PDA

View Full Version : How are you guys liking Pathfinder?



barteem
2009-10-08, 02:00 PM
I'm about to shift my old heavy house ruled 3.5 ed game into a more or less R.A.W Piazo Pathfinder game.
If things arise that need re-ruled, I'll do it, but I'm hoping that all the play testing that it got will help the ease of R.A.W.ing it.
Do you guys feel that is a safe bet?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-08, 02:07 PM
Don't. Pathfinder is essentially (for practical purposes) a series of houserules. An elaborate series of houserules, but it still only serves the same purpose as houserules. There is no guarantee that they will satisfy your needs, while your heavy house rules do fill your needs. You've already learned them, they're what your gaming group needs, and you've been satisfied with them so far. Pathfinder's new rules may confuse you, harm backwards compatibility with 3.5 proper, and slow down the game. Too much risk for the minimal reward.

Of course, I've never played Pathfinder, but this is general advice that I would give for any 3.5 fix, including some of the ones on these forums that I'm fonder of.

Ravens_cry
2009-10-08, 02:08 PM
It has improvements. It doesn't balance the system, that is fundamentally impossible with the assumptions that it's ancestor makes, but it makes a lot of good changes. We play it, and I like it. It doesn't punch half-orcs in the nards the way 3.5 did, so that makes me happy.

barteem
2009-10-08, 02:10 PM
Anything that throws greenskins a bone, is good news for me.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-08, 02:13 PM
I'm hoping that all the play testing that it got

Oh noes! The Flamewar cometh!

That said.

If your reason is because it was playtested. Don't do it. The actual Pathfinder rules were never playtested at all.

The CMD rules, the spell changes, literally every single thing that they actually published is different from the beta, and was never playtested by anyone.

If you like the rules as they are, fine, enjoy them. But don't do anything under the mistaken assumption that any actual playtesting was done.

Check out the actual forum playtests to see how incredibly not playtesting they were.

Delwugor
2009-10-08, 02:13 PM
Was at Borders last night and saw it on their shelf. Looked briefly at it and a rough guess the book is thicker than my 3.5 PB and DMG combined. :smallfrown:
My only thought a forget that crap... well forget really wasn't the word I used, the same for crap.

Then there was this nice thinner book with super heroes doing really cool things. Too bad I didn't have any money otherwise I'd have had M&M to start reading.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-08, 02:16 PM
Check out the actual forum playtests to see how incredibly not playtesting they were.

Sort of like actual D&D.

No, seriously, you made your own houserules. They're tailored exactly to fix your problems, not excessive, and well-tested in context. If you want to throw greenskins a bone, do it yourself. Don't suddenly think that "broken" parts of 3.5 that you never had reason to touch with your houserules suddenly need dire Pathfinder overhauling. You played with your houserules for a while, you're fine with them, and the existence of Pathfinder "fixing" anything you haven't is probably just good marketing (read: mental manipulation)

9mm
2009-10-08, 02:17 PM
There are very few differences between the two systems... with all the good and bad therein.

Hallavast
2009-10-08, 02:18 PM
Was at Borders last night and saw it on their shelf. Looked briefly at it and a rough guess the book is thicker than my 3.5 PB and DMG combined. :smallfrown:
My only thought a forget that crap... well forget really wasn't the word I used, the same for crap.

Then there was this nice thinner book with super heroes doing really cool things. Too bad I didn't have any money otherwise I'd have had M&M to start reading.

The reason its thicker is because it IS the PHB and DMG combined...

Didn't know it hit the shelves yet, though. Thanks.

Hallavast
2009-10-08, 02:34 PM
You played with your houserules for a while, you're fine with them, and the existence of Pathfinder "fixing" anything you haven't is probably just good marketing (read: mental manipulation)

What marketing? :smallconfused:

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-08, 02:36 PM
What marketing? :smallconfused:

Everyone does marketing. Pathfinder is planning to sell their product, correct? They might not be as conspicuous as ads, but they've been marketing. Word-of-mouth, mostly.

Prime32
2009-10-08, 02:46 PM
Haven't played it, but from what I hear it gave wizards more class features and made fighter feats weaker. :smallconfused: Its version of the paladin class has been generally well-received though.

Ravens_cry
2009-10-08, 03:01 PM
Haven't played it, but from what I hear it gave wizards more class features and made fighter feats weaker. :smallconfused: Its version of the paladin class has been generally well-received though.
I can attest to that. Been a Holy Warrior of Good never felt so. . .well, good. Smite Evil actually, WORKS. Fall before the the Might of the Sun Goddess, vile demon!

LibraryOgre
2009-10-08, 03:04 PM
I've been enjoying it. There are a lot of nice options for the meleers, and the game moves smoothly when everyone remembers their numbers (or, as my group does, has me remember their numbers... I've told the fighter several times "You cannot roll that low.")

Akal Saris
2009-10-08, 04:01 PM
I've been enjoying it, though I probably won't shift my own 3.5 game over to PF anytime soon. They did a good job with the sorcerer and paladin at least.

I'd say its a toss-up betweens ticking with your houseruled 3.5 and PF - both will probably have their own problems, and both are fun.

Hallavast
2009-10-08, 04:10 PM
Everyone does marketing. Pathfinder is planning to sell their product, correct? They might not be as conspicuous as ads, but they've been marketing. Word-of-mouth, mostly.

Exactly. But to suggest word of mouth is "mental manipulation" kind of spits in the face of certain websites and other indy sources' credibility and character...

The kind of marketing isn't the same as television ads or whatever subliminal mind control method you're reffering to.


I've been enjoying it, though I probably won't shift my own 3.5 game over to PF anytime soon. They did a good job with the sorcerer and paladin at least.

I'd say its a toss-up betweens ticking with your houseruled 3.5 and PF - both will probably have their own problems, and both are fun.

Yeah. This is how I feel about it, too. My group will probably end up deciding to take the best from both systems as house rules. A few of our players picked up the pdf download for 10 bucks, so it really wasn't that much risk considering all the content you actually end up getting (even if all that content is simply a large collection of house rules).

Mongoose87
2009-10-08, 04:11 PM
If you really want it, get the PDF, like I did. Otherwise, the PRD should be enough to pick and choose the new rules you like.

Darcand
2009-10-08, 04:19 PM
The biggest things PF did was to fill in the empty gaps in class levels, so you gain something useful every level. It also encourages staying in a class until level twenty. I like the racial changes alot, and I like that it allows for alot of former LA +1s to be played as a +0 now, due to the base races getting a boost.

As far as fixing balance issues, not even a little, but that wasn't what they set out to do, so all in all, I like the changes.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-08, 04:50 PM
I think the biggest problem with PF is that Paizo missed a lot of broken, and outright ignored some of us pointing things out.


Glitterdust? Sure, they nerfed it a bit. They missed Pyrotechnics.

Gate? Nerfed too. But they missed the Candle of Invocation completely (same price, even with Gate's 10K material component, same CL, everything).

Druids? Sure, they nerfed Wild Shape. They didn't nerf the Druid enough. It's still one of the strongest classes there is.

Wizard? Buffed, in spite of spell nerfs. There's now little reason to specialize, considering the Generalist is so powerful (free metamagic!).

Fighter? Nerfed, and quite hard. You know all those bonus feats you got? Now everyone gets more feats, and the most important feats for you have been split into two feats, or nerfed to be weaker than you need them to be (Power Attack).

Oh, and then there's the whole fetish they seem to have for round-based abilities. Such as the Bard. Instead of being able to play X times/day for as long as you want (up to 2 minutes IIRC), they made it so you can only play for X rounds/day, and nerfed some of your Bardic Music (Inspire Courage and Inspire Greatness no longer stack, for example).



They really should have listened to CO when they made this thing.

Paulus
2009-10-08, 04:57 PM
Totally Awesome movie, Clancy Brown is epic as far as I'm concer- oh wait...

Starbuck_II
2009-10-08, 05:01 PM
Fighter? Nerfed, and quite hard. You know all those bonus feats you got? Now everyone gets more feats, and the most important feats for you have been split into two feats, or nerfed to be weaker than you need them to be (Power Attack).


They nerfed the CMB trick feats on purpose. The Designers don't want you doing it all the time.
It gave me Deja vu of keen and Improved Crit argument of designers.
Criting too often makes crits less special.
Same deal with CMB tricks- if you are good at tripping you'll trip all the time; making trip less special.
At least that was the guys argument.

PA isn't nerfed as beta, but not as good as 3.5.

Guancyto
2009-10-08, 05:04 PM
If you want to pick it up (or just read the PF SRD) and incorporate some of its changes into your houserules, by all means do so. They did do a couple of things correctly. Replace your houserules with it in its entirety? No way.


Fighter? Nerfed, and quite hard. You know all those bonus feats you got? Now everyone gets more feats, and the most important feats for you have been split into two feats, or nerfed to be weaker than you need them to be (Power Attack).

Probably the biggest condemnation of the system as a whole I heard didn't come from its detractors. It was a designer saying, essentially, "maneuvers such as sunder, trip or disarm are more flashy and exciting than just plain old attacking, so they should fail more often."

Edit: Ninja'd!

Starbuck_II
2009-10-08, 05:07 PM
Probably the biggest condemnation of the system as a whole I heard didn't come from its detractors. It was a designer saying, essentially, "maneuvers such a sunder, trip or disarm are more flashy and exciting than just plain old attacking, so they should fail more often."

Edit: Ninja'd!

Although to their credit- they are easier for the player to roll (1 roll). Just harder for the character.

Saph
2009-10-08, 05:17 PM
Wizard? Buffed, in spite of spell nerfs. There's now little reason to specialize, considering the Generalist is so powerful (free metamagic!).

You're out of date, Sin. Generalist Wizards have been nerfed quite heavily in the final Pathfinder version; check the current SRD. I'm playing one at the moment who's a hybrid of the Beta and current rules, though, who works quite well.

I should write a proper report on the game so far, actually; it's been pretty interesting.

Akal Saris
2009-10-08, 05:22 PM
On combat maneuvers:

It's also easier to keep track of if your characters makes use of multiple ones, since they all base off your CBM. And because of the changes to size bonuses, you're much more likely to succeed against large or huge creatures. And it appears that you can safely change your later iterative attacks out for maneuvers like disarm or trip if you have the feats for them, since your CMB relies on your BAB instead of your iterative's attack bonus.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-10-08, 05:25 PM
You're out of date, Sin. Generalist Wizards have been nerfed quite heavily in the final Pathfinder version; check the current SRD. I'm playing one at the moment who's a hybrid of the Beta and current rules, though, who works quite well.

I should write a proper report on the game so far, actually; it's been pretty interesting.

I must say I'd be pretty damn interested in this.

Violet Octopus
2009-10-08, 05:34 PM
The small changes are annoying. Like ray of enfeeblement going from 1 min/level to 1 round/level. As a result my sorcerer can only debuff someone for a round. Grr.

That's less of a problem if your group's switching over because you can just ignore the change, as opposed to joining a new group that uses PF.

Generally, I like the class features added to spellcasting classes, though that doesn't excuse the fighter nerf, or the fact that the wizard is still stronger than the sorcerer.

I quite like their campaign setting though.

Rixx
2009-10-08, 05:49 PM
If you're interested in giving it a try, give it a try - most of the naysayers have probably never actually played using the new rules. Pathfinder has been a really good experience for me overall so far, and they changed a lot of the stuff I didn't like about 3.5.

Really, the only way you're going to find out if it's for you is to try it.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-08, 06:02 PM
If you're interested in giving it a try, give it a try - most of the naysayers have probably never actually played using the new rules. Pathfinder has been a really good experience for me overall so far, and they changed a lot of the stuff I didn't like about 3.5.

Really, the only way you're going to find out if it's for you is to try it.

Means I would need to find a Pathfinder PbP on some forum since I have little chance of finding a real life group at moment. But I have never played it, but I'm weary.
Same deal with cociane: never tried but I know things about what it does to you to be weary of ever using it.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-10-08, 06:04 PM
Means I would need to find a Pathfinder PbP on some forum since I have little chance of finding a real life group at moment. But I have never played it, but I'm weary.
Same deal with cociane: never tried but I know things about what it does to you to be weary of ever using it.

...I know it's not a bad analogy, but when you compare an Role Playing Gaming system to drugs, something has to be wrong.

Yuki Akuma
2009-10-08, 06:05 PM
I've never read Pathfinder, but I'm instantly turned off. It seems rather... dishonest to just track on a bunch of house rules (which apparently aren't even that good), claim you've done better than the original designer, and then sell it for twice the original price.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-08, 06:07 PM
What marketing? :smallconfused:

Well, you can PhD your game now...

(/ducks and runs)

subject42
2009-10-08, 06:44 PM
I've been both playing and DMing a Pathfinder game and here are the things that I've seen so far.

Overall:
The people who dislike Pathfinder the most are the people who have been obsessively studying the nooks and crannies of 3.5 for years now.

The Good:
The condensed skillset is nice, if only for bookkeeping and auditing purposes.

The methods for handling class skills and out-of-class skills are simpler.

Sorcerers are a bit more than gimped wizards now.

The Paladin is nice, if not as nice as the Rebalanced Palading.

More frequent, but less powerful feats are nice for making people feel like their character is turning into something that they want *right now*, rather than waiting for the next big thing.


The Bad:
CMB and CMD feel pretty awkward and arbitrary. They're better than the old grapple/disarm/trip/sunder/bull rush/overrun rules, but that isn't saying much.

A fly skill? Really?

Wizards are still too powerful.

The value distribution of the skills are uneven. Perception, for example, is absurdly useful.

Matthew
2009-10-08, 07:32 PM
Well, you can PhD your game now...

(/ducks and runs)

Postgraduate. :smallbiggrin:

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-08, 08:01 PM
The small changes are annoying.

That's what I hear, and I fear it may slow down your game having to keep track of such things. And if you don't use those small changes, you could have just cribbed the big changes as houserules.

Ellington
2009-10-08, 08:07 PM
I like a lot of the things I've read in Pathfinder. I'm considering buying it and just houseruling back a few things from 3.5 like a few combat maneuvers and such.

Akal Saris
2009-10-08, 08:19 PM
That is true, and sometimes the small changes are easy to miss - I went several sessions without learning about the changes to favored classes, for example. It's 1 of the reasons that I've been working on a PF guide for conjurers, actually. (Also, Sin's out of date on his PF wizardry - IMO diviners are the new OMG specialization, followed by conjurers, generalists, and necromancers)

Favored Classes were changed in PF - now instead of being tied to a race, you choose one at level start (typically but not always your first class), and whenever you take a level in that class you either gain +1 HPs or +1 skill/level. The restrictions on multi-classing and favored classes (such as losing experience because you're a fighter 4/bard 1, for example) were removed from the game.

This is one of the points where I think PF went in a positive direction, since I think most classes should really get more skills/level, and the old favored class rules were really just a clunky hand-me-down from 2E. But if you don't notice that tiny paragraph on Pg. 31, you're liable to never notice this ruling.

The new bestiary preview has a ton of tiny changes like this - you wouldn't think the wolf would have different skills between the two games, but it does.

Ravens_cry
2009-10-08, 08:43 PM
I've never read Pathfinder, but I'm instantly turned off. It seems rather... dishonest to just track on a bunch of house rules (which apparently aren't even that good), claim you've done better than the original designer, and then sell it for twice the original price.
Considering you get both the players handbook and the DMG in the same tome, it's hardly 'twice'. In fact, I think it's a bit less, all together.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 08:44 PM
Don't. Pathfinder is essentially (for practical purposes) a series of houserules. An elaborate series of houserules, but it still only serves the same purpose as houserules. There is no guarantee that they will satisfy your needs, while your heavy house rules do fill your needs. You've already learned them, they're what your gaming group needs, and you've been satisfied with them so far. Pathfinder's new rules may confuse you, harm backwards compatibility with 3.5 proper, and slow down the game. Too much risk for the minimal reward.

Of course, I've never played Pathfinder, but this is general advice that I would give for any 3.5 fix, including some of the ones on these forums that I'm fonder of.

+1...

If you are new to DnD... start with pathfinder instead of core.
If you are an experienced DM, read it for ideas and suggestions.

subject42
2009-10-08, 08:53 PM
Considering you get both the players handbook and the DMG in the same tome, it's hardly 'twice'. In fact, I think it's a bit less, all together.

As a quick note about the size of the book, make sure to be careful with it. The binding isn't quite meant to handle a book of that size.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-10-08, 08:57 PM
Favored Classes were changed in PF - now instead of being tied to a race, you choose one at level start (typically but not always your first class), and whenever you take a level in that class you either gain +1 HPs or +1 skill/level. The restrictions on multi-classing and favored classes (such as losing experience because you're a fighter 4/bard 1, for example) were removed from the game.

I seriously think I'm going to use this. Although I may keep the racial favored classes (need to change Human's any though).

taltamir
2009-10-08, 09:03 PM
human favored class should be fighter...
Dumb uneducated humans with their short lifespan and no magical talent... definitely fighter.

Xzeno
2009-10-08, 09:49 PM
I haven't looked into Pathfinder extensively, but I disliked much of it. I didn't like the increasing hit die of classes. Rouge I can understand, but wizard? I'm skeptical. The thing I like most about Pathfinder was paladins getting good will. A bad will save seems to be contrary to what a paladin is. Also, it creates equilibrium in the core half-casters (or what I consider to be half-casters: paladin, ranger and bard) in that now they all three have 2 good saves and take every combo of that.

Note that neither of these two reasons are remotely related to game balance.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 09:52 PM
the official explanation for d4 HD is all the "save or die" spells they have.
Since save or die/lose was nerfed, why not return some HD instead?

Set
2009-10-08, 10:38 PM
As someone who is actually playing it, I'm enjoying my Clerics (Abadar, Iomedae, Urgathoa and Nethys) as usual, despite a notable power-down, my Druid seems fairly similar, although the companion and wild shape have been toned down, and I'm playing a Barbarian (extremely rare for me), a Bard (first time, ever) and a Wizard, all of whom seem to be getting their respective jobs done.

The Domains are cooler in a 'reason to go past 1st level' sense, but far less sexy than the 3.X Domains that gave all sorts of Rebuke/Command pools. (See; Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Scalykind, Plant, Cold / Winter, Ooze / Slime / Thirst, Spiders, Warforged, etc.) No more Command Critter Clerics with Rebuked hordes of Shadows or Thoqqua or whatever, which is sad for me, but I still enjoy the class. Spells like Divine whatever and Righteous something or other have been changed to no longer beat up the Fighter and steal his candy, but I didn't really get around to taking advantage of the Divine Metamagic / Persistant Spell / Nightsticks thing anyway, so I'm not feeling particularly 'nerfed' on that count. Apparently the removal of heavy armor proficiency from the Cleric prompted much outrage in some quarters, but it's never been my thing to go past mithril breastplates anyway, since I've always valued mobility over an extra +2 AC. And Mithral Breastplates go up to +6 now anyway, and I've got an extra Feat by the time I hit 5th level, so I can pick up Heavy Armor Proficiency anyway, if I ever want to play a Cleric who can't get out of his own way.

The Bard is insanely cool with the improved knowledge skill access, and the ability to substitute some skill checks for others. I've used Bards as NPCs when GMing before, but never had the slightest inclination to play one before. These dudes are *versatile.* (Yeah, no Dragonfire Channeling / Song of the Heart / Words of Creation / Badge of Inspiration / Inspirational Boost cheese, but hey, who needs that much cheese? It just causes blockage.)

The Barbarian seems to play pretty much the same. I like having six rounds of Rage that I can use as I see fit at 1st level. Use a round here, a round there, save the rest for later encounters in the day. Overall, I'm gonna end up with less rounds of Rage, but I'm okay with that.

The Druid's Companion seems less impressive out of the gate, and I don't think it will ever catch up, and the Wild Shaping is hugely weaker, but I was never much of a Wild Shape junkie anyway.

The Wizard is enjoying at will Daze and six Acid Darts a day to complement her meager selection of 1st level spells, but, really, it's not a huge deal. At the end of 3.5, I was preferring to take a Reserve Feat anyway, to provide at will damage, and the Pathfinder Wizard just save me a Feat (and gives me a couple of extra hit points). My Wizard is a Conjuration specialist, and having an extra round of duration (1/2 level, minimum 1) at 1st level for my summon spells is so nice. Summon Monster I was always such a let-down, lasting a single round and then piffing out. Combined with a Trait that grants +2 rounds to a single summoning spell once / day, my Wizard's Celestial Riding Dog lasts 4 rounds at 1st level, which doesn't suck.

I've got no experience with the other classes yet, although, for the first time since *1st edition,* I'm seriously looking at a Paladin...

I haven't played a Monk, Rogue or Sorcerer in any edition of the game, so I couldn't tell you what's changed.

The Sorcerer looks better, but it's still nothing I'd play, since the 3.0 design team, IMO, screwed the pooch in their (completely unjustified) pants-wetting terror over what a non-Vancian spellcaster could do and beat it into near-worthlessless before it was even out the door. "He's like a Wizard, with no bonus feats, delayed spell level acquisition and if he tries to use these new Metamagic feats we designed, he will be PUNISHED!" But that's just my opinion, obviously warped from all those years of playing games that didn't use Vancian spellcasting without suffering such histrionic over-reactions.

In the Sorcerer's case, Pathfinder made it better, but it was still putting a pink dress on a pig and calling it Suzy.

I haven't played 4E, and unlike all of the people who admit that they've never played Pathfinder and yet bravely waded into the trenches to volunteer their learned opinions on how much it sucks, I'll admit that I really don't know enough about 4E to offer an informed opinion on how it plays.

Pathfinder, for me, is in a lot of ways like the transition from 2nd edition to 3rd edition. Part of me is saying, 'Wow, maybe they changed too much.' The other part of me is saying, 'Wow, they didn't change nearly enough.'

I was part of the playtest, and I've seen a couple of things added to the game that I know came straight from my own feverish rants on their message boards (because they were niche things that nobody else even cared about, such as the duration of the acid created by Acid Splash, or the stupidity of a celestial animal becoming a magical beast, but gaining neither the HD, BAB, skills or saving throws of a magical beast, which is saying 'like a pot of spaghetti, without noodles, sauce or meat, but substituting chocolate!').

Did everything I proposed get used? No. And some people proposed things that indicated that they hadn't even *read the design goals*, which was to at least nod in the direction of backward-compatibility. Some *completely unusable ideas* didn't get the level of attention that their posters expected, which wasn't terribly surprising.

I offered up a few completely unusable suggestions myself, like ditching the Sorcerer class and allowing *all* spellcasters to choose between Spontaneous casting (more spells / day, flexible casting, itsy-bitsy spells known list) and Prepared casting (normal spells / day, prepared from a spellbook/prayerbook at the beginning of the day, potentially unlimited spells known, as long as they are acquired / purchased and added to the book). It would have removed the Sorcerer class, and *hugely* impacted the Cleric and Druid (who would have to choose a tiny spell list, cast spontaneously and flexibly, or to maintain a prayerbook and acquire spells like a Wizard, at 2 / level plus those purchased). But that would have been a huge change to Cleric / Druid balance, and utterly removed a core class (and also impacting Adepts, Bards, Paladins and Rangers), so it got summarily ignored, which was to be expected, really. I could have stomped my little feet and thrown a screaming hissy, but my mom discouraged that habit a long time ago.

Is everything perfect? No. And since my definition of 'perfect' is going to be about 40% incompatible with any specific readers definition of 'perfect,' it would be patently impossible for Pathfinder to 100% please more than a single person in the world. And I'm not that one.

Some quibbly things still lurk in the corners, and it remains to be seen if they will become problems. Gate could still be a problem, if the Bestiary includes any 10 HD Efreeti who can grant three Wishes a day (which isn't a problem with Gate, it's a problem with bone-headed monster design). I'll wait to see what they put in the Bestiary before jumping all over that potential game-breaker. If there are no more infinite spawning creatures, or critters able to Feed their way up to endless HD, or get hit by Electricity for infinite Constitution, or Split into a dozen full-powered versions of themselves, or grant freaking *Wishes* like candy, then the ability to Gate, Summon, Compel, Polymorph into, use Diplomacy on, take as a Cohort, play as a Monster PC, etc. these beasties won't matter so much.

Akal Saris
2009-10-08, 10:50 PM
I seriously think I'm going to use this. Although I may keep the racial favored classes (need to change Human's any though).

Half-Elves in PF get to choose 2 favored classes to encourage their multi-classing, which is pretty nifty. They are still a little weaker than humans though :(

Set: Hey, another PF Conjurer! I see you also have the Cheliax trait for +2 to summoning duration too =)

If you don't mind and have the time, could you PM me with any suggestions you have about playing a PF conjurer for new players? I'm working on a guide to them, but only have my own experience to back me so far.

pres_man
2009-10-08, 11:12 PM
Exactly. But to suggest word of mouth is "mental manipulation" kind of spits in the face of certain websites and other indy sources' credibility and character...

The kind of marketing isn't the same as television ads or whatever subliminal mind control method you're reffering to.

Well there was that slightly deceptive poster they put out.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 11:50 PM
clerics in pathfinders are officially better fighters then fighters...
STR domain gives them bonus to STR greater then possible via level appropriate enchantments.
Either war or destruction domain (don't remember which) gives them full BAB...

So there really isn't any point .... oh wait nm, they made some feats / abilities available ONLY to fighter... still, things like ranger and monk and barbarian... and even fighter make little sense compared to cleric with full bab.

FatR
2009-10-09, 05:56 AM
Pathfinder pretty much sucks. It is a bunch of hourerules, many of which were made for the sake of being different. As a result, it introduces enough changes that you must relearn the game (3.5 had much, much less changes, for comparison), particularly if you truly care for mechanics (why switch, otherwise?), but does not offer any significant improvements. In fact, if you allow 3.X supplements, the backwards compatibility with which Pathfinder claims, it, without question or doubt makes the game balance much worse, due to offering much better class features for arcane casters and nerfing melee builds. Without supplements, the balance is the same as it was, at best, and maybe it is still worse.

And whether its balance is as poor as it was, or is even worse, Pathfinder, despite adding a lot of theoretical extra options, reduces viable options considerably, particularly for physical classes, who already had the least of them (just forget about doing anything but auto-attacking, period).

Starbuck_II
2009-10-09, 06:00 AM
The Barbarian seems to play pretty much the same. I like having six rounds of Rage that I can use as I see fit at 1st level. Use a round here, a round there, save the rest for later encounters in the day. Overall, I'm gonna end up with less rounds of Rage, but I'm okay with that.

Yeah, but unless the battle is over in 2 rounds you are now fatigued.
Before you could rage all out since fatigue is not there if battle is over.


The Druid's Companion seems less impressive out of the gate, and I don't think it will ever catch up, and the Wild Shaping is hugely weaker, but I was never much of a Wild Shape junkie anyway.

Companion isn't weaker on paper. Unless you take Animal Domain, but then you get your cake and eat it so it should be weaker.



In the Sorcerer's case, Pathfinder made it better, but it was still putting a pink dress on a pig and calling it Suzy.

Sorc does have class features so that is an improvement.
They even made Dragon Deciple their class now.

pres_man
2009-10-09, 07:05 AM
Companion isn't weaker on paper. Unless you take Animal Domain, but then you get your cake and eat it so it should be weaker.

Considering PF's claim for backwards compatibility, you could always take the Natural Bond feat and have your animal companion full strength and get the animal domain. Which is a autochoice for all druids whose DM gives them the option to take the feat.

Nero24200
2009-10-09, 07:20 AM
Overall I feel the paizo changes are lacking. Theres a few minor improvments in there, but most changes seem to do little. The designers seemed more interested in tweeking the classes to how they feel they should look rather than actually improving them.

The cleric, for instance, they decided they would make less of a heal-bot. Fair enough, but they did it by giving him another reserve of healing. If they used something similer to the PHB 2 varient they would have acomplished alot more, and it would have made domains better (Hey look, my fire-cleric can actually use a fair amount of fire spells instead of 1 spell per level). It hasn't fixed anything, since unimaginative players who see the clerics as healbots are still going to use them that way, in fact their new rules seem to encourage that role.

The sorcerers problem compared to the wizard was the spellcasting lag. Despite hordes of players telling them to remove it, instead they gave them claws and a handful of minor abilities as they level. Nothing to actually boost their casting potential though, even with the wizard getting spell boosts. What's more, they're pushing far more for a "Your parents did something freaky" type of sorcerer, leaving only 2 non-monster heritages out of 10. What's more, 1 of those heritages boils down to "You're more like a wizard" (which is a bit counter-productive, since if you want to play a wizard you'd...you know...play a wizard) and the other boils down to "You get some re-rolls", so the only two non-freaky heritages are also conviently the most boring.

This really applies to PF as a whole, there are new options which don't really fit, and the ones that do you can tell they just tacked on without much thought or effort.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-09, 07:52 AM
I should write a proper report on the game so far, actually; it's been pretty interesting.

I would be interested in reading that.

Doc Roc
2009-10-09, 07:55 AM
I've been both playing and DMing a Pathfinder game and here are the things that I've seen so far.

Overall:
The people who dislike Pathfinder the most are the people who have been obsessively studying the nooks and crannies of 3.5 for years now.


6 months for me. :(
I am not fond of the idea that because I understand one system well, this disqualifies me from judging if I am happy with the changes another system delivers for it. That said, some of the spell nerfs in pathfinder were superb. As they are OGL, I often steal them.

I think a lot of people pick up on COer disdain, and don't realize that most of us are still just happy someone picked up 3.X at all. I'm really looking forward to their adventure paths continuing, and to the continued 3rd Party Support of 3.X.

The King is dead, Long live the King!

Tetsubo 57
2009-10-09, 07:57 AM
I really like the system. The next fantasy game I run will be PF.

Gnaeus
2009-10-09, 08:01 AM
I really like a lot of PF. I can't decide if I will run 3.5 games with lots of PF changes, or PF games with lots of 3.5 changes, but either way I feel good about investing in their book.

Jayabalard
2009-10-09, 08:12 AM
The people who dislike Pathfinder the most are the people who have been obsessively studying the nooks and crannies of 3.5 for years now. funny, aren't those the people who dislike 4e the most?

Saph
2009-10-09, 08:21 AM
I would be interested in reading that.

Okay, here we go. Here's a fairly thorough report on Pathfinder (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127797) based on our play to date. Hope it'll help.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-09, 08:25 AM
funny, aren't those the people who dislike 4e the most?

Pretty much, ya. Although as a person fitting the description I dislike Pathfinder more. 4e is different enough for me to not have an overly defensive hostile reaction to it; but Pathfinder is a more direct competitor to 3.5 :P

As a fan of 3.5, I think that 3.5 fills its role best. Pathfinder fills largely the same role, and consequently in my view is inferior to 3.5, and is therefore disliked by me. 4e also shares a role with 3.5 more than GURPS would, and is therefore also "inferior". 4e is different enough to have its own benefits, whereas Pathfinder sticks too much to basic 3.5. There's no overlap where it can shine.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-09, 08:26 AM
The sorcerers problem compared to the wizard was the spellcasting lag. Despite hordes of players telling them to remove it, instead they gave them claws and a handful of minor abilities as they level. Nothing to actually boost their casting potential though, even with the wizard getting spell boosts. What's more, they're pushing far more for a "Your parents did something freaky" type of sorcerer, leaving only 2 non-monster heritages out of 10. What's more, 1 of those heritages boils down to "You're more like a wizard" (which is a bit counter-productive, since if you want to play a wizard you'd...you know...play a wizard) and the other boils down to "You get some re-rolls", so the only two non-freaky heritages are also conviently the most boring.


Let us look at the bloodlines.

Abberant: Bloodline improves Polymorph duration (free Extend effect). Gain ability to ignore Crits/sneak attack. And Captone is DR/-. Not the most useful unless a Polymorpher.
Strangely, the only bonus spell polymorph is shapechange so it is lacking.

Abyssal: bloodline improves Summoning spells. Ironically, summoning good creatures is smarter than evil so DR overlaps (meaning you can't bypass DR). Get Resist to poison and Electric. Str bonuses. Capstone nothing to write home about though.

Arcane: Metamagic increases DC. Arcane bond. Increase Metamagic without increase casting time. +2 DC to a school (stacks with spell focus).
Argueable best bloodline.

Celestial: Healing ray, flight, acid/cold resist, rerolls, and tongues.
Summoned creatures have DR/evil so summoning evil creatures makes DR overlap (meaning you can't bypass DR).

Destined: Better in surprise rounds, Rerolls, Stabilizing 1/day, can't be Crit except for confirmed Nat 20's.

Draconic: +1 damage/energy die, Breath weapon x/day, energy resist/NA, and wings.

Elemental: Can change energy of a spell, Energy resist, Blast x/day, Elemental movement, etc.

Fey: Compulsion +2 DC, G. Invis class lv rds/day (does not have to be consecutive), woodline stride.

Infernal: Charm +2 DC, fire/poison resist, Fire blast x/day, and Flight.

Undead: Cold Resist, DR/lethal (ignore nonlethal), and incorporeality.

So Arcane grants DC boost so nice, Infernal improves Charm so nice, and Fey does compulsion improving.
Summoners will wants to summon the opposite of what they will summon (Celestial summon fiendish so they have DR /evil and DR /good).
And the rest are okay.

Gnaeus
2009-10-09, 08:38 AM
Pretty much, ya. Although as a person fitting the description I dislike Pathfinder more. 4e is different enough for me to not have an overly defensive hostile reaction to it; but Pathfinder is a more direct competitor to 3.5 :P

As a fan of 3.5, I think that 3.5 fills its role best. Pathfinder fills largely the same role, and consequently in my view is inferior to 3.5, and is therefore disliked by me. 4e also shares a role with 3.5 more than GURPS would, and is therefore also "inferior". 4e is different enough to have its own benefits, whereas Pathfinder sticks too much to basic 3.5. There's no overlap where it can shine.

That is an interesting point, Foryn. My response would be that Pathfinder shines by bringing players into 3.5-like games, at a time when the Players Handbook is no longer being marketed. 10 years from now, when copies of 3.5 are scarce on the ground, you may be glad of pathfinder players who want to play a d20 game.

bosssmiley
2009-10-09, 08:47 AM
"But I already have 3E, without Jason's half-@ssed houserules." :smalltongue:

And 576 pages is about 450 pages too many for any usable RPG rule-set. TL;DR kicks in hard.

Gnaeus
2009-10-09, 08:56 AM
Yes, we already have 3e. 10 years from now, many of those copies will have been lost at conventions, or in moves. Destroyed by floods, pets, or the natural processes of decay common to often used books. Thrown out by wives, girlfriends, or parents.

Many of us could play by memory, but it is hard to run a game that way. Having copies of 3.5 like games in print benefits us all.

Doc Roc
2009-10-09, 08:58 AM
I agree. I plan to, over christmas break, re-evaluate the PF ruleset. So we'll see what I think then. Until then, my opinion is gently negative.`

subject42
2009-10-09, 09:00 AM
Abberant: Bloodline improves Polymorph duration (free Extend effect). Gain ability to ignore Crits/sneak attack. And Captone is DR/-. Not the most useful unless a Polymorpher.
Strangely, the only bonus spell polymorph is shapechange so it is lacking.


The aberrant reach ability is actually fairly useful with save-or-lose touch spells. Dropping touch spells from 15' without metamagic is pretty awesome, especially if you don't want to eat AoOs from moving around.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-09, 09:01 AM
Yes, we already have 3e. 10 years from now, many of those copies will have been lost at conventions, or in moves. Destroyed by floods, pets, or the natural processes of decay common to often used books. Thrown out by wives, girlfriends, or parents.

Many of us could play by memory, but it is hard to run a game that way. Having copies of 3.5 like games in print benefits us all.

The word PDF comes to mind.

And no, not Planetary Defense Force.

pres_man
2009-10-09, 09:10 AM
The word PDF comes to mind.

And no, not Planetary Defense Force.

I thought the word was SRD.

Also needing books in print does not mean needing a divergent system. Paizo could have made a 3.5 version of the game using the rules from the SRD and filling in their own rules for what was missing (character building rules, experience table, etc). This would have been totally functional with a 3.5 D&D game. They choose to diverage, because people who view themselves as game designers are going to want to design games.

Gnaeus
2009-10-09, 09:11 AM
Some people like playing off their laptop. Me, I can't stand it, at least for books I use regularly (maybe a pdf of something I pulled a feat from that I might have to look up once every several games to clarify something). I would much rather have a bound book than a printout. I suppose I could get my wife to bind a copy for me, if I asked really nicely, but most people don't have that luxury.

And PDFs don't bring most new players into the hobby. Books on bookshelves and sponsored events do that much better.