2 bonus now? Since the maneuver system doesn't use opposed rolls anymore, the +2 is exactly the same statistical bonus as the +4 used to be - and yes, I have the math to prove that); and for no apparent reason spends about a third of the time actually attacking a book called Gods and Magic, though he never says that he is doing so and despite the fact that the book was released at roughly the same time as the Alpha playtest document and therefore doesn't have a thing to do with the Pathfinder RPG.

There are reasonable critiques of Pathfinder out there, some of which are on this thread. Trollman's is not one of them.

Shisumo
2009-08-04, 10:45 AM
They gave the Wizard free Divine Metamagic. One of the most broken feats in 3.5, for free, just for being the most overpowered class in the game.

I'm not sure I would say that DMM is inherently broken. It takes, at the very least, Extra Turning to break it, if not actual nightsticks or Persistant Spell. (Which, speaking of which, a wizard would not be able to use with his ability until 18th level, and would never be able to use on a spell higher than 3rd level.)

Giving it the universalists is a definite powerup, to be sure, but I can't say they actually broke them in the process.

Epinephrine
2009-08-04, 10:49 AM
I'm not sure I would say that DMM is inherently broken. It takes, at the very least, Extra Turning to break it, if not actual nightsticks or Persistant Spell. (Which, speaking of which, a wizard would not be able to use with his ability until 18th level, and would never be able to use on a spell higher than 3rd level.)

Giving it the universalists is a definite powerup, to be sure, but I can't say they actually broke them in the process.

They do limit it, actually. You can't use it to boost the power of a spell above the level of spell you can cast.

So yes, they get some free metamagic, a small amount. ANd if you can cast 5th level spells, you can use it to add a +2 to a 3rd level, or a +1 to a 4th, or you could even quicken a 1st. Not broken.


Metamagic mastery now allows the wizard to add a metamagic feat to a spell without increasing the spell level, but it does come with some restrictions. First, it can only be used 1/day at 8th level and one additional time per day for every two levels beyond 8th. Adding a feat to a spell that would increase the spell's level by more than 1 uses up an additional use of the ability for each level beyond one (i.e., if you Empower a fireball, it would use up two uses of this ability). Finally, you cannot add a metamagic feat to a spell using this ability if that feat would have made the spell higher level than a level of spell that you are capable of casting.

That's really not very scary.

Starbuck_II
2009-08-04, 11:00 AM
Bard: Aside from horrendous experimentation, nothing really has improved. In the Beta the bard was actually nerfed a little due to having to have multiple perform skills. The team still seem to have some weird desire to keep this in the final by letting them use those skills for other skill checks (Like Perform (Act) instead of bluff) though I'm skeptical about that since it sounds so open for abuse. And well..if they keep that Beta capstone ability then that's it for me (For those unaware, the bard performs, everyone in range makes a save or dies. Those that pass the save cannot do anything until the bard's next turn, which means theres nothing to stop him doing it again).


But the final is worse.
Instead of uses/day and Inspire Courage persisting for 5 rounds you are limited to each round by points.

The points are pretty slim as well.

Bards start with a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + their Charisma modifier and gain an additional 2 rounds per day for every level beyond first.

So at level 1 you can only do it for 5 to 8 rounds. This is a drop of 60% compared to 3.5 Bards. As before you can persisting it till stop playing which would be all day.

Epinephrine
2009-08-04, 11:09 AM
But the final is worse.
Instead of uses/day and Inspire Courage persisting for 5 rounds you are limited to each round by points.

The points are pretty slim as well.

Bards start with a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + their Charisma modifier and gain an additional 2 rounds per day for every level beyond first.

So at level 1 you can only do it for 5 to 8 rounds. This is a drop of 60% compared to 3.5 Bards. As before you can persisting it till stop playing which would be all day.

Agreed, this is likely one of my biggest specific issues with the class changes. This move just doesn't make sense - I don't mind dropping the bard from "perform all day" to a number of rounds, but
the number of rounds is very low, which is problematic.
it won't interact well with the abilities as currently defined (Inspire courage lasts for 5 rounds after you stop - does this drain another 5 rounds of use? Is it free? Have then eliminated it, in which case the bard can't Inspire Greatness AND Inspire Courage?
it doesn't work with all the splatbook feats that involve "bardic music uses"
it doesn't work with items like the harmonizing weapon from MIC


Of course, we'll have to see how it looks in the final, but I can see this being a problem for us. We may imitate the barbarian's Rage points, and make it 2+Cha rounds per level, to ensure sufficient uses. This is one of those points where I like the spirit of the change (make music uses more flexible, eliminate the "I sing this all day" aspect of bards), but dislike the mechanics of it.

Deimess
2010-07-11, 01:27 AM
I have played 3.5 for years and my gaming group and I decided to try Pathfinder out at GenCon. We were all fairly rules savy and enjoy playing together and work well as a team. We rarely encountered battles threatening a TPK but had a few times. We created a party of 6 level ones for the starter modules (2 Rogues, a Wizard, a Cleric, a Fighter, and a Paladin) of Pathfinder. We went in open-minded and anxious.

The first module went well in the beginning. The wizard destroyed the first few encounters with brilliant technique but was spent much to early. I enjoyed playing the rogue, and everyone else seemed to enjoy at least some of the new content if not most. Then we exited a boat onto a dock and were confronted by an evil cleric with a single undead minion.

The minion charged and hit the cleric, who retaliated by hitting the minion. She (the evil cleric) opened with the AoE burst of 2d6 damage to the entire party and healing her minion to full. 2d6 is a lot to do to level one characters but fortunately, nobody dropped. The wizard magic missled the cleric (no spells left) and most of the others engaged her as well, as we realized she was the obvious threat.

But apparently, level ones are supposed to be able to hit a 21 AC a lot more often than I thought. the paladin and cleric almost dropped the minion when it became the evil clerics turn again. 2d6 to the entire party, +2d6 HP to the minion. The other rogue and the wizard dropped to unconsciousness. Although surprised that the cleric could do this twice, we were sure she couldn't do this again. Our cleric did his AoE burst heal which healed everyone 1d6, including the evil cleric. We scored a couple hits on her before she blasted us a third time, dropping all but the fighter and cleric. The minion was dead, fortunately, but our cleric healed again, to keep half of us from dying. The fighter rolled one final time, and scored a 19, a miss. Boom. TPK.

The Dm told us after that the next and final encounter was another evil cleric with a 20 AC. Only 1d6, but more minions. The next module began and ended horribly. Nobody told us level ones that we needed faerie iron to break the DR 5 on the class-leveled fey with his Strength damage swarm. Then the final encounter was a quickling with haste and DR 5 that we had 10 rounds to kill before failing the adventure.

We asked around about how others handled the dock encounter. In one group, the same thing happened but the fighter scored a hit and barely dropped her. Another groups rogue tackled her off the dock by rolling high on a bull rush. I will have to look into combat maneuvers more...

balistafreak
2010-07-11, 01:36 AM
{Scrubbed}

ryzouken
2010-07-11, 03:23 AM
Also, IIRC, that particular module has a reputation for lethality.

And your party should've gotten will saves against every burst to halve the damage, and your cleric's first level feat should've been Selective Channelling, letting him omit the enemy cleric from the burst.

So yes, with what's been reported, your party's TPK seems about right. This is not a fault of the system, but rather its implementation.

EDIT: and necromancy is bad, yo. :P

Roland St. Jude
2010-07-11, 09:59 AM
Sheriff: Thread necromancy is disfavored.