[Pathfinder] Detailed Report - Overall Changes & Class Spotlight

[Saph]

So after all the (heated) discussion on the subject I thought it might be useful to put up some details on what Pathfinder's like to play.

Our group's been playing a Pathfinder core-only game for the past few months, starting at level 1 with the Beta, and gradually progressing up to level 3 as we shift over to the current version (well, mostly). Setting is Greyhawk, stat generation is standard point buy (15 points under the Paizo system, which is fairly similar to 25 point buy in 3.5).

First I'll talk a bit about general changes, then I'll have a more detailed look at four of the classes - fighter, paladin, sorcerer, and wizard.


General Changes


Races - All of the base races are now much stronger. They all get a net bonus to abilities (elves are +2 Dex +2 Int -2 Con, humans and half-elves are +2 to any one stat). They also get extra abilities, some of which are quite nice (elves get free Spell Penetration, for instance).
Effect - There's generally less reason to take a noncore race. Elves are much better. Half-elves and half-orcs no longer suck.

Skills - The 4x starting skills rule is gone. Classes now get a number of skill points each level equal to their class skill points + int bonus. Cross-class skill penalties are also gone; they're now 1:1, no limit, same as anything else. If a skill is a class skill and you put at least one rank in it, you get +3 to that skill.
Effect - Characters are now encouraged to be at least moderately competent at all of their class skills. Since putting 1 rank into a class skill gives you a +4 bonus, there's no real reason not to do it once you've levelled up a few times and have the points to play with. Cross-class skills are also now a much more attractive proposition: a 10th-level Fighter who's maxed out Perception has +10, a 10th-level Rogue who's maxed out Perception has +13.

Skill Categories - Balance, Tumble, and Jump have all been folded into a new skill, Acrobatics. Forgery, Decipher Script, and Speak Language have all been folded into a new skill, Linguistics. Listen, Search and Spot have been folded into a new skill, Perception. Hide and Move Silently have been folded into a new skill, Stealth. Gather Information is folded into Diplomacy. Open Lock is folded into Disable Device. One old skill has been removed, Concentration (now a caster level + ability modifier check). One new skill has been created, Fly (Dex-based, class skill for Dru, Sor, Wiz).
Effect - Your skill points go further than they used to, everyone now has Balance, and everyone takes Perception.

Hit Points - Slightly higher; several classes have a better Hit Die, the favoured class rules give more HP, the Toughness feat is actually really good now, and the Pathfinder rules give several options for giving starting characters some bonus HP right off the bat.
Effect - 1st-level characters are a good bit tougher. Multiclass characters and PrC users benefit less.

Combat Maneuvers - Trip, Disarm, Bull Rush, Overrun, Sunder, and Grapple are now handled by one flat roll: 1d20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (your BAB + your Strength + your size modifier) vs 10 + the enemy's Combat Maneuver Defence (enemy's BAB + enemy's Strength + enemy's Dex + enemy's size modifier). IMPORTANT NOTE: Size modifiers are much weaker now! Small is -1, Large is +1, Huge is +2, etc.
Effect - This seems to be the subject of a lot of debate, so let's look at a specific example. Bob the 2nd-Level Human Fighter with the Improved Trip Feat wants to trip an Ogre.
Under 3.5 Rules: Bob has Strength 16, a MW weapon, and +2 BAB. First he has to hit the Ogre's touch AC of 8: no problem there. He then needs to win an opposed roll. His bonus is +7, the Ogre's is +9. Not good odds, and the ogre can counter-trip him. Bob will need to get an Enlarge Person off the party wizard for this to be worth trying. That'll push him up to +12 against the Ogre's +9, which makes it worth trying . . . but you can't always count on the wizard buffing you, and you still risk a counter-trip.
Under Pathfinder Rules: Bob has Strength 18, a MW weapon, and +2 BAB (humans in Pathfinder get +2 to one stat, ie Strength for a Fighter). He makes one roll with his Combat Maneuver Bonus of +8 (+4 for Strength, +2 BAB, +2 Improved Trip) against the Ogre's CMD of 17 (10 + 3 BAB + 5 Str -1 Dex +1 Size). 60% chance of success, and you aren't counter-tripped unless you fail by 10 or more (which is impossible in this case). Favourable odds.
So, what's the conclusion? - The only things that can be said for certain without a lot more testing are 1) combat maneuvers resolve faster and 2) size differences matter a LOT less. However, after looking at the numbers, the claims some people have been making that combat maneuvers are "gimped" or "useless" seem pretty clearly false.



The Classes


In general, the Pathfinder base classes are quite a lot stronger than the 3.5 ones. They also tend to keep getting class features as they level, many of which are tied to their class level. This combined with the favoured class rules makes single-classing much more attractive compared to multiclassing or taking a PrC.

We're just going to spotlight four of the classes here; the fighter, the wiz, the pally, and the sorc. I've seen all of these in action in our game. Our party doesn't have a monk, druid, or bard, so those will have to wait. Each class is going to be quickly analysed in terms of buffs and nerfs, because let's face it, that's what you guys are interested in. A brief verdict is attached to each.


Paladins

Buffs

Casting stat is now Cha! Improves pally spellcasting greatly, and reduces their MAD by allowing them to dump Wisdom.
Lay on Hands has been buffed. It heals more HP on average (though it's now random), it can remove status conditions, and best of all, it can be done on yourself as a swift action - very handy in combat.
Smite Evil has been heavily buffed. It now targets one enemy as a swift action, and gives you smite benefits against that target until they're dead. In addition it auto-bypasses DR, does extra damage against evil outsiders, and gives you a deflection bonus to AC equal to your Cha bonus versus that creature's attacks. Smiting evil has never been so much fun!
The pally's mount is now as powerful as a druid's animal companion. Nice.
Your Aura of Courage upgrades as you gain levels, giving a variety of handy bonuses.
Detect Evil has been sped up. Now your Pally can determine that someone's evil and smite them all in one combat round, meaning Miko-types can fit as much as 300% more killing into their daily schedule. Note: You'll probably see this as a buff, but your party might not.

Nerfs

Lay on Hands can no longer be used to dump all your healing in a single shot. Uh, that's about it.

Verdict?

Two thumbs up! Highly recommended.


Fighters

Buffs

Bravery: fighters now get a bonus against fear effects. It's not bad, but should have been higher (it's still worse than what a bard gets just for having a good Will save).
Armour Training: fighters get to move at full speed in medium and eventually heavy armour, and modify their armour's max Dex and ACP upwards and downwards. Fighters should now be able to have the best AC of all the core martial classes.
Weapon Training: this is the big one. Free Weapon Focus with weapon groups, not specific weapons, and a damage bonus into the bargain. It gets better as you go up levels, and lets you add additional groups too.
There are a bunch of new fighter feats. I haven't had the chance to look at them properly yet. Oh, and fighters can now make magic weapons and armour with the Master Craftsman feat.

Nerfs

Various fighter feats are now less exciting than they used to be. Power Attack now gives better damage returns, but can't be adjusted. Cleave is weaker. Improved Trip & co are weaker.
Still only 2+Int skill points. I know, it's not really a nerf, but come on, would 4 really have been too much to ask?

Verdict?

Fighters are better . . . but they could have done with more. The Weapon Training and Armour Training gives fighters excellent DPS and AC, but they still suffer from a lack of options and still require a lot of skill in feat choice.


Sorcerers

Buffs

D6 Hit Die, yay!
UMD as a class skill, double yay!
Free Eschew Materials. Minor yay, but hey, sorcs really should always have had this.
Bloodlines, and this is the big one. Sorcerers now choose a heritage, and get a whole variety of bonuses depending on which one you pick. There's bonus feats, Su, Sp, and Ex abilities, a free class skill, and best of all . . .
Bonus spells! A sorcerer now gets a free spell known at every odd-numbered level starting at 3rd! You don't get to pick them, but this gives a massive boost to the Sorcerer's traditional weak point; the lack of spells known. Note that you do not get any of these bonuses if you PrC out, so sorcerers have gone overnight from being the class which you most want to PrC out of, to the class which you almost never want to PrC out of.

Nerfs

Many of the power spells that sorcs used to rely on have been weakened significantly. Alter Self and Glitterdust, the two standouts of Level 2, have both been hit with the nerf stick. Likewise, casting defensively is harder - but even this isn't a true nerf to the class. Sorcerers did great out of Pathfinder.

Verdict?

Two thumbs up! The variant bloodlines give you loads more options and toys to play with as a Sorcerer. While they're still a bit behind Wizards, the gap has been closed dramatically; a well-played Sorc should be now able to adventure in a party with a Wizard without worrying about being outclassed.


Wizards

Buffs

D6 Hit Die, nice.
Slightly improved skill list due to skill amalgamation.
Arcane Bond - you get to choose between a familiar and an item that lets you spontaneously cast any spell you know 1/day. The flexibility is huge and you can even enchant it, but beware - if you lose it you can't cast any spells without succeeding on a high Spellcraft check. On the other hand, your spellcasting is dependent on an item anyway . . .
School powers. Depending on what you specialise in, you get a small selection of special abilities. These are generally mediocre, though the Illusionist gets some nice stuff.
Item creation. Though all casters (and now even some noncasters) can make items, wizards are the best placed to take advantage of it. Making items is now generally easier, and best of all, it doesn't cost you XP. Expect the Craft Wondrous Item and Craft Magic Arms and Armour feats to become VERY popular.

Nerfs

Again, many of the spells Wizards used to rely on have been nerfed. The whole Polymorph line has been remodelled and is now much less powerful, as it doesn't replace your physical stats.
As with all spellcasting classes, casting defensively is a lot harder.
Generalist wizards were awesome in the Paizo Beta, but got beaten heavily with the nerf stick for the final release. Their Hand of the Apprentice power now does damage based on Strength, and their free metamagic is something of a joke. There's even less reason to play a generalist wizard than there was in 3.5, especially since banning schools isn't as penalising as it used to be.

Verdict?

Wizards probably got the least out of the Pathfinder remake - of course, some people would say that's no more than they deserved. They're no weaker than they used to be - it's just that other classes are stronger. Even with the changes, though, Wizards still have the most pure spellcasting power of any base class.



Conclusion


So, is it worth switching over to Pathfinder? It depends.

If you hate 3.5, then obviously Pathfinder isn't for you. It's still very recognisably D&D 3rd-ed, and for every one thing that's changed, there are ten things that have been kept the same.

Where Pathfinder is good is if you like 3.5, but would like to have everything in one book instead of twenty. Core-only Pathfinder is much better than core-only 3.5 - the classes are far more interesting.

If you already make a habit of using the scores of 3.5 splatbooks, then it becomes more of a judgement call. The Pathfinder changes are good IMO, but they come at the expense of full reverse compatibility. You'll have to make adjustments.

So my recommendation for now would be:

Want to play 3.5 with one book? Use Pathfinder.
Want to play 3.5 with twenty books? Stick with 3.5.

So there you have it. Hope it was useful.

- Saph

[Kurald Galain]

Thanks, that was a nice read.

Since I never worried much about game balance to begin with, I'm in favor of classes that are more fun to play. For that matter, seeing one of those level-by-level grids with actual class features in them is much more appealing to me than the 3E core wizard and fighter.

[Kaiyanwang]

Thank you. I found several very intersting informations.

[Matthew]

Sounds like a fair analysis. I like what they have done with fighters, but also wish they had done more. Not too happy about the increase in sorcerer/wizard hit die, but no big deal on the whole.

[Morty]

Judging by this analysis, Pathfinder might be a good choice for my group after all. We never had much patience for sourcebooks.

[Kaiyanwang]

Sounds like a fair analysis. I like what they have done with fighters, but also wish they had done more. Not too happy about the increase in sorcerer/wizard hit die, but no big deal on the whole.

Yeah, people of my previous gaming group said to me that is odd, the first time I said it to them.

Guess who whined more? The sorcerer and the wizard.

"But.. Arcane casters MUST have d4!" :smalltongue:

[Mongoose87]

My DM has taken to allowing players to choose between Pathfinder and 3.5 core classes. Additionally, any rogue "types" get d8 HD, any wizard/sorcerer "types" get d6 HD - everyone has Pathfinder HD. He's also amalgamated the skill list to something closer to Pathfinder. It's nice. I'm going to have to convince him to let my Wizard uses XP-less crafting now, though.

[Doc Roc]

That was by far the most cogent summary I have seen. In light of it, I will be trying PF over winter break.

[Zincorium]

I can see the benefits for some groups- but those aren't groups I'd play with given an alternative. As far as I can see, it mixes in a heavy dose of the same changes 4E made while still adhering to 3.5 dogma.

For someone who owns both 4th and 3.5 (and 2nd ed), and is comfortable with lots of houseruling, can anyone explain exactly why I would spend money on this?

[Saph]

Cool, glad you guys liked it.


For someone who owns both 4th and 3.5 (and 2nd ed), and is comfortable with lots of houseruling, can anyone explain exactly why I would spend money on this?

Because you can use the Pathfinder SRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/) and get pretty much all the rules for free? :P

[pres_man]

There's generally less reason to take a noncore race.

People do realize that most of the time non-core races were choosen for flavor reasons and not power reasons, right? Most 3.5 non-core races are actually weaker (when you figure in racial HD and LA) than the core races. There is a reason most of the Optimizer Boards choose human in 3.5 as a starting point.

[Saph]

People do realize that most of the time non-core races were choosen for flavor reasons and not power reasons, right? Most 3.5 non-core races are actually weaker (when you figure in racial HD and LA) than the core races.

But they also outnumber the core races by 100 to 1 or so. It doesn't matter that there are 20 Gnome variants that nobody uses, because the Whisper Gnome is the one that gets picked.

The Pathfinder Gnome, on the other hand, gets +2 Con +2 Cha -2 Str, which probably makes it better than just about any 3.5 races for a Cha-based caster.

[imperialspectre]

Overall, an intelligent analysis and a lot of interesting stuff. I may have to look at Pathfinder again at some point. I do have a few questions, though.

First, what has your experience been with rogues? On paper, they certainly picked up a number of buffs...but at the same time, ranged rogues suffered some fairly crippling indirect nerfs that largely prevent ranged sneak attacks.

Second, have you done any playing or mathematical testing of combat maneuvers past, say, 5th level? And are you quite sure that the CMD calculation is 10 + modifiers and not 15 + modifiers? It was 15 + modifiers as recently as the iconic characters that Paizo presented just prior to the hardcover release.

Third, isn't Concentration a level check instead of Spellcraft-based these days?

Fourth, no offense, but how do you come up with the idea that there's anything good about PF Power Attack? The damage output isn't better at all - you get a better return if you're not THFing, but since Power Attack is capped as low as it is, you do substantially less damage than a 3.5 fighter would.

Fifth, I get the impression from your review that you see Pathfinder as essentially a 3.5 redux - it's buffed a few things here and there, nerfed a few things here and there, but overall most of the basic game dynamics (including the inherent advantages casters have over non-casters) are basically similar. Is that a fair representation of what you intended to express?

[Matthew]

Second, have you done any playing or mathematical testing of combat manoeuvres past, say, 5th level? And are you quite sure that the CMD calculation is 10 + modifiers and not 15 + modifiers? It was 15 + modifiers as recently as the iconic characters that Paizo presented just prior to the hard cover release.

Definitely "10", see the Pathfinder SRD: Combat (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html)



Fourth, no offense, but how do you come up with the idea that there's anything good about PF Power Attack? The damage output isn't better at all - you get a better return if you're not THFing, but since Power Attack is capped as low as it is, you do substantially less damage than a 3.5 fighter would.

I tend to agree, but then the 3.0 version is the only one I would consider using.

[Saph]

First, what has your experience been with rogues? On paper, they certainly picked up a number of buffs...but at the same time, ranged rogues suffered some fairly crippling indirect nerfs that largely prevent ranged sneak attacks.

Haven't had a chance to take a good look at them yet. So far they seem to have had one major buff (the Rogue Talents) but are otherwise pretty similar.


Third, isn't Concentration a level check instead of Spellcraft-based these days?

Quite right; looks like they changed that from the Beta. I'll correct it.


Fourth, no offense, but how do you come up with the idea that there's anything good about PF Power Attack? The damage output isn't better at all - you get a better return if you're not THFing, but since Power Attack is capped as low as it is, you do substantially less damage than a 3.5 fighter would.

You don't get to choose your penalty, but assuming you're THFing (which is why you're using Power Attack, right?) you get 3:1 instead of 2:1. I'm not sure whether this is a good deal or not.


Fifth, I get the impression from your review that you see Pathfinder as essentially a 3.5 redux - it's buffed a few things here and there, nerfed a few things here and there, but overall most of the basic game dynamics (including the inherent advantages casters have over non-casters) are basically similar. Is that a fair representation of what you intended to express?

Pretty much. I do think it narrows the caster/noncaster gap slightly, though, and to be honest I've never bought into the belief on this board that casters are always better than noncasters. (At level 11+, sure, but not at level 3.)

[Person_Man]

Thanks for writing this up Saph. It is appreciated.


Weapon Training: this is the big one. Free Weapon Focus with weapon groups, not specific weapons, and a damage bonus into the bargain. It gets better as you go up levels, and lets you add additional groups too.

This is potentially a huge bonus. There are a bunch of feats out there that would be quite potent if they didn't require Weapon Focus. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking Weapon Supremacy, Blood Spiked Charger, Anvil of Thunder, Hammer's Edge, Lightning Mace, and Three Mountains. There are a ton of different combos out there (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7044115). If Improved Trip et al suck now (debatable), then perhaps the solution for Fighters is to buy an Aptitude enchanted weapon and invest your boatload of feats in non-core feats. For damage, just get really big (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7081777). For special effects, focus on Daze, Fear, Standstill, creating difficult terrain, etc.




So my recommendation for now would be:

Want to play 3.5 with one book? Use Pathfinder.
Want to play 3.5 with twenty books? Stick with 3.5.


This, exactly. Pathfinder is a huge improvement over core only 3.5. I'm playing Temple of Elemental Evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Elemental_Evil) right now. Pretty faithful to the core only rules. And dear gods do I wish it was Pathfinder instead. But for my regular gaming group that's been playing D&D for 20 years, I highly doubt we'll adopt Pathfinder.

[ericgrau]

Did pathfinder ever change the amounts of bonuses since alpha, like those for monks and fighter?

Alpha was a mess. In theory the ideas were nice, but fall apart if put to the test. They simplified half the skills and added new ones, making the system more complicated overall. The numbers bonuses showed a lack of understanding or playtesting on how far a +X goes. A minor understanding of optimization can lead to a lot of 95% hit chances and 95% miss chances. Meanwhile their other abilities remained unchanged; so what they were great at they become OP at, and what people complain about isn't any different. Abilities differ wildly in power because of underestimation/overestimation, often related to inability to compare +X bonuses to damage to situational bonuses to etc. So how much of this did they fix and how much was left the same?

[RagnaroksChosen]

Sounds like a fair analysis. I like what they have done with fighters, but also wish they had done more. Not too happy about the increase in sorcerer/wizard hit die, but no big deal on the whole.

I agree with you on this. Its odd thinking about a wizards having d6 hd..


I still get mixed reviews on Pathfinder in general.
I think it really depends on the gamer.

I have noticed a trend though Um here in New England it appears that the younger crowd seems more into pathfinder then the older crowd.

I ain't switchen to PF any time soon, but it is interesting to here peoples thoughts and opinions about it...

GG Saph!!

[imperialspectre]

HYou don't get to choose your penalty, but assuming you're THFing (which is why you're using Power Attack, right?) you get 3:1 instead of 2:1. I'm not sure whether this is a good deal or not.

Statistically, it's only a better deal if you could only PA for a couple points anyway. Most of the time if I'm Power Attacking with a 3.5 beatstick, I'm dumping a lot more than the cap in.

At low levels (2-5), it's not even close, because 2 or 3 multiplied by 2 is better than 1 multiplied by 3 - but it's still not a huge loss. At higher levels, it's certainly not as good, because attacks scale faster than AC most of the time and you're going to be Power Attacking for a hell of a lot.


Pretty much. I do think it narrows the caster/noncaster gap slightly, though, and to be honest I've never bought into the belief on this board that casters are always better than noncasters. (At level 11+, sure, but not at level 3.)

I personally mark the break point where there's a clear difference at around 5th or 6th level, because that's where casters get to do encounter-altering buffs or disables every encounter in a normal day. Before that, lack of spell slots is a problem.

One more question: how much of a change do you think it would make to incorporate Spell Compendium and MIC into the Paizo "core"?


This is potentially a huge bonus. There are a bunch of feats out there that would be quite potent if they didn't require Weapon Focus. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking Weapon Supremacy, Blood Spiked Charger, Anvil of Thunder, Hammer's Edge, Lightning Mace, and Three Mountains. There are a ton of different combos out there (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7044115). If Improved Trip et al suck now (debatable), then perhaps the solution for Fighters is to buy an Aptitude enchanted weapon and invest your boatload of feats in non-core feats. For damage, just get really big (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7081777). For special effects, focus on Daze, Fear, Standstill, creating difficult terrain, etc.

If the fighter class feature actually said "this ability counts as having Weapon Focus in the weapon in your group," then yes. It doesn't. I think that would be a reasonable houserule.

[Saph]

I personally mark the break point where there's a clear difference at around 5th or 6th level, because that's where casters get to do encounter-altering buffs or disables every encounter in a normal day. Before that, lack of spell slots is a problem.

*shrug* I find casters pretty balanced at level 5-6, actually. Opinions vary.


One more question: how much of a change do you think it would make to incorporate Spell Compendium and MIC into the Paizo "core"?

MiC would fit in fine. Spell Compendium would give a major power boost to casters, however, as one of the things that limits Pathfinder casters is that many of their best spells have been nerfed a bit.

[FatR]

Races - All of the base races are now much stronger. They all get a net bonus to abilities (elves are +2 Dex +2 Int -2 Con, humans and half-elves are +2 to any one stat). They also get extra abilities, some of which are quite nice (elves get free Spell Penetration, for instance).
Effect - There's generally less reason to take a noncore race. Elves are much better. Half-elves and half-orcs no longer suck.
Elves are not better. At least in 3.X you had a reason to pick Int elves. Now you haven't, ever, as humans, half-elves and half-orcs provide a bonuses to any mental attribute without penalty to Con. Half-orcs are strictly inferior to humans beyond very low levels. So, only half-elves got any improvements.


Effect - Characters are now encouraged to be at least moderately competent at all of their class skills. Since putting 1 rank into a class skill gives you a +4 bonus, there's no real reason not to do it once you've levelled up a few times and have the points to play with.
+4 is not "moderately competent". In fact, most skills that are actually relevant past low levels still must be maxed out and, preferably, paired with a high Ability to work reliably. Simply because they are going to be opposed.


[LIST] Hit Points - Slightly higher;
Arcane spellcasters get +2 HP per level, this is not "slightly" higher.


Effect - This seems to be the subject of a lot of debate, so let's look at a specific example. Bob the 2nd-Level Human Fighter with the Improved Trip Feat wants to trip an Ogre.
Under 3.5 Rules: Bob has Strength 16, a MW weapon, and +2 BAB. First he has to hit the Ogre's touch AC of 8: no problem there. He then needs to win an opposed roll. His bonus is +7, the Ogre's is +9. Not good odds, and the ogre can counter-trip him. Bob will need to get an Enlarge Person off the party wizard for this to be worth trying. That'll push him up to +12 against the Ogre's +9, which makes it worth trying . . . but you can't always count on the wizard buffing you, and you still risk a counter-trip.
Under Pathfinder Rules: Bob has Strength 18, a MW weapon, and +2 BAB (humans in Pathfinder get +2 to one stat, ie Strength for a Fighter). He makes one roll with his Combat Maneuver Bonus of +8 (+4 for Strength, +2 BAB, +2 Improved Trip) against the Ogre's CMD of 17 (10 + 3 BAB + 5 Str -1 Dex +1 Size). 60% chance of success, and you aren't counter-tripped unless you fail by 10 or more (which is impossible in this case). Favourable odds.
This comparison does not take into account that Imp.Trip in 3.X actually makes Trip worth trying, by allowing you to make follow-up attacks. In PF, it doesn't. In PF you need to wait for +6 BAB and blow and extra feat to get follow-up attacks at all. Moreover, in PF you need to spend AoOs to use them. Chances of success only matter, if the action is actually worth using in the first place.


In general, the Pathfinder base classes are quite a lot stronger than the 3.5 ones.
How about goddamn fighter? Or meleeists in general, except, perhaps, the paladin.


They also tend to keep getting class features as they level, many of which are tied to their class level. This combined with the favoured class rules makes single-classing much more attractive compared to multiclassing or taking a PrC.
So, basically, characters that always were OK with staying at the base class to level 20 (i.e., full casters) get a pile of bonuses, and characters that depended on multiclassing and level-dipping to work (i.e., almost everyone else) get the shaft.


Two thumbs up! Highly recommended.
Paladin indeed is passable. Still no tactical options and little ability to deal with threats that deny full attacks, but it gets enough bonuses and abilities to be worth considering.


Fighters are better
No, they aren't. Non-archer fighters were nerfed to hell through nerfing Power Attack and Improved Trip. And archer fighters are hard to build without weapon enhancements from 3.X supplements.


The Weapon Training and Armour Training gives fighters excellent DPS and AC, but they still suffer from a lack of options and still require a lot of skill in feat choice.
"Excellent AC" is something like AC 32 by level 6 or AC 51 by level 10. I.e., something that actually makes enemies miss you. PF fighters do not hold a candle to that. Armor Training does not even actually increase AC on non-archer fighters, like, at all, because you're highly unlikely to have enough Dex to go beyond the limits of your mythral armor anyway. Weapon training gives +4 attack/+4 dmg by level 17. This is piddly, and saying that fighters actually have "excellent DPS" - after changes to Power Attack nerfed charge builds - sounds like mockery.


Two thumbs up! The variant bloodlines give you loads more options and toys to play with as a Sorcerer. While they're still a bit behind Wizards, the gap has been closed dramatically; a well-played Sorc should be now able to adventure in a party with a Wizard without worrying about being outclassed.
Options =/= viable options. Sorcerers get random crap that is considerably weaker than arcane spells, and, therefore, will hardly ever be used, or, at best, minor resistances, wizards get serious improvements to spellcasting, such as loosened restrictions for specialists and save-lowering fields. Who benefits from PF more is obvious.


Wizards probably got the least out of the Pathfinder remake - of course, some people would say that's no more than they deserved.
Yeah, right. See above.

[Ellington]

I must be the only person who actually likes the new Power Attack. Players being able to get an extra ten damage at level one always seemed weird to me. The damage output at low levels is lower, sure, but it seems to scale rather nicely. The dumb thing about it is that they can't choose how much attack to sacrifice, but that's easy to fix.

The only thing I really don't like is how strong the new wizard is, but I'm still gonna give Pathfinder a whirl. Also, I feel like perception should be a fighter class skill, but again, that's really easy to implement.

Nice review, are you going to update it later with your experience with other classes?

[Foryn Gilnith]

So, apparently, my suspicions are confirmed. The review is written in slightly biased language and I'm not just imagining it because I'm a confrontational cynic. :D

But I don't see much issue with the last paragraph. Presentation of details IMO slanted towards Pathfinder (the actual details are just facts), but the final analysis seems solid.

[Saph]

Elves are not better. At least in 3.X you had a reason to pick Int elves. Now you haven't, ever, as humans, half-elves and half-orcs provide a bonuses to any mental attribute without penalty to Con.

Uh, no. Elves get +2 Int +2 Dex -2 Con. The Con penalty isn't as big a deal as it was in 3.5, as there are various ways of getting more HP now and you don't have the Concentration skill playing off it. My 2nd-level elven wizard has 23 HP; please feel free to explain how having 25 HP instead would be such a huge difference. In addition, she gets free Spell Penetration and a bonus on identifying items and on Perception. Whether that's better than the human bonuses is arguable, but to claim that there's "no reason" to pick elf as a race is frankly silly.


So, basically, characters that always were OK with staying at the base class to level 20 (i.e., full casters) get a pile of bonuses, and characters that depended on multiclassing and level-dipping to work (i.e., almost everyone else) get the shaft.

Not really, no.


Options =/= viable options. Sorcerers get random crap that is considerably weaker than arcane spells, and, therefore, will hardly ever be used, or, at best, minor resistances, wizards get serious improvements to spellcasting, such as loosened restrictions for specialists and save-lowering fields. Who benefits from PF more is obvious.

Yeah, and the answer is "sorcerers". Wizards get minor class features plus loosened restrictions. Sorcerers get twice as many class features plus bonus spells known, bonus feats, and bonus skills.

I'm not going to bother to answer the rest of your criticisms, because you're not being remotely rational about this. Honestly, FatR, it sounds like you're mad because I'm not being sufficiently nasty about Pathfinder to suit you. You seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder regarding the system.


Nice review, are you going to update it later with your experience with other classes?

Could do. We've got a Ranger, a Rogue, a Barb, and a Cleric in the party, so I might do them next.

[Saph]

So, apparently, my suspicions are confirmed. The review is written in slightly biased language and I'm not just imagining it because I'm a confrontational cynic. :D

*sigh* Foryn, it's based on play experience. Of course it's biased. If you think you can write a better analysis, go right ahead.

[Akal Saris]

Saph's report is slightly biased and it does have some mistakes, but it's nowhere near as badly biased as FaTR made it out to be - if anyone is biased, it's FaTR.

Here, I'll refute FaTR's points in turn. And yes, I'm biased towards PF as I've been playing it recently and enjoying a lot of the 'house rules' that it uses.

Mostly, however, I'm doing this because I don't think FaTR knows what he's talking about, and I don't really like his tone of argument either, especially when Saph went through a lot of work to write up actual play experience.

Elves: elves are stronger than they were in 3.5, because now they get 2 bonuses instead of 1 - how hard is that to understand? There is still incentive to play an elven wizard, because they get an innate +2 to Perception, +2 to CL checks to overcome SR, +2 to Spellcraft checks to identify magic items, plus all of the other random crap like immunity to magic sleep effects and low-light vision that they got in 3.5. Except detecting secret doors, oddly enough.

And it's not as if every 3.5 game let you play a gray (int-based) elf - those were put in the MM for a reason, after all. So if anything, you have a stronger incentive to play an elven wizard in PF than you did in core 3.5!

Are elves better wizards than humans? Personally, I'd say it's a draw. As for half-orcs, I think they got the shaft here, hands-down.

Skills: I'd argue that +4 is moderately competent for levels 1-10, especially since in 3.5 you would have a +1 to those skills instead - so FaTR is arguing against something that isn't great, but it's still better than 3.5. The 3.5 system was designed around the all-or-nothing approach to skills, and the bonus is like bumping all of your skills up by 3 or so without any real drawbacks except having some of your skills slightly less than max'd out.

I play a conjurer in PF - more than half my skill points are in cross-class skills, because I'm ahead of the numbers curve in my class skills, and the system doesn't punish me so badly for taking cross-class skills. If there's anything PF did right, I think it was the skills system.

Hit points: OK, it's moderately higher instead of slightly higher. Jeez. The d6 people got an increase too, so it's not like the sorcerer is on par with the rogue all of a sudden. If you don't like extra HP, give your character a 10 Con. Done.

Improved Trip: First off, where do you get the idea that you need to spend AOO's to use combat maneuvers? That's not listed anywhere that I've seen - you must be working off of some early beta document. I'm not a big fan of the change, but at least get your facts straight.

And you have to spend an extra feat, but you gain +2/+2 (+4) against being tripped by opponents as a side-benefit, and your combat maneuvers now work off your BAB instead of your current attack bonus, so iterative attacks using a combat maneuver are much more likely to connect.

Melee classes: I think the paladin, ranger, monk, and barbarian are all undeniably stronger than in 3.5. For the fighter, I think he's stronger than in 3.5, but compared with the others he's not buffed to their level.

Multi-classing: Again, the melee characters didn't "get the shaft" any more than they were shafted in 3.5 - in most cases, they got stronger. And sorcerers were hardly OK with staying in sorcerer from 1-20, most jumped ship as soon as they possibly could (though given the horrible core PrCs for sorcerer, that pretty much meant Archmage).

Paladins keeping up with full attacks: the following methods to help melees make up for having trouble with full attacks were added in PF:
-Lunge feat: lets you hit enemies from another 5ft (10ft with reach) away at a -2 penalty, so you don't have to move so much.
-Stand Still feat: from the Complete Psionic, was made core, which makes it easier to keep opponents from running away.
-Scorpion Style: reduce an opponent's style to 5ft (for monks)
-Cleave: make 2 attacks as a standard action at -2 each against 2 foes you threaten, making it more useful for keeping up with full attacks than the old cleave
-Step Up: take a 5-ft step as an immediate action to follow somebody retreating.
-Strike Back: attack foes with greater reach than yours after they've hit you, so you don't need to move up to them.
-The Vital Strike chain: so even if you only get 1 attack in, that attack can still deal x2/x3/x4 damage.

That's before looking at class-related abilities, such as the barbarian's rage ability to pursue a withdrawing foe, etc.

Fighters: I'd argue they are better than core 3.5, hands-down - just not as much better than the paladin and others are, in part because combat style feats now take 2 total - but given that the fighter gets a feat every single level (odds = base, evens = fighter feats), it's not like they are going to be behind on feats in the end. Seriously, look at the feats I listed above - that's not even half the new combat feats included. Their skills list is larger and more useful, and shockingly enough, they get something every level, even a capstone! And the weapons training ability will improve their combat maneuvers too, so by 6th level PF fighters are better than 3.5 core fighters even at that.

Sorcerers: Sorcerers get some solid abilities, better than the wizard path stuff in general, and also some bonus feats and whatnot. If you read the sorcerer abilities, they get bonus feats, bonus skills, and at least 1 extra spell known per level - that's arcane spells right there. And that's before their powers, which vary wildly from crap to awesome.

At worst, they are still more fun and interesting than core 3.5 sorcerers, probably even with houserules. Are they equal to wizards? I'd say probably not, but as Talyn says, the gap has been closed dramatically.

Wizards: Eh, I think they should have been nerfed further at the higher levels, but the changes that were made mostly just make it so that levels 1-3 are a lot more survivable and fun, by giving some daily attacks and unlimited cantrips.

[Gnaeus]

I like pathfinder, but disagree with some of the arguments that have been raised here.

Wizards got a LOT out of pathfinder. Less flavorful improvements, but more crunch than even the sorcerer, certainly more than non-casters.

1. Wizards can now cast spells from opposition schools. Yes, it takes 2 slots of that level, but who cares when you are talking about spells like contingency. One more hit to the poor invoker. This means they can use items from those schools as well.

2. The bonded item lets wizards pull 1 spell per day FROM THEIR SPELLBOOK. Wow. Goodbye to the limited advantage of spontaneous casters, wizards now have the exact "I win" button for the encounter they are fighting once per day.

They also get some minor bonuses based on their schools (well, except for Diviner, and generalist, whose bonuses are huge) Compared with the minor bonuses of low level sorcerers, (I get claws? really? Ooh, electricity resist 5!) wizards are ahead.

They are even further ahead of the non-casters. Like Saph, My level 2 wizard has over 20 hit points, more than our party's monk. The unlimited use of cantrips is a big + (at low levels, Daze at will is a big deal) and even bigger is the fact that every caster is now easily able to swing a 20 on their casting stat at level 1. That means a first level wizard gets 1 spell, +1 (specialization), +2 (int), +1 from their spellbook. That is a save or suck for every encounter of the day, +1 for an enemy who saves, + cantrips and at will attack powers.

I seriously am thinking about using all pathfinder classes, except that I would keep wizard from 3.5.

[lesser_minion]

where do you get the idea that you need to spend AOO's to use combat maneuvers?

He's right, but his comment is misleading. The closest thing in PF to the old Improved Trip is Greater Trip, which means that when your target falls prone, they provoke an AoO from everyone who threatens them (instead of you getting a free attack).

It's now more useful if you co-ordinate your actions with the rest of the party, but weaker if you go solo. In short, closer to the ideal.

[Saph]

I like pathfinder, but disagree with some of the arguments that have been raised here.

Wizards got a LOT out of pathfinder. Less flavorful improvements, but more crunch than even the sorcerer, certainly more than non-casters.

1. Wizards can now cast spells from opposition schools. Yes, it takes 2 slots of that level, but who cares when you are talking about spells like contingency. One more hit to the poor invoker. This means they can use items from those schools as well.

2. The bonded item lets wizards pull 1 spell per day FROM THEIR SPELLBOOK. Wow. Goodbye to the limited advantage of spontaneous casters, wizards now have the exact "I win" button for the encounter they are fighting once per day.

They also get some minor bonuses based on their schools (well, except for Diviner, and generalist, whose bonuses are huge).

I agree with some of this, but two caveats:

1) Specialist Wizards can now prepare opposition schools, but it costs twice as many spell slots. This is fine for stuff that you cast on non-combat days (who cares if you take 2 slots to cast Contingency, you're not using them for anything else) but is a major sacrifice while adventuring (my 7th-level Wizard is not going to sacrifice two 4th-level slots just so she can prepare a Confusion).

2) Generalist Wizards are NOT good anymore. You're thinking of the Paizo Beta, where yes, they were awesome, but they got dragged out and beaten with the nerf stick for the currrent version. Here's what Pathfinder Generalist Wizards currently get (taken from the SRD):


Universalist School

Wizards who do not specialize (known as as universalists) have the most diversity of all arcane spellcasters.

Hand of the Apprentice (Su): You cause your melee weapon to fly from your grasp and strike a foe before instantly returning to you. As a standard action, you can make a single attack using a melee weapon at a range of 30 feet. This attack is treated as a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, except that you add your Intelligence modifier on the attack roll instead of your Dexterity modifier (damage still relies on Strength). This ability cannot be used to perform a combat maneuver. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.

Metamagic Mastery (Su): At 8th level, 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 at 8th level and one additional time per day for every two wizard levels you possess beyond 8th. 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. Even though this ability does not modify the spell's actual level, you cannot use this ability to cast a spell whose modified spell level would be above the level of the highest-level spell that you are capable of casting.

Hand of the Apprentice is hopeless for damage because it deals damage based on Strength - quick show of hands, how many of you have Wizard PCs with an impressive Strength modifier? And Metamagic Mastery, at level 8, gives you one spell level worth of metamagic, once per day. So you can Extend one spell, once. By comparison, a Lesser Metamagic Rod of Extend has three uses, costs 3,000, and doesn't require a feat. Pretty underwhelming.


the fact that every caster is now easily able to swing a 20 on their casting stat at level 1.

Uh, how? Standard point buy in Pathfinder is 15 points. Starting with an 18 in any stat costs you 17 points. The rest of your stats are going to suck horribly if you start with a 20. Sure it's possible, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[Gnaeus]

Sorry, I misread the bonus the generalist gets, I'll grant you that.

Previously, when dropping evocation, I was worried about 2 things. Contingency, and the off chance that I might find a really useful item like a staff of fire. Neither one now applies.

Standard point buy is 15 points, BUT it assumes 10s in everything and lets you buy down to 7. A human wiz can play very well with a build like 7, 12, 12, 20, 12, 7.

Oh, one other thing I forgot to mention. Wizards come out much better than sorcerers or most melees on the changes to the skill system. 3.5 wizard with 18 int might have a skill loadout like maximum (Concentration, Spellcraft, Know Arcana + 1 other knowledge, Tumble(cross class)). Pathfinder, the same wizard, now with 20 int, has max ranks in (Spellcraft, 4 knowledges, Acrobatics (which is tumble+ jump and balance), Perception and Stealth). That is a LOT better.

[Saph]

Oh, one other thing I forgot to mention. Wizards come out much better than sorcerers or most melees on the changes to the skill system. 3.5 wizard with 18 int might have a skill loadout like maximum (Concentration, Spellcraft, Know Arcana + 1 other knowledge, Acrobatics (cross class)). Pathfinder, the same wizard, now with 20 int, has max ranks in (Spellcraft, 4 knowledges, Athletics (which is Acrobatics + jump and I think swim), Perception and Stealth). That is a LOT better.

Firstly, there's no Athletics skill. Secondly, that doesn't make any sense. The changes to the skill system you're describing work the same for EVERY class. Wizards don't get anything special.

[FatR]

Uh, no. Elves get +2 Int +2 Dex -2 Con. The Con penalty isn't as big a deal as it was in 3.5, as there are various ways of getting more HP now and you don't have the Concentration skill playing off it. My 2nd-level elven wizard has 23 HP; please feel free to explain how having 25 HP instead would be such a huge difference.
Please feel free how having +1 on Dex-related stuff would be such a huge difference. Extra 5+ HPs on top of the rest of HP-increasing bonuses is quite relevant at middle levels and above, Fort is way more important than Ref, and often the only Dex-related thing that matters is Init.


In addition, she gets free Spell Penetration and a bonus on identifying items and on Perception. Whether that's better than the human bonuses is arguable,
No, it is non-arguable. Human bonuses are much better, because you can pick your fear and get way more skillpoints in the long run.


but to claim that there's "no reason" to pick elf as a race is frankly silly.
Then name one. Because, seriously, even if Dex is as valuable as Con in the long run sacrificing your feat on Spell Penetration and getting less skill points is too much for immunity to sleep, low-light vision and other minor things.


Not really, no.
Great counterargumentation. Now, please, show us, how rules that reward staying in a single class "not really" reward classes that are viable at levels 1-20.


Yeah, and the answer is "sorcerers". Wizards get minor class features plus loosened restrictions. Sorcerers get twice as many class features plus bonus spells known, bonus feats, and bonus skills.
-2 to enemies' saves within 30' or half your wizard level to Init are not "minor features". They are awesome. So are loosened specialist restrictions. Number of class features does not matter, as long as these features are irrelevant, i.e., are not worth your precious actions. And having frikking claws or a way-inferior-to-Fireball breath weapon (at 9th level) is irrelevant for an arcane caster. Even "half your level to spell damage" is vastly superior, because, while very small, this bonus stacks with everything else and is free, so it will actually come into play regularly. Unlike most of sorcerers' new abilities.


I'm not going to bother to answer the rest of your criticisms, because you're not being remotely rational about this. Honestly, FatR, it sounds like you're mad because I'm not being sufficiently nasty about Pathfinder to suit you. You seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder regarding the system.
Yeah, yeah, I know, dismissing criticisms with personal attacks is the best way to show your rationality and lack of bias.

[Gnaeus]

Firstly, there's no Athletics skill. Secondly, that doesn't make any sense. The changes to the skill system you're describing work the same for EVERY class. Wizards don't get anything special.

Changed in earlier post for terminology.

Yes, the changes work the same for every class, but few classes can exploit them like a wizard can with his 7 skill points at first level and mediocre class skill list. Compare with a sorcerer, who used to have spellcraft, bluff, and concentration, and now has spellcraft, bluff, and 1 other skill.

[Saph]

Yeah, yeah, I know, dismissing criticisms with personal attacks is the best way to show your rationality and lack of bias.

Sorry, FatR, but I've been around on these boards a while, and I've seen you in action before. You pick a system you don't like - the last time it was Exalted - and then relentlessly hammer everyone who won't agree with you. Not interested.


Changed in earlier post for terminology.

Yes, the changes work the same for every class, but few classes can exploit them like a wizard can with his 7 skill points at first level and mediocre class skill list. Compare with a sorcerer, who used to have spellcraft, bluff, and concentration, and now has spellcraft, bluff, and 1 other skill.

Ah, now I see what you're getting at. I'm still not sure if it's that much of a boost, though, especially since if you're playing a high-Int low-everything-else stat array such as the one you recommended before, you're probably going to be concentrating on Int-based skills anyway (and Wizards get all the Int-based skills as class skills as it is).

[lesser_minion]

@FatR:

Dex-related things that may matter:


Initiative
Ranged touch attacks
Reflex saves


Con doesn't beat Dex hands down, and for some builds dex wins out by miles.

I'll agree that human probably does edge out the elf, but it is a lot closer than it was. Even the human bonus feat is less meaningful when every character gets three of them.

None of your other points are any more substantial. "Slightly weaker" - or even "weak" is not "wasted" or "not worth taking".

Also, I agree with Saph. She posted her experiences from a game of Pathfinder, and drew some conclusions from them. You've responded to what may as well have been a review of blueberry flavoured ice cream with a point-by-point refutation.

Why?

Do you dispute that these were her actual experiences? Do you dispute her ability to tell the difference between enjoyment and other emotions? Do you find fault with her evidence-gathering? Should she have done a full placebo-controlled trial, and posted the placebo she used on the homebrew design forum?

In all honesty, I don't think Saph planned to publish this to a journal.

[Starbuck_II]

Fighters don't have the skill Acrobatics.
So in Pathfinder, Fighters suck at jumping (Fighters still only have 2 skill/level so they can hardly afford cross skills).

[lesser_minion]

Fighters don't have the skill Acrobatics.
So in Pathfinder, Fighters suck at jumping (Fighters still only have 2 skill/level so they can hardly afford cross skills).

Erm... they are three feet behind.

I guess it means that they are slightly worse at landing as well, and the skills still aren't perfect, but it's not like taking a cross-class skill is out of the question.

[Saph]

Fighters don't have the skill Acrobatics.
So in Pathfinder, Fighters suck at jumping (Fighters still only have 2 skill/level so they can hardly afford cross skills).

Yeah, this is one of the reasons I really wish they'd given Fighters 4 skill points per level. Skill-wise a Pathfinder fighter is much better off than a 3.5 one, as they can max out Acrobatics and Perception and get a better result than they would have gotten from maxing out Jump, Balance, Tumble, Listen, Search, and Spot in 3.5, but I still don't think that goes far enough.

[Nai_Calus]

Pathfinder nerfed Bards. Even if everything else in Pathfinder filled me with utter joy(And it doesn't, not even *remotely*), that would be reason to dislike it. :smalltongue:

[Saph]

Sorcerers In Depth


OK, so since it's come up a few times, here's a more in-depth look at what a Pathfinder Sorcerer gets over a 3.5 Sorcerer. I think Sorcerers probably got buffed more heavily than any other class; have a look and see if you agree.

Every Pathfinder Sorc has a Bloodline, which gives them a different set of abilities. I don't have time to analyse them all, so I'll just do the Arcane Bloodline, as that's the one the Pathfinder rules assume as the 'standard' one.

All of the class features and other changes Sorcerers get from 3.5 will be rated on the highly scientific scale of Excellent, Good, Meh, and Lame.


Stuff All Sorcerers Get


Hit Die: d6.

More HP is a good thing. Verdict: Good.


Class Skills: The sorcerer's class skills are Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Craft (Int), Fly (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (arcana) (Int), Profession (Wis), Spellcraft (Int), and Use Magic Device (Cha).

Use Magic Device, the best skill in the game, on a class with Cha as its primary stat! Verdict: Excellent!


Eschew Materials: A sorcerer gains Eschew Materials as a bonus feat at 1st level.

. . . which they should always have had, really. Anyway, no real mechanical benefit, but it's occasionally handy, it makes sorcerers more distinct from Wizards flavour-wise, and it's free. Verdict: Good

Bloodline-Specific Stuff


Arcane

Your family has always been skilled in the eldritch art of magic. While many of your relatives were accomplished wizards, your powers developed without the need for study and practice.

Flavour text, yadda yadda.


Class Skill: Knowledge (any one).

You already have Know (arcana) and probably not that many spare skill points. Verdict: Meh.


Bonus Spells: identify (3rd), invisibility (5th), dispel magic (7th), dimension door (9th), overland flight (11th), true seeing (13th), greater teleport (15th), power word stun (17th), wish (19th).

Now this is more like it. Bonus spells are exactly what you want as a Sorc and the list here is pretty damn good. The only spells I'd consider 'meh' on that list are Identify and Wish; the others are all useful, letting you spend your precious spells known slots on stuff you actually want. Verdict: Excellent!


Bonus Feats: Combat Casting, Improved Counterspell, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Scribe Scroll, Skill Focus (Knowledge [arcana]), Spell Focus, Still Spell.

The list isn't all that amazing, but there are some decent choices on there. Besides . . . hey, free feats. Verdict: Good.


Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you apply a metamagic feat to a spell that increases the slot used by at least one level, increase the spell's DC by +1. This bonus does not stack with itself and does not apply to spells modified by the Heighten Spell feat.

Kind of like Metamagic Spell Focus. Decent if you're a metamagic Sorc, but the spells you're most likely to use metamagic on are probably the ones without a Save DC. Verdict: Meh.


Bloodline Powers: Magic comes naturally to you, but as you gain levels you must take care to prevent the power from overwhelming you.

Yeah, right. Magic is your chew toy like any other Sorcerer.


Arcane Bond (Su): At 1st level, you gain an arcane bond, as a wizard equal to your sorcerer level. Your sorcerer levels stack with any wizard levels you possess when determining the powers of your familiar or bonded object. This ability does not allow you to have both a familiar and a bonded item.

This is a good one; either a familiar or the wizard's bonded item. Both are useful. Verdict: Good.


Metamagic Adept (Ex): At 3rd level, you can apply any one metamagic feat you know to a spell you are about to cast without increasing the casting time. You must still expend a higher-level spell slot to cast this spell. You can use this ability once per day at 3rd level and one additional time per day for every four sorcerer levels you possess beyond 3rd, up to five times per day at 19th level. At 20th level, this ability is replaced by arcane apotheosis.

Kind of like the Rapid Metamagic ACF from the PHB2. Would be nicer if you could use it a bit more often. Still, metamagic is nice. Verdict: Good.


New Arcana (Ex): At 9th level, you can add any one spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list to your list of spells known. This spell must be of a level that you are capable of casting. You can also add one additional spell at 13th level and 17th level.

You just can't ever have enough spells known, and this gives you extras of any level you like. Verdict: Excellent!


School Power (Ex): At 15th level, pick one school of magic. The DC for any spells you cast from that school increases by +2. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Spell Focus.

Very nice. It's Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus for free. Verdict: Excellent!


Arcane Apotheosis (Ex): At 20th level, your body surges with arcane power. You can add any metamagic feats that you know to your spells without increasing their casting time, although you must still expend higher-level spell slots. Whenever you use magic items that require charges, you can instead expend spell slots to power the item. For every three levels of spell slots that you expend, you consume one less charge when using a magic item that expends charges.

Yeah, like it says. It looks good, but the truth is that by 20th-level you probably won't care about item charges, and you'll almost certainly have already found some way around the metamagic issue. Verdict: Meh.

---------------------

TLDR version: Arcane Sorcerers get a lot of stuff, and some of it is very good indeed. If anyone thinks there's another class that's been buffed more between 3.5 and Pathfinder, post away!

[Akal Saris]

While it's one of the weakest bloodlines, I like the Abyssal sorcerer's 15th level ability to summon X+1 demons or fiendish creatures, where X was the original number (1, 1d3, or 1d4+1 becomes 2, 1d3+1, or 1d4+2). It's the ability that made Malconvokers rock so much in 3.5, and I'm happy to see it as part of a core class.

It's too bad the other parts of the bloodline try so hard to steer the PC towards being a weird melee character though.

[imperialspectre]

And a bad melee character at that - you can't make a Sorcerer gish with Pathfinder core and hope to be worth anything; you need Abjurant Champion from CMage at the very least.

I'd have to say that I find most of the sorcerer bloodlines thoroughly underwhelming; in a Pathfinder core game or a Pathfinder + SpC game, I would lean very much toward letting sorcerers acquire new spell levels at the same rate as wizards. Absent tricks like Arcane Spellsurge + Arcane Fusion to drastically increase action economy hacks, I think spells per day, increased cast time for metamagic, and being based on Charisma balances well against spell preparation flexibility and being based on Intelligence. The Arcane bloodline is the best of the bunch, but being a level behind in terms of spells is really rough.

[Kaldrin]

Just wanted to point out that Quicken spell doesn't increase the casting time of spontaneous spell casting in Pathfinder.

[FatR]

@FatR:

Dex-related things that may matter:


Initiative
Ranged touch attacks
Reflex saves

Reflex saves do not ever matter, particularly now, when your wizard has effective d8 HD. Just rely on your extra HPs to soak damage. Fortitude still is more important by miles. And again, even if Con and Dex are equal (for a ray wizard they might be), elves still are inferior to human as a wizards, as humans still are free to pick their feat and have more skillpoints - even though elves are completely tailor-made to be wizards. As other classes they lose to humans much more badly.


None of your other points are any more substantial. "Slightly weaker" - or even "weak" is not "wasted" or "not worth taking".
Yes it is (just try to run a party that picks weak options through one of Paizo's own APs), and if you really think otherwise, why you even respond to posts that discuss the concerns of game balance? And you do, right here.


Also, I agree with Saph. She posted her experiences from a game of Pathfinder, and drew some conclusions from them. You've responded to what may as well have been a review of blueberry flavoured ice cream with a point-by-point refutation.

Why?
Because this review says things that are very obviously not true.


Do you find fault with her evidence-gathering?
Yes.


In all honesty, I don't think Saph planned to publish this to a journal.
If you post things on a public forum, you should expect responses.

[Cedrass]

Reflex saves do not ever matter, particularly now, when your wizard has effective d8 HD. Just rely on your extra HPs to soak damage. Fortitude still is more important by miles. And again, even if Con and Dex are equal (for a ray wizard they might be), elves still are inferior to human as a wizards, as humans still are free to pick their feat and have more skillpoints - even though elves are completely tailor-made to be wizards. As other classes they lose to humans much more badly.

Wizards now have d6 to be exact. This and Spell Penetration is not totally wasted as a feat, and elves get it for free.

[pres_man]

Wizards now have d6 to be exact. This and Spell Penetration is not totally wasted as a feat, and elves get it for free.

And if you make wizard your choosen class you can get an extra hp each level, thus 1d6+1 is approximately equivalent to 1d8 (both have an average of 4.5 hps/level).

[FatR]

Arcane Sorcerers get a lot of stuff, and some of it is very good indeed. If anyone thinks there's another class that's been buffed more between 3.5 and Pathfinder, post away!
Enchanter wizards. -2 to saves against all schoos at 8th level >>>>>>> +2 DC for one at 15th, even if the former is only within 30'. And even if you add some feats from a small, not-very-good list into the deal. By virtue of being wizards, they have for free advantages like non-screwed metamagic that Arcane Sorceres only gradually get. They still have more spellpower to bring on the battlefield (due to being one spell level ahead 50% of the time), and they get two more schools to cast from (at the cost of extra spell slots, but as you generally only want some utility spells from your restricted schools - if you selected them smartly - not a problem past low levels), while sorcerers just get a bunch of pre-chosen spells known.

Note, that sorcerers aren't actually weak. They still are full casters, even though PF nerfed many of swiss knife spells they used to get around their limitations. It is just that wizards are still stronger, because PF, in general, widens the gap between the strong and the weak classes. (When a cleric stays at the same power level during the conversion, a bard gets some slight nerfs and a melee build gets a huge nerf, to the point of having its core tricks eliminated, you know that this is some screwed-up houserules.)

[Stephen_E]

Because this review says things that are very obviously not true.



Having also played Pathfinder for several months I saw nothing inaccurate or untrue in her review. Which is more than I can say for your responses.

Have you actually played Pathfinder?

Stephen E

[lord_khaine]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saph
[list] Hit Points - Slightly higher;

Arcane spellcasters get +2 HP per level, this is not "slightly" higher.


Actualy, arcane casters upgradet their d4 to a d6, thats just 1 HP more per level, not 2.

That aside, what i mostly dont like from reading about pathfinder is the change to the combat maneuver system, i dont like the removal of the oposed rolls.

Anyway, that aside the system seems decent enough, but since some of my favorite sources are psionics and ToB then i wont convert myself.

[Kurald Galain]

Compared with the minor bonuses of low level sorcerers, (I get claws? really? Ooh, electricity resist 5!) wizards are ahead.

This reminds me of the S-Men out of SOD... it proves that Rich is a future psychic!

[Saph]

I'd have to say that I find most of the sorcerer bloodlines thoroughly underwhelming; in a Pathfinder core game or a Pathfinder + SpC game, I would lean very much toward letting sorcerers acquire new spell levels at the same rate as wizards.

Oh, come on. The comparison was between 3.5 sorcerers and Pathfinder Arcane Bloodline sorcerers. You get pre-selected extra spells known, including many extremely good ones. You get free extra spells known, of any level you like. You get Use Magic Device, which effectively boosts your magic options further. And you get a bunch of bonus feats. Sorcerers got a huge boost here.

[Cybren]

the arcane sorcerer is the only one that actually looks any interesting, though. Even then the bonus feat selection is pretty terrible. oooooh still spell at level 7. I haven't played it but the only feats i could see myself taking with it are improved initiative and spell focus.

[porpentine]

Saph - thanks for the review. I haven't played PF yet and look forward to it.

Sorcerers: (bearing in mind that I haven't played :smallwink: ) Yes, they're stronger than their 3.5 kin.

They don't look to me to be the big gainers in the new system, though. They get more spells (excellent), UMD (excellent), some feats (okay), d6 HD, and then the weirdest rattlebag of tricks, many melee-oriented, few really appropriate for a primary spellcaster. As others have said, the Arcane bloodline is okay, but the Bonded Item is far less useful for a sorcerer than for a wizard, when you think about it.

The first time I looked at the Wizard school abilities I had the same impression as you - that they're weaker than the Sorc bloodlines - but the two lists are oddly deceptive. Where the Sorc bloodlines look various and potent, and are really only various, some the Wiz schools are very powerful. The strongest is Divination, which is off the scale compared to the bloodlines. Conjuration is also strong, and Transmutation and Illusion are solid. All of these have boosts which apply to spellcasting, or which will otherwise be used in every encounter, every day. In addition, these schools no longer rule out opposition school casting or item use, and of course they all come with the Bonded Item, which for a Wizard is an incredible asset (any spellbook spell...how much would that cost as a magic item?)...if also a dreaded liability.

Someone asked about Rogues: again, all I've done is stat out a few builds for each class to 20th, but they seem solid to me - not quite as awesome as I thought on first reading, but significantly stronger than in 3.5. The main boost comes in the relaxation of sneak attack guidelines (anything now but incorporeals and elementals, pretty much), and the talents can make the sneak stronger still (adding bleeding, for example). Skill amalgamation is also good news for the rogue, since many must-take Rogue skills (Spot/Listen/Search, Open Lock/Disarm, Hide/Move Silently, Tumble/Balance/Jump) are amalgamated, leaving room to pick up more of those class-skill +3s elsewhere, or to focus on eg social skills (and so Intimidate or Bluff, either of which can trigger sneaks in PF). There are also a few very nice talents - Resiliency (small temporary hp boost kicks in at minus hp), Trap Spotter (auto-check for traps within 10'), Surprise Attack (foes always flatfooted in surprise round), Fast Stealth (move at normal speed). The Minor/Major Magic talents are also useful for DR-overcoming sneaks with touch/ranged touch spells, but don't scale very well - except that they allow the advanced talent Dispelling Attack after 9th level, which adds a targetted Dispel to sneak - a good higher level ability.

I'd be really interested to hear how you find Rogues in play. Also Barbarians. People seem to be moaning a bit about them, but they look good to me. I know I'll like the extra freedom in choosing when to Rage, and although several rage abilities are so-so, it seems to me there's plenty of good stuff. The skill list is also better.

Thanks again.

[Saph]

I really don't think Wizards got as much as that. But okay, since so many people seem interested, I'll do a proper analysis on them tonight, as I did with the Arcane Bloodline Sorc.

We've got a Rogue and a Barb in our party, so I'll probably do them next.

[Kurald Galain]

Okay, so what is it that is so insanely overpowered about diviners now?

[porpentine]

Diviners get, from 1st level, a bonus to initiative checks equal to half their wizard level, and they can always act in a surprise round.

There's other stuff, but it's really just gravy.

re Wizards, the point Saph made about crafting is also potentially a big deal. MI creation receives some attention in PF, and is generally less painful (no XP cost: a DC creation check, but one so low no self-respecting Wizard will have a problem with it). This benefits Wizards disproportionately because they are still set up to craft: Scribe Scroll for free, and bonus feats for which there are limited good options aside from item creation. Hardcore 3.5 Wizard players may grumble a bit about some of the spell nerfs, but if they're up to speed with crafting, I think many DMs will find them to be handfuls in PF: Craft Wondrous at 3rd, and there's almost no chance of failure in crafting a handy haversack, a headband of intellect+2 and a sackfull of scrolls by 4th. DMs can try to limit crafting by limiting downtime, but it's more likely in PF that multiple PCs will have creation feats, at which point they can fashion magic at a fair pace even on the hoof.

The danger is that Wondrous Items, in particular, become like a second spell list for the Wizard, and that haversacks full of scrolls lead to the entire spellbook being available in any encounter. I really wish they'd set the DC higher.

Looking forward to the Barb and Rogue playtests. Cheers.

[Uin]

Aberrant Sorcerers seem whacky cool (last time I looked at beta), but I'm an Eberron Daelkyr fan, what do I know. ^^

I think Saph's ending comment in the OP sums it up for me:

Pathfinder > Core
Splat > Pathfinder

I'm also not gonna pay for what is largely a reissue of what I already own. It is also too much effort for me to adjust things to Pathfinder style right now and my players have a thin grasp of the rules as it is.

[subject42]

Aberrant Sorcerers seem whacky cool (last time I looked at beta), but I'm an Eberron Daelkyr fan, what do I know. ^^

I'm playing an aberrant sorcerer right now, the aberrant reach and bonus tentacles make for a moderately awesome combination.

[Gnaeus]

Someone asked about Rogues: again, all I've done is stat out a few builds for each class to 20th, but they seem solid to me

I think on Rogues it depends a lot on the kind of game you play in. I have heard convincing arguments that on the highest end of the optimization scale, where with wands and a ring of blinking you expect the rogue to get full attacks dealing sneak attack damage every single round, the rogue took a nerf. Also, flask throwing for sneak attack died, and that was an excellent tactic for high optimization rogues.

On the other hand, on the low end of the scale, for the guy who just picks up the PhB and wants to play a sneaky guy, The extra hit points and feat equivalents are huge.

[Stephen_E]

The Divination ability is weird.

It's nice for a Mage, discounting the lev 20 ability, init rolls are always a natural 20, which is awesome.

But it rocks for Ranger/Scout types to take a lev of Diviner.
It means they can actually go on real point, at least 1 rds movement ahead, without going back to character creation. And they get Arcane Bond to boot, which with practiced spellcaster as an item bond is really funky.

Anyone who brushes off arcane bond - object clearly hasn't looked at it seriously. You get a majic item that only you can use that can have near unlimited different abilities put in it without having to spend a craft feat on it, including abilities you can't actually cast yourself.

To be honest Arcane Bond- Object is so good you could make an argument for every character taking a level in Wizard or Sorceror - arcane bloodline, along with practiced Spellcaster just to get access to it!

Stephen E

[Stephen_E]

One of the interesting little quirks of pathfinder is that you can make a moderately effective caster with a casting stat of 10 or 11.

This is because of the quirk that casting a cantrip doesn't use up the spell slot. Thus if you have a metamagiced cantrip taking up a 3rd lev spell slot you can cast the spell repeatedly without ever using up the spell slot.

Before you shout "Cheese" or "Broken" remember these are still only cantrips, but unlimited metamagic cantrips are just good enough to be a viable character concept.

Note: This doesn't work with the Heighten Metamagic feat.

Stephen E

[pres_man]

I see people on both sides making the mistake of comparing 3.5 and PF piece by piece. This is deceptive. Yes, PF boosted many individual aspects, but by doing that, they set the bar to a different place. How does a sorcerer compare to the rest of the PF stuff, and how does a 3.5 sorcerer compare to the rest of the 3.5 stuff. I might be more powerful than my 3.5 counterpart if I was in their game, I might actually be weaker comparitively within my own game. You have to compare the entire system to the entire system, not bits and pieces.


Also it is hard to say how things like combat manuevers will play out in PF, until you actually see the monster entries. Comparing them to the 3.5 entries could give you a very incorrect sense of what is going on. Many monsters might get bumped up in CMD in various ways we may not even know about, so that a creature that could be tripped easily when comparing a PF PC to a 3.5 creature, might not be tripped as easily when comparing a PF PC to the PF creature.

[Starbuck_II]

Pathfinder is like McDonalds/Raileys/Wendys/Burger King. Lots of options. Not a huge gallery of different things, but basically everything edible.

3.5 is like Old Country Buffey: you can graze on a huge gallery of options, but some are strictly better than others. Cost a bit more, but you can get till full.

I think the analogy fits.

[pres_man]

Pathfinder is like McDonalds/Raileys/Wendys/Burger King. Lots of options. Not a huge gallery of different things, but basically everything edible.

3.5 is like Old Country Buffey: you can graze on a huge gallery of options, but some are strictly better than others. Cost a bit more, but you can get till full.

I think the analogy fits.


Ok, so basically you are saying, I went to Old Country Buffet and gorged and am still full. And now I am being pressured by other folks online to go to McDonald's and eat some more, even though I am still full from much higher quality food that I have eaten at Old Country Buffet.

Yeah, the analogy might fit.

[Kylarra]

Ok, so basically you are saying, I went to Old Country Buffet and gorged and am still full. And now I am being pressured by other folks online to go to McDonald's and eat some more, even though I am still full from much higher quality food that I have eaten at Old Country Buffet.

Yeah, the analogy might fit.That's a brutal abuse and misreading of analogies. Try not to put words in other people's mouths.

To analogize here, you like Old Country Buffet, yet somehow you are now posting inside a thread where people are discussing McDonald's food, complaining that somehow internet folks are pressuring you to go eat there.

:smalltongue:

[pres_man]

That's a brutal abuse and misreading of analogies. Try not to put words in other people's mouths.

To analogize here, you like Old Country Buffet, yet somehow you are now posting inside a thread where people are discussing McDonald's food, complaining that somehow internet folks are pressuring you to go eat there.

:smalltongue:

Chill darling, it was a joke. Don't get the panties in a bunch.

[Kylarra]

Chill darling, it was a joke. Don't get the panties in a bunch.Oh I took no offense. thus the :smalltongue:

[pres_man]

Oh I took no offense. thus the :smalltongue:

Ok. It is just that your:


That's a brutal abuse and misreading of analogies. Try not to put words in other people's mouths.

Came off a bit stronger. I figured the smilie was for the second paragraph.

[Kaldrin]

Pathfinder is like...

3.5 is like Old Country Buffey...

I don't know what it's like where you come from, but from where I come from one puts all the food on the table and the other makes you pick which one you want... but it's all just made of moulded sawdust and grease.

For some reason I feel bloated now...

[horseboy]

The game I was in was going to be a Pathfinder but the first session three people didn't have their characters ready and the DM decided to convert it to 3.5. My Fey Sorcerer's Sleep DC went from an 18 to a 16. At least he let me keep my fourth party race. (A non Paizo splatbook for Pathfinder used in 3.5 would be a fourth party, right?)

On the whole I found the Pathfinder sorcerer more interesting than the 3.5 one. Still not as malleable as I like a class, but better.

[Saph]

Wizards In Depth


Wizards have always been the favourite class of this forum (and the most complained about, too) so it shouldn't be a surprise that they've gotten so much scrutiny. Here's a closer look at what a wiz gets when changing from 3.5 to Pathfinder. Since wizards get notably fewer new class features than sorcerers, I can cover all of the wizard specialities instead of only one.

As before, all features will be rated on the Excellent - Good - Meh - Lame scale.


Stuff All Wizards Get


Hit Die: d6.

HP is nice. Verdict: Good.


Class Skills: The wizard's class skills are Appraise (Int), Craft (Int), Fly (Dex), Knowledge (all) (Int), Linguistics (Int), Profession (Wis), and Spellcraft (Int).

Nothing very exciting here. Wizards now get Appraise as well as the equivalent of Forgery and Speak Language, which is okay, but nothing to write home about. Verdict: Meh.


Arcane Bond (Ex or Sp): At 1st level, wizards form a powerful bond with an object or a creature. This bond can take one of two forms: a familiar or a bonded object . . . Once a wizard makes this choice, it is permanent and cannot be changed . . .

Wizards who select a bonded object begin play with one at no cost. Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon. These objects are always masterwork quality. Weapons acquired at 1st level are not made of any special material. If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell. The DC for this check is equal to 20 + the spell's level. If the object is a ring or amulet, it occupies the ring or neck slot accordingly.

A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared. This spell is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard, including casting time, duration, and other effects dependent on the wizard's level. This spell cannot be modified by metamagic feats or other abilities. The bonded object cannot be used to cast spells from the wizard's opposition schools (see arcane school).

A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat. For example, a wizard with a bonded dagger must be at least 5th level to add magic abilities to the dagger (see the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat in Feats). If the bonded object is a wand, it loses its wand abilities when its last charge is consumed, but it is not destroyed and it retains all of its bonded object properties and can be used to craft a new wand. The magic properties of a bonded object, including any magic abilities added to the object, only function for the wizard who owns it. If a bonded object's owner dies, or the item is replaced, the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type.

If a bonded object is damaged, it is restored to full hit points the next time the wizard prepares his spells. If the object of an arcane bond is lost or destroyed, it can be replaced after 1 week in a special ritual that costs 200 gp per wizard level plus the cost of the masterwork item. This ritual takes 8 hours to complete. Items replaced in this way do not possess any of the additional enchantments of the previous bonded item. A wizard can designate an existing magic item as his bonded item. This functions in the same way as replacing a lost or destroyed item except that the new magic item retains its abilities while gaining the benefits and drawbacks of becoming a bonded item.

This is nice, very nice. The ability to spontaneously cast any spell from your spellbook, even if it's only once per day, adds a lot of flexibility. In addition you can enchant the bonded item, which is almost as good as getting an item creation feat for free!

There are, however, two catches. You give up your familiar, which (as those skilled in the art of familiar-fu will know) is a significant loss. In addition, if you lose the item, spellcasting becomes ridiculously difficult. I'd say the benefits still outweigh the drawbacks, though. Verdict: Good.


Arcane School: A wizard can choose to specialize in one school of magic, gaining additional spells and powers based on that school. This choice must be made at 1st level, and once made, it cannot be changed. A wizard that does not select a school receives the universalist school instead.

A wizard that chooses to specialize in one school of magic must select two other schools as his opposition schools, representing knowledge sacrificed in one area of arcane lore to gain mastery in another. A wizard who prepares spells from his opposition schools must use two spell slots of that level to prepare the spell. For example, a wizard with evocation as an opposition school must expend two of his available 3rd-level spell slots to prepare a fireball. In addition, a specialist takes a –4 penalty on any skill checks made when crafting a magic item that has a spell from one of his opposition schools as a prerequisite. A universalist wizard can prepare spells from any school without restriction.

Each arcane school gives the wizard a number of school powers. In addition, specialist wizards receive an additional spell slot of each spell level he can cast, from 1st on up. Each day, a wizard can prepare a spell from his specialty school in that slot. This spell must be in the wizard's spellbook. A wizard can select a spell modified by a metamagic feat to prepare in his school slot, but it uses up a higher-level spell slot. Wizards with the universalist school do not receive a school slot.

This is probably the biggest buff for wizards. Now being a specialist doesn't cut you off from schools! While adventuring, you probably still won't make a habit of using opposition schools; the opportunity cost of losing two spell slots is too high. But the ability to use something like, say, Contingency during days off is great. Verdict: Excellent!


So, What Do The Specialists Get?

In general, the answer is "not that much". However, there are a few standouts. Illusionists probably benefit the most, and Diviners get some abilities that are excellent at high levels (but weak at low ones). Universalists and Enchanters do worst out of the deal, with Universalists coming in last by a mile.

Abjurer


Resistance (Ex): You gain resistance 5 to an energy type of your choice, chosen when you prepare spells. This resistance can be changed each day. At 11th level, this resistance increases to 10. At 20th level, this resistance changes to immunity to the chosen energy type.

Pretty weak. You're rarely going to know what energy type you'll be attacked by, and 5 points of resistance isn't going to make all that much difference even if you do. Verdict: Meh.


Protective Ward (Su): As a standard action, you can create a 10-foot-radius field of protective magic centered on you that lasts for a number of rounds equal to your Intelligence modifier. All allies in this area (including you) receive a +1 deflection bonus to their AC for 1 round. This bonus increases by +1 for every five wizard levels you possess. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.

Contradictory wording aside, this isn't all that impressive. A standard action is a high cost to pay for something with such a small effect and radius. It's also just begging for the enemy to fireball you. Verdict: Meh.


Energy Absorption (Su): At 6th level, you gain an amount of energy absorption equal to 3 times your wizard level per day. Whenever you take energy damage, apply immunity, vulnerability (if any), and resistance first and apply the rest to this absorption, reducing your daily total by that amount. Any damage in excess of your absorption is applied to you normally.

This is more like it. Since it works on any type of energy damage, you can actually expect it to apply frequently. The total protection is still not that high, but it could save your neck. Verdict: Good.

Overall Verdict: Mediocre. Abjuration isn't the best of specialities in the first place, and these abilities don't make it any more attractive.
Conjurer


Summoner's Charm (Su): Whenever you cast a conjuration (summoning) spell, increase the duration by a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum 1). At 20th level, you can change the duration of all summon monster spells to permanent. You can have no more than one summon monster spell made permanent in this way at one time. If you designate another summon monster spell as permanent, the previous spell immediately ends.

As a general rule, for every round a wizard or sorcerer casts a spell that's on the cleric spell list, for that round he's a sucker. Casting Summon Monster is the cleric's job, and druids do it better anyway. Verdict: Meh.


Acid Dart (Sp): As a standard action you can unleash an acid dart targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. The acid dart deals 1d6 points of acid damage + 1 for every two wizard levels you possess. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier. This attack ignores spell resistance.

Eh, it beats shooting a crossbow. Verdict: Good.


Dimensional Steps (Sp): At 8th level, you can use this ability to teleport up to 30 feet per wizard level per day as a standard action. This teleportation must be used in 5-foot increments and such movement does not provoke an attack of opportunity. You can bring other willing creatures with you, but you must expend an equal amount of distance for each additional creature brought with you.

Pretty nice. I'm sure you can think of some good uses for this. The ability to divide it up as you wish makes it much more useful. Verdict: Good.

Overall Verdict: Some solid features. The fact that conjuration is probably the strongest school in the game anyway makes the Conjurer one of the best choices.
Diviner


Forewarned (Su): You can always act in the surprise round even if you fail to make a Perception roll to notice a foe, but you are still considered flat-footed until you take an action. In addition, you receive a bonus on initiative checks equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum +1). At 20th level, anytime you roll initiative, assume the roll resulted in a natural 20.

Awesome at high levels, but most games of 3rd-ed D&D are played in the 1st-10th level range, which makes this less attractive. At 12th-level it's a +6, but at 2nd-level it's only a +1. Verdict: Meh at level 1, Good by level 10, only gets better as you level up from there.


Diviner's Fortune (Sp): When you activate this school power, you can touch any creature as a standard action to give it an insight bonus on all of its attack rolls, skill checks, ability checks, and saving throws equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum +1) for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.

Again, an ability that's useful at higher levels and sucky at lower ones. Verdict: Meh or Good, as above.


Scrying Adept (Su): At 8th level, you are always aware when you are being observed via magic, as if you had a permanent detect scrying. In addition, whenever you scry on a subject, treat the subject as one step more familiar to you. Very familiar subjects get a –10 penalty on their save to avoid your scrying attempts.

If spying and intelligence gathering are a big part of your games, this is excellent. Otherwise, it's pretty much useless. Verdict: Situational, depends heavily on the DM's style of game.

Overall Verdict: Diviners are hard to rate. Their information-gathering abilities can be utterly awesome, or totally useless, depending on how the DM runs campaigns. There's also the issue that divination is probably the weakest school to pick your bonus spell slots from. The only thing that can be said for sure is that diviners are much, MUCH better at high levels than at low ones.
Enchanter


Enchanting Smile (Su): You gain a +2 enhancement bonus on Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate skill checks. This bonus increases by +1 for every five wizard levels you possess, up to a maximum of +6 at 20th level. At 20th level, whenever you succeed at a saving throw against a spell of the enchantment school, that spell is reflected back at its caster, as per spell turning.

Bonuses to three cross-class skills based on Wizards' second most popular dump stat. You're not the party face. As for the 20th-level ability . . . yeah, as if anyone's going to cast an enchantment spell that allows a save against a 20th-level enchanter. Verdict: Meh.


Dazing Touch (Sp): You can cause a living creature to become dazed for 1 round as a melee touch attack. Creatures with more Hit Dice than your wizard level are unaffected. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.

So let me get this straight. You go into melee, you make a melee touch attack using your lousy Strength and lousy BAB, and in exchange you get to . . . daze a creature for 1 round if it doesn't have more Hit Dice. Except that if the creature's threatening enough to need dazing, chances are excellent that it DOES have more Hit Dice. Verdict: Lame.


Aura of Despair (Su): At 8th level, you can emit a 30-foot aura of despair for a number of rounds per day equal to your wizard level. Enemies within this aura take a –2 penalty on ability checks, attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and skill checks. These rounds do not need to be consecutive.

Would be nice . . . except for one big problem. It's a (Su) ability that doesn't say what kind of action it takes, and by default, that makes it a standard action (check the Pathfinder SRD). A standard action for a minor 30' aura debuff is not a great deal. It's not useless, but I can't think of many situations where I'd be willing to spend a standard action on it. Verdict: Meh.

(Editor's Note: This was the ability FatR was claiming was so amazing. It looks like he didn't read it very closely and assumed it was a free action instead of a standard one.)

Overall Verdict: Enchanters kinda got the shaft in Pathfinder. Specialising in enchantment isn't a great deal anyway, and the poor abilities just make things worse. The only reason enchanters aren't right on the bottom of the heap is because, bad as their abilities are, they're still better than the universalist.
Evoker


Intense Spells (Su): Whenever you cast an evocation spell that deals hit point damage, add 1/2 your wizard level to the damage (minimum +1). This bonus only applies once to a spell, not once per missile or ray, and cannot be split between multiple missiles or rays. This damage is of the same type as the spell. At 20th level, whenever you cast an evocation spell you can roll twice to penetrate a creature's spell resistance and take the better result.

It's not a huge increase, but hey, free damage. Verdict: Good.


Force Missile (Sp): As a standard action you can unleash a force missile that automatically strikes a foe, as magic missile. The force missile deals 1d4 points of damage plus the damage from your intense spells evocation power. This is a force effect. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.

Anything that auto-hits is worth using. It gets a decent rating because it beats using a crossbow or spamming cantrips, but like the conjurer's Acid Dart, you'll use this less and less as you level up. Verdict: Good.


Elemental Wall (Sp): At 8th level, you can create a wall of energy that lasts for a number of rounds per day equal to your wizard level. These rounds do not need to be consecutive. This wall deals acid, cold, electricity, or fire damage, determined when you create it. The elemental wall otherwise functions like wall of fire.

It's a wall of fire. Good as far as it goes. Verdict: Good.

Overall Verdict: Generally decent stuff for evokers. Nothing all that exciting, but they make you a better blaster, and let's face it, if you're playing an evoker that's what you're going to be doing.
Illusionist


Extended Illusions (Su): Any illusion spell you cast with a duration of “concentration” lasts a number of additional rounds equal to 1/2 your wizard level after you stop maintaining concentration (minimum +1 round). At 20th level, you can make one illusion spell with a duration of “concentration” become permanent. You can have no more than one illusion made permanent in this way at one time. If you designate another illusion as permanent, the previous permanent illusion ends.

The image spells are some of the most versatile in the game, and this lets you bypass the concentration duration. If you know your stuff, this is very handy. Verdict: Good.


Blinding Ray (Sp): As a standard action you can fire a shimmering ray at any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. The ray causes creatures to be blinded for 1 round. Creatures with more Hit Dice than your wizard level are dazzled for 1 round instead. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.

Ugh, another power that only works on creatures who don't have more Hit Dice. Still, at least you can do this one at range, so you aren't totally screwed if it turns out not to work. Verdict: Meh.


Invisibility Field (Sp): At 8th level, you can make yourself invisible as a swift action for a number of rounds per day equal to your wizard level. These rounds do not need to be consecutive. This otherwise functions as greater invisibility.

Now this is more like it. Greater invisibility is the kind you want to have, and being able to put it up as a swift action is the kind of speed you want to do it at. This can and will save your life if you get jumped in melee - no need for those difficult Concentration checks anymore. Verdict: Excellent!

Overall Verdict: Illusionists got a good deal out of Pathfinder, with abilities that actually make them better at what they're supposed to be good at (invisibility and illusions). Recommended.
Necromancer


Power over Undead (Su): You receive Command Undead or Turn Undead as a bonus feat. You can channel energy a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier, but only to use the selected feat. You can take other feats to add to this ability, such as Extra Channel and Improved Channel, but not feats that alter this ability, such as Elemental Channel and Alignment Channel. The DC to save against these feats is equal to 10 + 1/2 your wizard level + your Charisma modifier. At 20th level, undead cannot add their channel resistance to the save against this ability.

If you're playing a necromancer, odds are good you want undead minions, and this gives them to you. The only problem is that the saves are based off Cha, but still. Verdict: Good.


Grave Touch (Sp): As a standard action, you can make a melee touch attack that causes a living creature to become shaken for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum 1). If you touch a shaken creature with this ability, it becomes frightened for 1 round if it has fewer Hit Dice than your wizard level. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.

Gah! What is it with melee touch attacks that only work properly on creatures with equal or fewer HD? To add insult to injury, you have to touch a minion twice to send it running. No thanks. Verdict: Lame.


Life Sight (Su): At 8th level, you gain blindsight to a range of 10 feet for a number of rounds per day equal to your wizard level. This ability only allows you to detect living creatures and undead creatures. This sight also tells you whether a creature is living or undead. Constructs and other creatures that are neither living nor undead cannot be seen with this ability. The range of this ability increases by 10 feet at 12th level, and by an additional 10 feet for every four levels beyond 12th.

Crappy duration, crappy range, and again requires a standard action to activate. It only avoids a 'lame' rating because even with all those limitations, blindsight is still decent. Verdict: Meh.

Overall Verdict: The necromancer's abilities are very flavourful, but poorly implemented. Could be worse, I suppose.
Transmuter


Physical Enhancement (Su): You gain a +1 enhancement bonus to one physical ability score (Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution). This bonus increases by +1 for every five wizard levels you possess to a maximum of +5 at 20th level. You can change this bonus to a new ability score when you prepare spells. At 20th level, this bonus applies to two physical ability scores of your choice.

Basically saves you 4,000 gp or so on an Amulet of Health or whatever. Eh, free stat boosts are nice, if not that exciting. Verdict: Good.


Telekinetic Fist (Sp): As a standard action you can strike with a telekinetic fist, targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. The telekinetic fist deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage + 1 for every two wizard levels you possess. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.

Like the Conjurer's acid dart, and the Evoker's force missile, but worse. Verdict: Meh.


Change Shape (Sp): At 8th level, you can change your shape for a number of rounds per day equal to your wizard level. These rounds do not need to be consecutive. This ability otherwise functions like beast shape II or elemental body I. At 12th level, this ability functions like beast shape III or elemental body II.

Beast Shape and Elemental Body are a pale shadow of Polymorph, but spontaneous shapeshifting is still handy. Verdict: Good.

Overall Verdict: Solid bonuses, if nothing very exciting. Like Conjurers, Transmuters benefit from the fact that they're already picking from one of the power schools.
Universalist


Hand of the Apprentice (Su): You cause your melee weapon to fly from your grasp and strike a foe before instantly returning to you. As a standard action, you can make a single attack using a melee weapon at a range of 30 feet. This attack is treated as a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, except that you add your Intelligence modifier on the attack roll instead of your Dexterity modifier (damage still relies on Strength). This ability cannot be used to perform a combat maneuver. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.

Awful. Using your Int on the attack modifier would be good, except for the fact that the damage is still based on Strength. This is the worst of the specialist attacks by far. Verdict: Lame.


Metamagic Mastery (Su): At 8th level, 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 at 8th level and one additional time per day for every two wizard levels you possess beyond 8th. 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. Even though this ability does not modify the spell's actual level, you cannot use this ability to cast a spell whose modified spell level would be above the level of the highest-level spell that you are capable of casting.

So wait, at level 8, I can use one level of metamagic once per day? But only if I've got the feat already? If you want free metamagic, get a metamagic rod. Normally I'd give this some credit for being free, but it's so bad it's embarassing. Verdict: Lame.

Overall Verdict: Universalist wizards in Pathfinder suck horribly. There is literally no reason to play one, with all the benefits specialists get. If you want to play a generalist, either use the Paizo Beta, or stick with 3.5.

[DragoonWraith]

I think you underestimate the Diviner's ability. The wow! ability isn't necessarily the Initiative bonus, it's the "always acts in the surprise round" - Foresight is a 9th level spell. That's insane.

Also, even if turning on the Enchanter's aura is a standard action, -2 to enemy saves is not a minor bonus. That's worth at least a feat.

[Saph]

I think you underestimate the Diviner's ability. The wow! ability isn't necessarily the Initiative bonus, it's the "always acts in the surprise round" - Foresight is a 9th level spell. That's insane.

It's a decent bonus. Depends on how often you get surprised, though.


Also, even if turning on the Enchanter's aura is a standard action, -2 to enemy saves is not a minor bonus. That's worth at least a feat.

Disagree with this one completely; if that ability was a feat, it would suck horribly. It's not worth a standard action except in very unusual circumstances.

[AllisterH]

Disagree with this one completely; if that ability was a feat, it would suck horribly. It's not worth a standard action except in very unusual circumstances.

This kind of makes me go "are you nuts?"

Is almost everything about increasing the effectiveness of a spellcaster is either increasing our caster level or the much harder, increasing the saving throw...

The -2 to saves is HUGE.

[Stephen_E]

Saph, have to disagree with you on the Enchanter Aura field.
The -2 to saves ect is strong. Well worth a stand action to start, Remember it doesn't require stand action to continue.
This is as good as or better than the Blackguard Aura of Despaior and the Hex Blade Dark Companion class abilities.

Not broken, but awfully nice, and worth more than a feat.

Also note that as far as I can see it stacks with most other stuff.

Stephen E

[DragoonWraith]

It's a decent bonus. Depends on how often you get surprised, though.
Optimizers will often go to great lengths to get that bonus. There's a reason the Dire Tortoise is seen as horrendous cheese, and this is it.


Disagree with this one completely; if that ability was a feat, it would suck horribly. It's not worth a standard action except in very unusual circumstances.
It's like Spell Focus + Greater Spell Focus, for all of your spells and all of your allies spells, plus it also drops several other important stats. Plus Enchanters, more than any other Wizard, are going to be using save-or-sucks outside of combat quite often; activating the Aura during a dinner party with the king just before casting a Stilled/Silenced Charm Person on him? Oh yes.

[Eldariel]

Saph, have to disagree with you on the Enchanter Aura field.
The -2 to saves ect is strong. Well worth a stand action to start, Remember it doesn't require stand action to continue.
This is as good as or better than the Blackguard Aura of Despaior and the Hex Blade Dark Companion class abilities.

Not broken, but awfully nice, and worth more than a feat.

Also note that as far as I can see it stacks with most other stuff.

Stephen E

It's an action. Both of the ones you listed are passive. Actions are a sparse resource. It's no better than Cloudy Conjuration Caltrops (which is a cantrip), which also has other side-benefits. And you can Quicken those pretty trivially. There's only a 10% chance of the Aura mattering in the first place, and that's after you spent a turn activating it.

In groups where actions don't matter (say, an "army" of 100 Wizards), sure, one guy activating the Aura and rest using spells is a no-brainer but in a group of 4 character, you give up 25% of your combat effectiveness to use the aura. That is not worth one action, especially not one from a class whose actions are as powerful as a Wizard's, who could be screwing your boss up with that same action (Ray of Exhaustion, for example) or forcing saves from the entire opposition likely having more than half of them fail.

[Stephen_E]

It's an action. Both of the ones you listed are passive. Actions are a sparse resource. It's no better than Cloudy Conjuration Caltrops (which is a cantrip), which also has other side-benefits. And you can Quicken those pretty trivially. There's only a 10% chance of the Aura mattering in the first place, and that's after you spent a turn activating it.

In groups where actions don't matter (say, an "army" of 100 Wizards), sure, one guy activating the Aura and rest using spells is a no-brainer but in a group of 4 character, you give up 25% of your combat effectiveness to use the aura. That is not worth one action, especially not one from a class whose actions are as powerful as a Wizard's, who could be screwing your boss up with that same action (Ray of Exhaustion, for example) or forcing saves from the entire opposition likely having more than half of them fail.

I don't know the cantrip you refer to so can't comment on that.

On the rest - Your probability is WAY of skew. It has a 10% chance of affecting every attack enemies make within the zone. All spells you or other party members cast that have saving throws, and reduces all damage done by the enemy by 2pt, and has no save against it.

So it WILL have an effect EVERY round it's up, AND it has a 10% chance of mullifying EVERY enemy attack requiring a attack roll AND a 10% chance of making them fail against EVERY spell cast at them requiring a save.

This is pretty damned nice.

Stephen E

[Starbuck_II]

Gotta agree on usefulness on the aura, but I will also agree at level 1 it sucks. Not till level 2 does it start showing much benefit (then you can benefit as well).

Caltrops is Spell Compedruim: it is a conj cantrip that makes force caltrops that deal damage.

[Saph]

This kind of makes me go "are you nuts?"

Is almost everything about increasing the effectiveness of a spellcaster is either increasing our caster level or the much harder, increasing the saving throw...

The -2 to saves is HUGE.

Actions in combat are the currency of D&D, and spending a standard action is a major cost. An 8th-12th level wizard should be able to do a lot better with a standard action than giving enemies within 30 feet a -2 penalty.

[Gorbash]

Completely agree with Saph here. Spending a standard action to reduce the chance of saving on the next spell is worse than actually trying the same spell twice. Can't even begin to compare to Dark Companion since that doesn't require any action. And the range of the aura is 30 feet... Bad idea for a wizard to be within charging distance of his target.

If any of you played a mid level wizard, you would know how important it is for your standard actions to make radical difference the moment you spent them.

[Kurald Galain]

Actions in combat are the currency of D&D, and spending a standard action is a major cost. An 8th-12th level wizard should be able to do a lot better with a standard action than giving enemies within 30 feet a -2 penalty.

This. It's so low a priority on the list of things you can do each turn, that the combat will be over before you get to using this.

[Stephen_E]

This. It's so low a priority on the list of things you can do each turn, that the combat will be over before you get to using this.



If it only reduced there save I'd agree, but it doesn't.
-2 damage, -2 attack, -2 skill/ability checks (casting in combat) AND -2 saves.

Even better it's a PARTY effect. As V recently observed in the latest combat. It's not all about showing that your magic is the most uber awsome thing out there.

Stephen E

[Starbuck_II]

This. It's so low a priority on the list of things you can do each turn, that the combat will be over before you get to using this.

But Kurald is has the same benefits as sickening all enemies, no save, within 30 ft. That is like a 4th level spell (in fact, that is a Wu jen spell). You get it at 8th level so it is level appropriate.

[Gnaeus]

Wizards In Depth

Nothing very exciting here. Wizards now get Appraise as well as the equivalent of Forgery and Speak Language, which is okay, but nothing to write home about. Verdict: Meh.

I still have to disagree with this. A wizard can now easily max ranks in Stealth, Perception, and Acrobatics, while at the same time keeping his spellcraft and 2-4 favorite knowledges maxed. No other class benefits as much from the pathfinder skill change, because the classes that have enough skill points to compare (bard with about 7, rogue with about 9, compared with wizard's about 7) were likely to be able to max most of those skills before, because they were all on the class list.

[Gorbash]

But Kurald is has the same benefits as sickening all enemies, no save, within 30 ft.

You're still avoid the elephant in the room. You really wanna be a Wizard who's within 30 ft of all enemies?

[Kurald Galain]

But Kurald is has the same benefits as sickening all enemies, no save, within 30 ft. That is like a 4th level spell (in fact, that is a Wu jen spell). You get it at 8th level so it is level appropriate.

Okay, let me paraphrase that. Sickening a group of people with no save is indeed a pretty good effect. However, this ability suffers from two drawbacks. The first is its short range. The second is that several 3rd, 4th or 5th level enchantment spells exist that take an enemy out of the combat entirely, so an 8th (or 9th) level enchanter would be better off using those in combat.

[Fluffles]

The lack of a Concentration skill rather screws over Diamond Mind specialist, or those (Like me) who rely on it so that they can have beastly saves. (+40 at level 11? Hells yeah!)

[Saph]

I still have to disagree with this. A wizard can now easily max ranks in Stealth, Perception, and Acrobatics, while at the same time keeping his spellcraft and 2-4 favorite knowledges maxed. No other class benefits as much from the pathfinder skill change.

A fighter can max ranks in Stealth, Perception, and Acrobatics and get exactly the same benefit. In fact, every class can max Stealth, Perception, and Acrobatics if they want to. Wizards don't get anything that every other class doesn't get as well.

[Oslecamo]

So, it seems like the final version of pathfiner actually managed to solve most of the free beta version problems, huh?

[pres_man]

A fighter can max ranks in Stealth, Perception, and Acrobatics and get exactly the same benefit. In fact, every class can max Stealth, Perception, and Acrobatics if they want to. Wizards don't get anything that every other class doesn't get as well.

While that may be true, when comparing the 3.5 wizard to the PF wizard, it might be worth pointing out. You have to take a holistic approach, not a piecemeal one.

[imperialspectre]

A fighter can max ranks in Stealth, Perception, and Acrobatics and get exactly the same benefit. In fact, every class can max Stealth, Perception, and Acrobatics if they want to. Wizards don't get anything that every other class doesn't get as well.

Wizards are uniquely benefited by having easier skill access because they are the only truly INT-dependent class in core. If you're starting with a maxed Intelligence score, putting every single ability increase there, and prioritizing Intelligence for your item ability boosts, you're going to benefit far more from easy access to cross-class skills than a fighter who might have INT 13 for Expertise. This is the same reason why 6+INT skill points for a beguiler makes a beguiler a flatly better skillmonkey than a rogue with 8+INT.

This doesn't mean that other classes don't benefit from having easier cross-class skill access, it means that wizards benefit more (and when Dreamscarred Press releases their psionics system for Pathfinder, psions will also benefit disproportionately).

[Murdim]

A fighter can max ranks in Stealth, Perception, and Acrobatics and get exactly the same benefit. In fact, every class can max Stealth, Perception, and Acrobatics if they want to. Wizards don't get anything that every other class doesn't get as well.
Well, there's that little unimportant thing called Intelligence that wizards tend to favor much more than any other basic class for some reason, and which happen to give bonus skills points as a side effect. Wizards can now spend their 6+ 7+ 8+ skill points a level* in the skills they want without any restriction. Which means that they're about as competent in skills as the dedicated monkey classes, in addition to everything else. And it becomes more and more obvious in higher levels, as their Int modifiers grows bigger while the class skill bonuses end up completely negligible.

Curiously, some people see this as unfair.


* That's for a level 1 human wizard with maxed Int. Which is, by far, the most popular archetype.

[Saph]

Wizards are uniquely benefited by having easier skill access because they are the only truly INT-dependent class in core. If you're starting with a maxed Intelligence score, putting every single ability increase there, and prioritizing Intelligence for your item ability boosts, you're going to benefit far more from easy access to cross-class skills than a fighter who might have INT 13 for Expertise.

But there's no particular benefit in having lots of skills unless you're going to be making a habit of using them. Sure, a Wizard can spend his skill points on physical and social skills instead of Knowledges, but it's more for flavour than for any mechanical benefit, because most of the skills in 3.5 and Pathfinder aren't that useful for a primary arcanist. A rogue needs Perception to spot traps before he walks into them; he needs Disable Device, Bluff, and Stealth because part of his job is to be a stealthy infiltrator; he needs Acrobatics because he's going to be tumbling to flank all the time. Wizards, on the other hand, usually spend their time hanging out at the back of the party casting spells. Out of the above list, the only skill that my Pathfinder wizard has used so far is Perception.

The D&D skill system tends to encourage specialisation; unless it's a skill that everyone in the party has to roll, you're usually better off leaving the job to the specialist.

[Stephen_E]

Okay, let me paraphrase that. Sickening a group of people with no save is indeed a pretty good effect. However, this ability suffers from two drawbacks. The first is its short range. The second is that several 3rd, 4th or 5th level enchantment spells exist that take an enemy out of the combat entirely, so an 8th (or 9th) level enchanter would be better off using those in combat.

Can you please name these 3rd, 4th and 5th level enchantment spells that take out a group of enemies without a save?

If the spells don't meet these requirements you're merely comparing apples and oranges.

Stephen E

[Stephen_E]

You're still avoid the elephant in the room. You really wanna be a Wizard who's within 30 ft of all enemies?

I'm sorry, you get a choice in the matter?
Clearly you have an overly generous GM.

Or are you suggesting that the rest of the party will be by the enemiy while you're 100' back. That translates as your're with the enemy and the rest of the party are 100' away with the decoys.

The elephant in the room is sitting on you. We're trying to be polite and avoiding mentioning that fact, but if you insist.:smallwink:

Stephen E

[Starbuck_II]

Can you please name these 3rd, 4th and 5th level enchantment spells that take out a group of enemies without a save?

If the spells don't meet these requirements you're merely comparing apples and oranges.

Stephen E
Using Spell Compendruim + PHB I found none.
3rd:
Suggestion: single target + save
Deep slumber area + save
Hold Person: single target + save.
Mesmerizing gaze affects a group with save, but fascinate can't be used in combat so you'd need surprise.
Ray of dizziness is single target no save.
4th:
Charm Monster: single target with save.
Confusion is area, but save.
Crushing Despair is like enchanters aura with save.
5th:
Dominate Person: single taget + save
Hold Monster single target + save.
Symbol of sleep requires a save.
Feeblemind: single target + save

Does Complete Arcane have some that are no save that Wizards get?

Now you can argue Metamagic rod-Chain to make the spells that are single target to multi-target, but that lowers DC. And very expensive for low levels (Even lesser).

[Kurald Galain]

Can you please name these 3rd, 4th and 5th level enchantment spells that take out a group of enemies without a save?
I never said that.

Taking out one enemy is better than giving a minor penalty to a nearby group.

[Starbuck_II]

I never said that.

Taking out one enemy is better than giving a minor penalty to a nearby group.

So are you saying Crushing Despair should be a lower level? It does exactly what aura does but with save. Ironically same Range/area.

[Stephen_E]

I never said that.

Taking out one enemy is better than giving a minor penalty to a nearby group.

{Scrubbed}

[Gorbash]

I'm sorry, you get a choice in the matter?
Clearly you have an overly generous GM.

No, I'm just overly cautious. Being an Earth Dreamer, my wizard can both see and move through the walls, making it highly improbable that something will get a jump on us, if we're in a dungeon. Even if something does ambush us somewhere else, my first action would be to either dimension door about 400 away. Not stick around in order to give enemies a penalty and get slaughtered in turn.


So taking out 1 orc is better than putting a significant penalty on all the Orcs.

-2 isn't significant. It's an ok penalty, not crippling. But past level 8, it can be ignored.

[Stephen_E]

Taking out one enemy is better than giving a minor penalty to a nearby group.

Sorry, my previous post probably came across as insulting.
Rewritten -

Applying your general statement to a specific situation it could read as -

"taking out a single orc is better than giving a significant penalty to all the orcs".

In such a situation your general statement become extremly poor tactical advice. IMO this is sufficient to discredit it as a general argument by making clear that as a tactic it is extremly situational dependant as to value.

Stephen E

[Stephen_E]

No, I'm just overly cautious. Being an Earth Dreamer, my wizard can both see and move through the walls, making it highly improbable that something will get a jump on us, if we're in a dungeon. Even if something does ambush us somewhere else, my first action would be to either dimension door about 400 away. Not stick around in order to give enemies a penalty and get slaughtered in turn.

Blink..., "can both see and move through walls" blink..., well yes, if you're playing some really powerful splatbook PrC I'd imagine that most Pathfinder stuff seems pretty weak.




-2 isn't significant. It's an ok penalty, not crippling. But past level 8, it can be ignored.

-2 on both attack, save, damage and skill/ability checks is almost always going to be a 10% mod to the rolls, and if you fighting a bunch of mooks you may be talking about reducing there chance of hitting by as much as 50%.

Again we're getting the "in some situations" been taken as "in all situations".
This simply isn't true.

Stephen E

[Gorbash]

Blink..., "can both see and move through walls" blink..., well yes, if you're playing some really powerful splatbook PrC I'd imagine that most Pathfinder stuff seems pretty weak.

Lol, Earth Dreamer really powerful? Races of Stone, pg. 110. It's good only because it has 5/5 spellcasting, the rest is mediocre. And I'm not comparing it to Pathfinder I'm just saying that how can ambushes be avoided, in this case, in 3.5. Point still stands that when you get ambushed, when you're a wizard, you usually try to distance yourself from opponents.


-2 on both attack, save, damage and skill/ability checks is almost always going to be a 10% mod to the rolls, and if you fighting a bunch of mooks you may be talking about reducing there chance of hitting by as much as 50%.

If mooks have an attack modifier of +4 then yeah. But mooks aren't much of a threat to begin with, and like I said, past level 8, when saves and attack modifiers are at about 15, a -2 penalty is truly mediocre.

Don't get me wrong, sickened is a really nice condition for your enemies and spells like Ray of Sickness are a good choice for quicken spell... But at mid levels not worth a standard action.

[Stephen_E]

Lol, Earth Dreamer really powerful? Races of Stone, pg. 110. It's good only because it has 5/5 spellcasting, the rest is mediocre. And I'm not comparing it to Pathfinder I'm just saying that how can ambushes be avoided, in this case, in 3.5. Point still stands that when you get ambushed, when you're a wizard, you usually try to distance yourself from opponents.

You can't distance yourself from the enemy without distancing yourself from your party, unless they a pure ranged attack party.
If you are standing well away from the rest of the party what's to stop the GM saying "and 20 enemy fly/diemension door, pop out of the ground, ect, and surround you."

Been within 30' of the enemy means you're with the rest of the party who can hopefully protect you from the enemy.



[/quote]If mooks have an attack modifier of +4 then yeah. But mooks aren't much of a threat to begin with, and like I said, past level 8, when saves and attack modifiers are at about 15, a -2 penalty is truly mediocre.
.[/QUOTE]

What has the mooks absolute attack mods and saves got to do with anything. It's the relative att vs defense and save vs DC that matters.
If they have attack +15 and your fighters have AC 32, a -2 to their attack reduces there chance to hit by 50%. I don't know about you, but I consider that significant.

Stephen E

[Raewyn]

Something I think Saph missed in the Paladin section is that pallies cast off of CHA now. Makes them a little less MAD, something I highly approve of. :smallcool:

[Saph]

Something I think Saph missed in the Paladin section is that pallies cast off of CHA now. Makes them a little less MAD, something I highly approve of. :smallcool:

Quite right, I missed that. Very handy; they now get more bonus spells and can use Wis as a dump stat.

[Akal Saris]

Wow, I never noticed that change to paladins! Very cool =)

I'm actually a fan of the conjurer's extended summoning ability, since it makes summoning at levels 1-3 viable for the conjurer, unlike the cleric. It gets better if you use another PF feat from the adventure paths that only specialist wizards can take, which makes their summoning a standard action.

I agree that Saph underestimated the advantages that wizards get in the new skills system as well as the diviner's ability, but I'm with her on the enchanter aura - it's OK, but nothing to die for. If the DM houserules it to be a free action (or provides a homebrew feat to make it a free action), however, then it's very nice - and given how mediocre the enchanter's other powers are and how save-reliant the enchanter is, that wouldn't be such a bad call either.

And who are these insane wizards that are staying within 30" of their opponents? My wizard has move actions and knows how to use them - after the first round or maybe 2 of combat, he's never within 30ft if I can help it.

[Starbuck_II]

Wow, I never noticed that change to paladins! Very cool =)

I'm actually a fan of the conjurer's extended summoning ability, since it makes summoning at levels 1-3 viable for the conjurer, unlike the cleric. It gets better if you use another PF feat from the adventure paths that only specialist wizards can take, which makes their summoning a standard action.

Wait, they made a Class feature for the Wizard into a feat? (Unearthed Arcana lets a Wizard give up Familiar I think for that ability).

[Gnaeus]

Out of the above list, the only skill that my Pathfinder wizard has used so far is Perception.

The D&D skill system tends to encourage specialisation; unless it's a skill that everyone in the party has to roll, you're usually better off leaving the job to the specialist.

Stealth is usually a skill everyone has to roll when your group is sneaking up a corridor. It helps to have a high stealth when you cast invisibility and people are trying to find you. Acrobatics, like tumble, is used for dodging away from enemies that get too close (and my 3.5 wizard has had to use occasional balance checks as well, so while I wouldn't go so far as to call it useful, it is nice to have).

[Saph]

I'm actually a fan of the conjurer's extended summoning ability, since it makes summoning at levels 1-3 viable for the conjurer, unlike the cleric. It gets better if you use another PF feat from the adventure paths that only specialist wizards can take, which makes their summoning a standard action.

That would help. As a wizard, the general problem with Summon Monster and similar spells is that, if you're going to be spending all your time casting spells on the Cleric list, you might as well just play a Cleric in the first place. If it's possible to get their summoning abilities up to a decent level it might be worth it, but I still can't help thinking a Druid would do it better.


Stealth is usually a skill everyone has to roll when your group is sneaking up a corridor.

If you're next to the fullplate-wearing cleric, it really doesn't matter much how stealthy the other PCs are. :P

[Hurlbut]

Um doesn't PF clerics wear only up to medium armors?

[Kylarra]

Sorry, my previous post probably came across as insulting.
Rewritten -

Applying your general statement to a specific situation it could read as -

"taking out a single orc is better than giving a significant penalty to all the orcs".

In such a situation your general statement become extremly poor tactical advice. IMO this is sufficient to discredit it as a general argument by making clear that as a tactic it is extremly situational dependant as to value.

Stephen EIt's all the orcs within 30' of you, if there's a significant number that would be affected by this, you may be doing something else wrong in the first place.

[Starbuck_II]

Um doesn't PF clerics wear only up to medium armors?

True, but full plate is one feat away.

[Raewyn]

If you're next to the fullplate-wearing cleric, it really doesn't matter much how stealthy the other PCs are. :P

True. Also, if the entire party needs to sneak somewhere, Invisibility Sphere + Silence is probably a better choice than everyone maxing out stealth. You get to move faster and your Beguiler gets to feel useful in incredibly hacky-slashy land. :smallcool:

[Hurlbut]

True, but full plate is one feat away.Well that's one feat that could be used to improve your spells, your channeling energy, item creation, and so on. But yeah it's presented as an option (I never understood why clerics have to wear heavy armors anyway, except for dwarf ones ;))

[horseboy]

I can see when the enchanter ability could be useful. In fact I picked for my sorcerer a couple of racial abilities that are very similar. One effects EVERYONE in 30' of me (including party members) but has a DC 12 Fort save. The other allows me to throw around 3+cha mod points of penalties before the dice is rolled a day as a mental free action.

I used the second last week. We were up against a dragon and 8 kobodls. I CC 7 of the 8 kobolds leaving the one with cleric levels and the dragon. Then I was pretty much done. I missed a couple of acid splashes and kept the dragon jinxed for -2 a round to help keep our CoDzilla tanking the dragon up. Of the three times I used it there was one miss, one breath instead and one hit.

Had I had the enchanter's ability then not only would the dragon have been affected but also the cleric, which would have meant that the healbot would have taken less damage while fighting that, two less damage to everyone on that breath attack and two less on CoDzilla when it did hit. He would have been conscious one more round and would have probably even killed it instead of me.

Now the question ultimately is: "Are encounters like this common at 8th level in your GM's campaign as they are at 1st level in ours?"

And yes, I was inside of 30' of them. Why? Because the corridor turned behind us and if I was farther I wouldn't have had LoS.

[Gnaeus]

True. Also, if the entire party needs to sneak somewhere, Invisibility Sphere + Silence is probably a better choice than everyone maxing out stealth. You get to move faster and your Beguiler gets to feel useful in incredibly hacky-slashy land. :smallcool:

I would much rather enchant my cleric's armor to Silent Moves and have him walk 20-30 feet behind the party than walk around under a silence effect with a group of casters.

Your beguiler is a stealth expert, and if played with any degree of competency shouldn't have any problem feeling useful in any land in which he finds himself.

[imperialspectre]

True. Also, if the entire party needs to sneak somewhere, Invisibility Sphere + Silence is probably a better choice than everyone maxing out stealth. You get to move faster and your Beguiler gets to feel useful in incredibly hacky-slashy land. :smallcool:

Actually, funny story - an invisible character can still be spotted; it's just +20 to the Hide check. That means that if you have a half-decent scout, any of a number of outsiders, or a dragon on the other side, chances are you're still going to be detected from about 10th level on.

Having ranks in stealth is actually kind of a big deal.

(This ends the latest installment of "things I've learned from Test of Spite.")

[arguskos]

Actually, funny story - an invisible character can still be spotted; it's just +20 to the Hide check. That means that if you have a half-decent scout, any of a number of outsiders, or a dragon on the other side, chances are you're still going to be detected from about 10th level on.

Having ranks in stealth is actually kind of a big deal.

(This ends the latest installment of "things I've learned from Test of Spite.")
Heh, it's a +20 while moving. +40 if standing still. :smallwink: Just a note there.

[Akal Saris]

Wait, they made a Class feature for the Wizard into a feat? (Unearthed Arcana lets a Wizard give up Familiar I think for that ability).

Yes and no - unlike Rapid Summoning, with Academae Graduate you can keep your familiar or arcane focus, but each time you cast it as a standard action you have to make a DC 15+Level fort check or become fatigued, then exhausted. I'd rather have Rapid Summoning personally, but both have their uses - and Acad Graduate is legal in the PF organized play :)

[Kelpstrand]

Yes and no - unlike Rapid Summoning, with Academae Graduate you can keep your familiar or arcane focus, but each time you cast it as a standard action you have to make a DC 15+Level fort check or become fatigued, then exhausted. I'd rather have Rapid Summoning personally, but both have their uses - and Acad Graduate is legal in the PF organized play :)

What is a fort 'check'? Because I haven't had a character with a bonus to his fort check ever. So I assume that it's just straight 1d20 vs DC 15+spell level?

Also, Rapid Summoning + Obtain Familiar (If Pathfinder, I assume it is fluffed for Bond as well) is basically the same thing but better in every possible way.

Why is something not published by Paizo allowable in orgainized play? Could I publish a book tomorrow called "Bobs Book of Druids" that gives Druids Wildshape in Pathfinder games, and d100 HD and have it be used in 'Pathfinder Organized play' whatever that means?

[Akal Saris]

Kelp, your post is strangely sarcastic and aggressively written, but here's the answers to your questions...

1. I meant a fort save - I'm trying to write a midterm paper and browsing the forums occasionally, so my mind's a bit fried =P

2. Yes, it is the same thing and better in every way, except that you're giving up a feat and your familiar instead of just a feat, and it requires books that might not be allowed in a campaign - and plenty of GMs would be irate that your wizard got rid of his familiar and then got it back later. It's a terrific option when available, but Acad Graduate is another option - what's wrong with that?

3. Because the feat is from an adventure path published by Paizo =P So no, Bob's Book of Awesome wouldn't be allowed in organized play - which is, btw, paizo's version of the RPGA and Living Greyhawk or Living City.

[Stephen_E]

It's all the orcs within 30' of you, if there's a significant number that would be affected by this, you may be doing something else wrong in the first place.

I think we have to face the fact that there appears to be 2 radically different types of campaigns.

1) The Wizard is within 30' of the ememy much of the time or he's out of LoS or cut of and surronded by the enemy. i.e. dead.

and

2) The Wizards is allowed by the GM to be a significant distance from the combat ussually without penalty or danger.

In 1) the Enchanter Aura is nice (not uber, but nice and worth using), in 2) the ability is worthless.

I've never played in type 2 campaigns.

Stephen E

[Kylarra]

I think we have to face the fact that there appears to be 2 radically different types of campaigns.

1) The Wizard is within 30' of the ememy much of the time or he's out of LoS or cut of and surronded by the enemy. i.e. dead.

and

2) The Wizards is allowed by the GM to be a significant distance from the combat ussually without penalty or danger.

In 1) the Enchanter Aura is nice (not uber, but nice and worth using), in 2) the ability is worthless.

I've never played in type 2 campaigns.I've not played in many campaigns where I can think that a -2 to saves was worth not casting a different spell at that close range to be honest. I'm not saying it's never worthwhile or that there's never an enemy within 30' of you. but rather pointing out that your generalization of one orc vs all the orcs falls into a rather specific niche of situations, since letting your squishy get surrounded by targets tends to be not the most optimal of situations.

[Kelpstrand]

Bad strawman Stephen.

The Wizard is not allowed to stay more than 30ft away. He is able to. Through his own abilities. Not that there aren't lots of monsters that would just not want be that close to the Wizard anyway.

What's the point of being an Arrow Demon if you close to close range?

[Nai_Calus]

But there's no particular benefit in having lots of skills unless you're going to be making a habit of using them.

...

What.

You ever-so-slightly have that completely and utterly backwards.

Perhaps Bob The Fighter doesn't use skills... Because he doesn't freaking HAVE any. Say he does have 13 INT, whoopie, he has 3 skill points a level, good luck taking much of anything past the basics.

"Oh, it's negotiation time? Yeah me and my social skills I couldn't take and the CHA I dumped because there was no point in even having it since I don't have the skillpoints to take social skills anyway will be over here in the corner playing Mario, call me when I can contribute again."

:smallconfused:

Same thing goes for every other class, not just fighter. Of course the cleric never uses skills outside of heal and maybe diplomacy if there's no Bard. He can't take anything else.

:smallannoyed:

[Set]

Various fighter feats are now less exciting than they used to be. Power Attack now gives better damage returns, but can't be adjusted. Cleave is weaker. Improved Trip & co are weaker.

While Cleave now gives you a -2 to AC until your next action, it triggers if you successfully hit, not just if you fell an opponent, which means your 1st level Greatsword-weilding Fighter now gets two attacks a round, so long as he hits the first one and is willing to accept a -2 to AC.

I like this much better than the 3.X 'deathblow' version (which I also kinda liked, but was much more situational). The deathblow version works great in Warhammer Quest, but I didn't find it useful too often during 3.X.

I've been playing a Barbarian in Pathfinder, and I've gotten to Cleave almost every round, so far.


Other than that one quibble, your experiences match my own, for the most part. Great write up!

[Stephen_E]

Bad strawman Stephen.

The Wizard is not allowed to stay more than 30ft away. He is able to. Through his own abilities. Not that there aren't lots of monsters that would just not want be that close to the Wizard anyway.

What's the point of being an Arrow Demon if you close to close range?

GM trumps Wizard.
No, the Wizard can't just stay more than 30' away from the enemy through his own abilities.

Well not unless you're playing a game where the Wizard PC is more powerful than the GM.:smallfrown:


Stephen E

[Stephen_E]

I've not played in many campaigns where I can think that a -2 to saves was worth not casting a different spell at that close range to be honest. I'm not saying it's never worthwhile or that there's never an enemy within 30' of you. but rather pointing out that your generalization of one orc vs all the orcs falls into a rather specific niche of situations, since letting your squishy get surrounded by targets tends to be not the most optimal of situations.

Try reading the Aura ability again.

You'll see that the aura does more than give a -2 to saves.
It's has been pointed out a several times.

The Orcs scenario wasn't a generalisation. It was a specific situation (although a not uncommon type of situation) chosen to show the glaring flaws in the overarching generalisation offered up to support the "Aura sucks" claim.

The unwilingness to get down to specific spell details on the part of the "Aura sucks" brigade as compared to the extensive list put up by someone showing the limits of the other spell choices available says a lot about the case.

Stephen E

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Ease up on the hostility in here folks before you get yourselves in a mess.

[Stephen_E]

...


"Oh, it's negotiation time? Yeah me and my social skills I couldn't take and the CHA I dumped because there was no point in even having it since I don't have the skillpoints to take social skills anyway will be over here in the corner playing Mario, call me when I can contribute again."


I've never let a lack of skill in diplomacy stop me doing diplomacy if I wanted to, and if my idea is good enough I can often be very effective.
I also recall a player been miffed when his high Dip skill Warlock walked up to a powerful merchant prince in the middle of a resteraunt while he was having dinner with an equally powerful business associate and trying to diplome his way into the private conversation. We were low class people. He complained afterwards at the abrupt dismissal "But I have a awesom diplomacy skill".

Stephen

[Stephen_E]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Ease up on the hostility in here folks before you get yourselves in a mess.


Sorry. Will wind it back.:smallredface:

Stephen E

[Kelpstrand]

GM trumps Wizard.
No, the Wizard can't just stay more than 30' away from the enemy through his own abilities.

Well not unless you're playing a game where the Wizard PC is more powerful than the GM.

{Scrubbed}

If the Wizard casts Repulsion, the DM should not arbitrarily add +20 to the Fort save to bypass it.

If the Wizard has good spot checks, and 100ft Mindsight, and 60ft Blindsight, Trueseeing, and has a fast move speed, it is not the DMs job to punish the Wizard for having abilities by making them meaningless.

By your incredibly bad logic, no ability means anything, because the DM can just RFED the group every five seconds.

The point of abilities is to show what you can and cannot do. If a player makes it so they are capable of staying more than 30ft away from 95% of the possible encounters within 5CR of them, then they should be able to stay more than 30ft away from 95% of their encounters. It is not the DMs job to pick the one monster that can close with them out of a hundred, and then have them face solely that monster. It is not the DMs job to arbitrarily add abilities to every encounter to negate the work they put in.

We are not talking about what the DM has the ability to do. Because the DM has the ability to arbitrarily add +2 to every possible check in response to the Wizard activating the Aura. We are talking about what sort of things are likely to come up. If a character can stay more than 30ft away from a significant majority of opposition, then it should be assumed that he will spend a significant amount of time more than 30ft away from opposition.

[Stephen_E]

If a character can stay more than 30ft away from a significant majority of opposition, then it should be assumed that he will spend a significant amount of time more than 30ft away from opposition.

But that's just it. You haven't demonstrated the ability for the Wizard to reasonably have the ability to stay more than 30' away from the opposition most of the time.

You and others have just laid down "Wizards have this ability" and expect everyone, including GM's to accept it. To be fair if you put GM's in the posistion of letting you get away with it or killing your character, they will often let you get away with it. But that's not because of the Wizards great abilities, it's because of the GM's kindness, and instead you turn around and say the GM is a ******* if he doesn't let you get away with it.

It's the inherent flaw from a lot of the "Wizards are better than gods" threads which are based on the assumption that the wizard will make all the right choices, the enemies will make the wrong choices, and spells will always be intereted in the way most favourable to the caster, at least against non-casters.

IIRC this is something Saph alludes to in part of her comentary when discussing diviners.

Oh, in case I didn't mention in previously, Saph, I loved your report. May not have agreed with all of it, but thought it was well done. The best I've seen on the topic.


Stephen E

[Kelpstrand]

But that's just it. You haven't demonstrated the ability for the Wizard to reasonably have the ability to stay more than 30' away from the opposition most of the time.

You and others have just laid down "Wizards have this ability" and expect everyone, including GM's to accept it. To be fair if you put GM's in the posistion of letting you get away with it or killing your character, they will often let you get away with it. But that's not because of the Wizards great abilities, it's because of the GM's kindness, and instead you turn around and say the GM is a ******* if he doesn't let you get away with it.

It's the inherent flaw from a lot of the "Wizards are better than gods" threads which are based on the assumption that the wizard will make all the right choices, the enemies will make the wrong choices, and spells will always be intereted in the way most favourable to the caster, at least against non-casters.

Wow, you have a +5 Torch of Strawburning there, but in the mean time, the rest of us have actual arguments to deal with.

Wizards may 'have' that ability, based on the actual abilities that I listed, based on the abilities listed by others earlier in this thread, and based on abilities that haven't been discussed because people like you are too busy claiming supreme DM power to point to anything that any monster could actually do to get within 30ft of the Wizard.

I am not talking about the DM 'letting me get away with it because otherwise I'll die', I am talking about 'letting me get away with it' because it is something I might be capable of doing. Even if they did close, there are many reasons why it would not result in death, but at no point is this a question of the DM choosing to hold back.

If a Wizard can see through walls, has a Spot check of +40, has Blindsight 60ft feet, and has 1/4th normal penalties to spot, sees four times as far in low light conditions, has 120ft Darkvision, 100ft Mindsense, Trueseeing, See Invisibility, has a move speed of 100ft perfect fly speed, and has an Init check of +30, acts in the surprise round, is never flat-footed and has abrupt jaunt, all at level 11, then no, it is not the DM holding back that allows him to stay more than 30ft away.

It is the DM using CR guidelines, and not using only Dragons on open fields with really fast fly speeds. Of course, even if he did use only Dragons with 200ft fly speeds on perfectly featureless plains, he still wouldn't even get to attack the Wizard, but he could get within 30ft, and he could almost certainly use breath weapons.

But you know what, if a DM wants to actually pose a threat to such a Wizard, the best way is not for him to say "11 Balors Teleport in all around you" (Anticipate Teleport, but let's say he doesn't have that) It is simply to use some of the hundreds and thousands of monsters with ranged attacks or easy access to them.

You want so badly to make this about nice DMs or monster incompetencies precisely because you are so very wrong. If someone says "I can stay more than 30ft away from most opposition." Then you have three choices:

1) Admit that they can in fact do that.
2) Investigate or counter the claim that they can in fact do that.
3) Declare that the DM can do anything, including strip you of abilities and arbitrarily add opposition that can in fact get close to you when it is not appropriate for the campaign. Something which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual discussion.

You choose three.

It is not incumbent on me to prove that Wizards can stay more than 30ft away. I have in fact not even made that claim at any point in this thread. If you wish to make issue with the statement "Wizards can stay more than 30ft away from CR appropriate opposition." Please do. But claims that the DM can go out of his way in order to stop you in some rare circumstances are no more relevant to the thread than claims that the sky is blue.

[Stephen_E]

If a Wizard can see through walls, has a Spot check of +40, has Blindsight 60ft feet, and has 1/4th normal penalties to spot, sees four times as far in low light conditions, has 120ft Darkvision, 100ft Mindsense, Trueseeing, See Invisibility, has a move speed of 100ft perfect fly speed, and has an Init check of +30, acts in the surprise round, is never flat-footed and has abrupt jaunt, all at level 11, then no, it is not the DM holding back that allows him to stay more than 30ft away.





Please detail how your 11th lev Pathfinder Wiz is doing all this.

Stephen E

[lesser_minion]

Neither of you are actually too far from the mark here.

The basic rule GMs are supposed to be following is to keep things interesting.

The exact wording in the DMG is "use the PCs' abilities to allow them to have more interesting encounters - don't just arbitrarily rule that their powers don't work.". That fits with Kelpstrand's argument.

The DMG doesn't mention it, but in reality the DM should also be making sure that major encounters are not trivialised by PC abilities - basically, the opponents should have done their research and come prepared as well. Occasionally that might mean that a wizard is unable to remain more than 30ft. away.

The bottom line here is that consistently neutralising the abilities the PCs have will lead to a horrible game where everyone plinks away with crossbows, while not doing so in the slightest will lead to a boring game where everyone breezes through every encounter. This is one of the cases where there actually is a middle ground.

I wouldn't take it as a mandate to get every ability involved at some point in the game, but I think there is some justification for the Aura of Despair being useful once or twice in a campaign. Even then, however, you have to sacrifice quite a bit for the benefits.

[porpentine]

Anyways...

Thanks, Saph, for the analysis. Good to have. Looking forward as before to the next playtests.

- Conjurers and Summonings: the changes to the SNA and SM lists do funny things to the class balance here. As far as I can see, summoned monsters are now better, by default, than natural allies...so while druids can still be summoning quantity, a Conjurer gets quality. (and as you say, Conjuration is a punchy specialisation to start with). This might make it worth a Conjurer actually investing in Augment Summoning. (Ditto some sorcerer bloodlines).

The Conjurer's dimension leap is also nice, as you say. It's a distinct drawback that it's spell-like, but it's still a great escape-from-grapple move, even if you do take an attack of opportunity.

- Illusionists: the 8th level ability is what makes it for me - basically an improved 8th level spell (quickened Greater Invisibility, with the rounds cuttable-uppable as you want). The lingering duration is also handy.

The capstone ability is a bit of an NPC ability, since all the high-level Concentration duration illusions I can find have Conc+1 hour/level durations anyway.

**

Setting Wizards aside, I suppose what I'd really like to see about the Rogue is how often they get sneaks in now. Especially with the social skill-and-feat combinations (but that's really asking too much of your group playtest :smallcool: ). So, is it worth taking Int 13, maxing Bluff and picking up Improved Feint and Greater Feint (since feint has its own limitations on foes...-4 or -8 or impossible, depending on type)? Or are Intimidate and the new intimidation feats (Weapon Focus-Dazzling Display-Shatter Defenses, bab+6) a better option? They're both quite heavy investments, since they need stat points, skills and several feats. I'm wondering if maybe a Rogue might be better off with 1 level of Diviner than either social feat path.

Barbarians: what I'm itching to know there is how the allocated rounds of rage play out. I can see you get very slightly fewer rounds, but it seems to me that timing them is a big advantage (and not much of a thing to keep track of). I'd also love to know - and this depends on build - how Strength Surge plays out with combat maneuevers. It looks to me as if a Barbarian with combat maneuever feats is really pretty tasty.

[Stephen_E]

I'm waiting for Kelpsrand or anyone else to detail out this Pathfinder with all these abilities that make it safe for him to hang back constantly 30' from the rest of the party, or at least whenever the party might concievably in combat.

Stephen E

[porpentine]

Sure, but everyone agrees the Enchanter's ability is more or less decent, and people seem pretty entrenched in their views on the more or less of it. So, it might be interesting (since it's a general PF playtest thread) to focus on the OP's actual playtests of PF - or someone else's - rather than letting the thread get stuck in a single rut.

Just wish I had some actual play testing to contibute.

[Kelpstrand]

I'm waiting for Kelpsrand or anyone else to detail out this Pathfinder with all these abilities that make it safe for him to hang back constantly 30' from the rest of the party, or at least whenever the party might concievably in combat.

So do you admit that your last three posts before this one directed at me were completely 100% wrong, and that the issue is not:

1) Who is more powerful, player or DM.
2) People with opinions different than you and with different play experience must have had the DM taking it easy on them.
3) Whether or not a Pathfinder Wizard has the specific hypothetical abilities I listed.

As you have previously claimed?

Are you willing to admit that all of that was a huge strawman and that the actual issue is whether or not Wizards can in fact stay more than 30ft away from appropriate opposition a majority of the time?

Because I see no reason to have any further discussion with someone who will merely strawman away, and then, once I have convinced him of my position so well that he actually begins to argue it, will still be needlessly confrontational and refuse to admit previous error.

[Stephen_E]

Fair enough.
I'm in the Runelords campaign with a 3 person party.
We started in Beta and moved to core when it came out.

We have -
4th lev Paladin Half-elf- the player is prone to fits of feeling invunerable. A player who puts fluff over crunch and is the frequently surprised when he doesn't actually have the ability to do what he thinks he should be able to do.

2nd lev Bard, 2nd lev Sorceror Human - Started bard but the final changes to bard convinced him to switch to Air Elemental sorceror. Player makes characters he enjoys with a small amount of optimising.
4th lev Ranger Half-elf, about to take a level in Diviner-Wizard with arcane bond amulet (my PC). I do a fair anount of min/maxing optimising, but mostly to make sub-optimal builds workable.


Racial choice were somewhat constrained by the decision to be a human + half-elf twin half siblings and elder half sister of the male twin (no relation to the female twin).

Saph covered the Paladin well. Despite the players fits of suicidalness he's still alive. Really the Paladin doesn't give the player much chance to make choices to screw his characters advancement.

Bard: Started out nicely under beta with slighty boosted spellcasting.
Unfortunately the final bard version saw the bard restricted to rounds of song a day = (bard lev +1) x2 + cha bonus.
Continuing a song (performance as hey call them) is a free action, but the extremely limited rounds per day has reduced the main bard class feature into an afterthought "and they can do this as well".
The change to bardic knowledge from the "make your bardic knowledge roll to know something about anything" to modifying your knowledge checks. In terms of theoretical breadth, possibly slightly weaker, but in practical terms probably stronger in the long run, and vastly more interesting to play.
Overall the trashing of Bard song duration has gimped the class. The minor boost to spells still leaves them a long way behind Wizards and Sorcerors spellwise so IMO they;ve been even more strongly relegated to the role as runt spellcaster.
He seems to be enjoying the move into sorceror.

Ranger - still to low level to really tell. The casting and animal companion have been improved by making them -3 to your level, rather than 1/2.
They've give you a choice of feats to take as your combat style. Meh.
Instead of taking an animal companion you can gain a hunters bond where you can give your companions your favoured enemy ability. A waste in a 3 person party, but a strong choice posibly in a 5+ player party.
Rangers also get a favoured terrain, which acts similiar to favoured enemy but whenever your'e in the terrain type. Stacks with favoured enemy. Not bad.
Tracking - There is no Track feat any longer. Instead it's a simple survival roll that anyone can do, but the Ranger gets to add 1/2 their Ranger lev tothe roll. Meh. Makes things easier for the non-Ranger party but the bonus is pretty minor until you get to the point where tracking is rarely done, so who cares.
Overall IMO it's an improvement but don't expect to get your socks knocked off.


Stephen E

[Stephen_E]

So do you admit that your last three posts before this one directed at me were completely 100% wrong, and that the issue is not:

1) Who is more powerful, player or DM.
2) People with opinions different than you and with different play experience must have had the DM taking it easy on them.
3) Whether or not a Pathfinder Wizard has the specific hypothetical abilities I listed.

As you have previously claimed?

Are you willing to admit that all of that was a huge strawman and that the actual issue is whether or not Wizards can in fact stay more than 30ft away from appropriate opposition a majority of the time?

Because I see no reason to have any further discussion with someone who will merely strawman away, and then, once I have convinced him of my position so well that he actually begins to argue it, will still be needlessly confrontational and refuse to admit previous error.

Let me see. No, I don't agree with your characterisations of my views. If you wish I can go into the details of why I think your characterisations are incorrect (os should I say strawmen to use your terminology :smallwink: )

The issue isn't whether it the Wizard can try to stay more than 30' away from the enemy, but whether doing so is wise/sensible as a general tactic/strategy.

You have made a reasonably specific claim of how doing so was reasonably practical/safe for an 11th lev Pathfinder Wizard to do (I asume Pathfinder or the point was rather moot). I have asked you to support this claim with details on the abilities mentioned. Your response appears to be that unless I declare that you were right and I was wrong you won't discuss the matter with me.

Frankly that sounds like you're dodging backing up your claim of what the wizard can do (A strawman by any chance :smallwink: ) and thus you're leaving your disparegment of the enchanter Aura rather unsupported. I'd be pleased to have you show me wrong by contining the discussion and supporting the wizard abilities you described.

As for been needlessly confrontational. Given your earlier response to Akal Saris's post, this is rather like the coal calling the kettle black. I have gotten more confrontational than I should've through this thread, but I'll save apologies, if asked for, for those who have been on the recieving end of an undue confrontational tone. With the example of your response to Akal Saris, outside our own discussion, I don't consider you to be one of those deserving an apology.

Stephen E

[Kelpstrand]

Frankly that sounds like you're dodging backing up your claim of what the wizard can do (A strawman by any chance :smallwink: ) and thus you're leaving your disparegment of the enchanter Aura rather unsupported. I'd be pleased to have you show me wrong by contining the discussion and supporting the wizard abilities you described.

If only I knew how to ASCII art a Strawman.

Could you please point to any instance at all anywhere in the thread were I have either:

1) Claimed that it is possible for a Wizard to stay more than 30ft away from opposition. (As my own opinion, not my presenting Kylarra's argument as not being your strawman.)
2) Disparaged the Enchantment Aura.

Perhaps after you fail to point to any such instance, you might be willing to actually admit fault?

I mean not really, of course, you will never admit fault. You will of course make some other equally false accusation about my views to cover how incredibly wrong this one is.

[Kylarra]

Try reading the Aura ability again.

You'll see that the aura does more than give a -2 to saves.
It's has been pointed out a several times.

The Orcs scenario wasn't a generalisation. It was a specific situation (although a not uncommon type of situation) chosen to show the glaring flaws in the overarching generalisation offered up to support the "Aura sucks" claim.

The unwilingness to get down to specific spell details on the part of the "Aura sucks" brigade as compared to the extensive list put up by someone showing the limits of the other spell choices available says a lot about the case.

Stephen EOkay, sure why not? Mimicking the effects directly just gives us crushing despair,so I'll avoid referencing it beyond this point.

Assuming a group of enemies that need to be otherwise taken care of:

~Greater than 30'~
Black tentacles (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells---final/black-tentacles) is a decent way to negate a group of enemies that would otherwise be subjected to your aura of despair at range. It has a slightly smaller ranger (20' spread) but it isn't centered on you and you can fire it from well over 30' away.

Confusion (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells---final/confusion) -- What it says on the box.

Rainbow Pattern (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells---final/rainbow-pattern) - Follow the shiny lights kids.

Stinking Cloud (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells---final/stinking-cloud) - much more debilitating than the global -2 hit. Again at medium range so you can fire from more than 30' away.

Slow (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells---final/slow) - 40' away from all enemies is still 10' more than the 30' aura of despair range, plus the added bonus of not being able to be charged.

~Stuff if you're already within 30', but hopefully not surrounded. ~
(the above is still relevant, but these are a few more options)

Solid Fog (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells---final/solid-fog-1) -- stops movement, gives you time to prepare and/or get away depending on your preference at the time.

Fear (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells---final/fear) sends them away for your friends to pick off.

~if surrounded already~

Invisibility Sphere (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells---final/invisibility-sphere)/Greater Invisibility -- To take the other tact of not getting hit, you can now attempt to escape while being invisible. Plausible? Maybe.

Fly/Blink/Wall of Ice/Resilient Sphere - more escaping/holding out if you don't have any of the above memorized or usable. A few of the debuffs become harder to use since you're now in their area of effect, but eh.

~~~
I'll reiterate that it's not necessarily a bad effect, because yes another 10% to fail attacks and saves is certainly a good thing, just that I don't think it warrants a standard action in the majority of cases.

[Starbuck_II]

Okay, sure why not? Mimicking the effects directly just gives us crushing despair,so I'll avoid referencing it beyond this point.

Assuming a group of enemies that need to be otherwise taken care of:

~Greater than 30'~
Black tentacles (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells---final/black-tentacles) is a decent way to negate a group of enemies that would otherwise be subjected to your aura of despair at range. It has a slightly smaller ranger (20' spread) but it isn't centered on you and you can fire it from well over 30' away.

Okay, no true save as it is a grapple effect.
Nothing else you showed had no save.
Remember this is Crushing Despair without a save (yes, Crushing Despair has a save) effect. According to Wotc worth at least a spell increase.


~Stuff if you're already within 30', but hopefully not surrounded. ~
(the above is still relevant, but these are a few more options)

Solid Fog (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells---final/solid-fog-1) -- stops movement, gives you time to prepare and/or get away depending on your preference at the time.

Fear (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells---final/fear) sends them away for your friends to pick off.

Okay Solid Fog is no save. But that only gives time so still not gotten rid of them yet.


~~~
I'll reiterate that it's not necessarily a bad effect, because yes another 10% to fail attacks and saves is certainly a good thing, just that I don't think it warrants a standard action in the majority of cases.
True, it would be better with a move action or smoething.

But hey, buy a Belt of Battle now you can use it and cast a spell the same round.

[Stephen_E]

~~~
I'll reiterate that it's not necessarily a bad effect, because yes another 10% to fail attacks and saves is certainly a good thing, just that I don't think it warrants a standard action in the majority of cases.

Well I can agree with this part with the exception that I think a standard action is an OK cost (of course swift or free would be nicer...:smallsmile:)

Going through your spell examples, which are all good choices, but all also have theor downsides in comparison to Aura. Note I'm not claiming Aura is better, merely worth it's cost. Note the lev refers to wizard level when it's available. I've left out the last few because they seemed to going into a entirely different tactical area.

Aura of Despair - 8th lev, enemies only. No save.

Tentacles - 7th lev, All affected. CM to have effect.

Confusion - 7th lev, Save, all affected.

Rainbow - 7th lev, save, all potentially affected, up to 24 HD, may affect your side 1st.

Stinking cloud - 5th lev, save, all affected.

Slow - 7th lev, save,

Solid Fog - 7th lev, all affected (personally I'd consider this the strongest of all)

Fear - 7th lev, save, all affected, cone from caster.

And all of these normally take a standard action.

Thanks
Stephen E

[Stephen_E]

Could you please point to any instance at all anywhere in the thread were I have either:

1) Claimed that it is possible for a Wizard to stay more than 30ft away from opposition. (As my own opinion, not my presenting Kylarra's argument as not being your strawman.)
2) Disparaged the Enchantment Aura.

Perhaps after you fail to point to any such instance, you might be willing to actually admit fault?

I mean not really, of course, you will never admit fault. You will of course make some other equally false accusation about my views to cover how incredibly wrong this one is.

1)
The Wizard is not allowed to stay more than 30ft away. He is able to. Through his own abilities. Not that there aren't lots of monsters that would just not want be that close to the Wizard anyway.
You did not state in any way that this was not your opinion but merely you reiterating Kylarras opinion for arguments sake.

I can do more but you only asked for one.

2) Yes, you are correct. You didn't actually disparage the Aura of Depair. I was incorrect in that statement. While you went to the defense of someones argumet that was been used to disparage Aura, you didn't dispage Aura yourself.

In reference to the example I provided for 1) this is also where you misunderstood my comment regarding Wizards vs GM. You state that a wizard can stay more than 30' from his enemies purely through his/her own abilities. Since the GM controls the enemy and the situational envioriment your statement implies that the Wizard can stay away regardless of the enemies and situational envioriment. Thus you by default raised the spectre of the Wizard been more powerful than the GM. I merely responded to this.
If this was not what you intended to suggest you probably should've put some caveats in there.

On the otherhand your follow up with

If a Wizard can see through walls, has a Spot check of +40, has Blindsight 60ft feet, and has 1/4th normal penalties to spot, sees four times as far in low light conditions, has 120ft Darkvision, 100ft Mindsense, Trueseeing, See Invisibility, has a move speed of 100ft perfect fly speed, and has an Init check of +30, acts in the surprise round, is never flat-footed and has abrupt jaunt, all at level 11, then no, it is not the DM holding back that allows him to stay more than 30ft away.
Which further suggests that.

I will say that if you can have a 11th lev PAthfinder with all those abilities I'd expect them to stay quite happily more than 30' from the combat with no difficulty or danger.

Can you provide the details of such a wizard or will you admit that it was just a strawman raised by you?

Stephen E

[Saph]

Oh, in case I didn't mention in previously, Saph, I loved your report. May not have agreed with all of it, but thought it was well done. The best I've seen on the topic.

Thanks, glad you liked it.

Since a lot of people seem interested, I'll do the Ranger, Rogue, Barbarian, and Cleric next. All of these classes are or have been in our party, so I've had the chance to see them in action.

[Stephen_E]

Thanks, glad you liked it.

Since a lot of people seem interested, I'll do the Ranger, Rogue, Barbarian, and Cleric next. All of these classes are or have been in our party, so I've had the chance to see them in action.

Given our parties experiance with the Bard I doubt you'll see one of those without some houseruling in of non-pathfinder feats.

Stephen E

[Kaldrin]

Since a lot of people seem interested, I'll do the Ranger, Rogue, Barbarian, and Cleric next. All of these classes are or have been in our party, so I've had the chance to see them in action.

I would have played a monk in your party. :)

Seriously, I always hated the 3.5 watered down version after paying so much time and effort getting my original AD&D monk up to 18th... it was an epic struggle just to get that high. I miss that feel from the first edition. You know, where getting to the 'name' level was an accomplishment and warranted a party the next time the players got together.

[Paulus]

Wizard's-smizards, Pathfinder didn't fix any of the core mechanics problems (as far as I know and only from gleaming off of Saph's handy report!) so really arguing about them as being better or worse is silly. They can have as many different varied or flavor class features or differences of fluff as you like, but the mechanics are still problematic and the Wizard has the best vantage point to abuse those problematic mechanics. So meh. Pathfinder didn't seem to change anything in that department.

Melee however, has gotten my attention. I am saddened by the fighter yet happy too, I agree about the need for more skill points. I love me some melee characters (Factotum seems to be the closest thing to perfection I have yet found even if it uses the blasted point pool nonsense which I find so counter-emmersive) and I am also saddened by a Fighters inability to craft his own arms and armor - since they still have to be magical eventually for him to keep up, thus a mechanics flaw- so saying that. I would still consider playing a fighter since they now give me far more options to "make what I want" as opposed to "Make what I have too to be viable".

Still I have looked over the classes myself and seen Bard as being better in my opinion -In that- more emphasis has been placed on songs and performances, whereas it was nearly always second fiddle (bah dum pssh) to his casting. Unless you went maximize inspire blah bah. I always wanted more variety for bard songs and uses of them, so I am excited to see how they actually turned out.

also, in so far as Monks go, I'd really like to test them. But am somewhat saddened by what I see. Apparently they stay marginally the same with varied class features, including the addition of Ki point pools. Making them basically Ninja's. But I suppose it is better then what they were- I'll have to wait on the full report myself, my group won't touch Pathfinder. Not from any dislike, but because it would take to long to implement and we are fine with 3.5. *shrug*. Still thanks for your input Saph!

[Akal Saris]

and I am also saddened by a Fighters inability to craft his own arms and armor - since they still have to be magical eventually for him to keep up, thus a mechanics flaw- so saying that. I would still consider playing a fighter since they now give me far more options to "make what I want" as opposed to "Make what I have too to be viable".


Actually, fighters can craft their own gear in PF! :smallbiggrin:

From the PF PHB, reproduced for our review here:

Master Craftsman
Your superior crafting skills allow you to create simple
magic items.
Prerequisites: 5 ranks in any Craft or Profession skill.
Benefit: Choose one Craft or Profession skill in which
you possess at least 5 ranks. You receive a +2 bonus on your
chosen Craft or Profession skill. Ranks in your chosen skill
count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying
for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous
Item feats. You can create magic items using these feats,
substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total
caster level. You must use the chosen skill for the check to
create the item. The DC to create the item still increases
for any necessary spell requirements (see the magic item
creation rules in Chapter 15). You cannot use this feat to
create any spell-trigger or spell-activation item.
Normal: Only spellcasters can qualify for the Craft
Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats.

So basically, you can make them, though if you want any special magical effects you'll need a wizard to cast fireball or whatnot.

[Paulus]

Actually...

yeah.. but that relies on your craft skill. So you'd need Craft (armorsmithing), Craft (weaponsmithing) to be high enough alone to get you magic arms and armor. I don't even want to THINK about magic wondrous items. And as it has been mentioned Fighters already don't get enough skill points as it is...

and I won't even bother delving into how they'd need a wizard or outside spellcrafter to complete their items. Still, as I said, I'd play one. Though I am of course saddened. *shrug* mechanics.

[pres_man]

Um doesn't PF clerics wear only up to medium armors?

True, but full plate is one feat away.

And the white mage is only one edition away. :belkar:

[Stephen_E]

".

Still I have looked over the classes myself and seen Bard as being better in my opinion -In that- more emphasis has been placed on songs and performances, whereas it was nearly always second fiddle (bah dum pssh) to his casting. Unless you went maximize inspire blah bah. I always wanted more variety for bard songs and uses of them, so I am excited to see how they actually turned out.


It's a trap!

Yes, they did lots of interesting things with bardic performance... and then restricted you to a rediculously small amount of rds per day that you can use them.:smallfrown:

Stephen E

[Paulus]

It's a trap!

Yes, they did lots of interesting things with bardic performance... and then restricted you to a rediculously small amount of rds per day that you can use them.:smallfrown:

Stephen E

This was to balance out the whole "spells reduced to rounds" that people were grumbling about though correct? BAH, I don't know enough about it really, will have to wait for the report. :mitd:

[Akal Saris]

yeah.. but that relies on your craft skill. So you'd need Craft (armorsmithing), Craft (weaponsmithing) to be high enough alone to get you magic arms and armor. I don't even want to THINK about magic wondrous items. And as it has been mentioned Fighters already don't get enough skill points as it is...

and I won't even bother delving into how they'd need a wizard or outside spellcrafter to complete their items. Still, as I said, I'd play one. Though I am of course saddened. *shrug* mechanics.

Well, I agree that it would be much more useful/interesting if the fighter had the ability to enchant his own stuff with keen and flaming and what not, but hey, at least the option's out there for fighters interested - if you've got a 14 int for combat expertise, you can probably afford the points in a Craft skill.

The Spellblade in the Tome of Secrets for PF is a base class with enchanting his weaponry as his main class ability, actually - it's a gish-in-a-can class.

[Cedrass]

It's a trap!

Yes, they did lots of interesting things with bardic performance... and then restricted you to a rediculously small amount of rds per day that you can use them.:smallfrown:

Stephen E

Which is why I houseruled the bard to gain 3 more rounds per level instead of 2. I don't know why they thought Bardic Music had to be nerfed that way, maybe because, like Paulus said, they gave a more varied Bardic Music and thought it was needed for balance purpose.

I don't know, I'm just saying things.

[Akal Saris]

It's a trap!

Yes, they did lots of interesting things with bardic performance... and then restricted you to a rediculously small amount of rds per day that you can use them.:smallfrown:

Stephen E

Stephen, just take Extra Performance 1-2 times, just like most 3.5 bards did if they were playing from 1st level. It's not like there's that many useful feats for bards anyways.

Optimally, you can have 21 rounds of performance at 1st level - and most combats at that level only last for 2-3 rounds anyhow, so that could be 7 encounters' worth. Compared with 1 encounter in core.

More likely, you'll take Extra Music once and have around a 16 Cha, for 13 rounds, which is still enough music for 4 encounters/day at 1st level. A core-only bard in 3.5 would only have 1 encounter's worth, while one in a core+completes game could have 5 encounter's worth.

At level 20, a core bard is going to have 20 encounter's worth (or less if he uses multiple songs, or more if he goes into the completes for extra music), while a core PF bard will have 42+Cha rounds' worth - if a standard combat at 20 lasts 5 rounds, that's still about 10 encounters' worth (and more with Extra Music).

Seriously - it's not a big nerf, especially considering the faster Inspire Courage progression, spell progression, and new bardic music abilities. Or that you can begin singing as a move or swift action later on, and can cast spells & use magic items while singing.

[Paulus]

Well, I agree that it would be much more useful/interesting if the fighter had the ability to enchant his own stuff with keen and flaming and what not, but hey, at least the option's out there for fighters interested - if you've got a 14 int for combat expertise, you can probably afford the points in a Craft skill.

The Spellblade in the Tome of Secrets for PF is a base class with enchanting his weaponry as his main class ability, actually - it's a gish-in-a-can class.

Yeah, harkens back to mechanical problems. Characters must acquire magical means to survive. Therefor, classes without access to magical means will always be left behind. D&D is based on this, encounters are designed around the assumption that melee characters has sufficient magical items to do something. Melee in particular becomes very item dependent, giving them the means to overcome this aside from just purchasing stuff... ugh.

would have figured Pathfinder for all it's "we'll do it right" I've been hearing about from other people would have addressed these mechanical problems. I'm glad they are adding and increasing with the original intend behind it. But saddened it seems to be more of a bandaid usually.

Verdicts are still out though, so...

[Saph]

The Classes, Part 2


This next part of the guide covers the remaining four classes that I've seen in action: barbarians, rogues, rangers, and clerics.


Barbarians

Buffs

Slightly improved skill list; having Perception and Acrobatics gives barbarians Spot, Search, Balance, and Tumble, which they didn't have in 3.5. Oh, and barbarians are no longer illiterate.
Rage is now measured in rounds, not by rages. Each day the barbarian can rage for a number of rounds equal to 2 + Con mod + (level x 2). Quite useful if the enemy you're fighting dies after two rounds and you want to save the rest of your rage for later. The stat boosts for rage are unchanged.
Rage Powers - this is the main benefit. Every second level a barbarian gets a rage power, which is a special ability that only functions while raging. Most are along the lines of extra abilities like low-light vision or a bonus to skills such as Climb, which frankly isn't all that impressive. But there are a few standouts - Unexpected Strike gives you a free attack once per rage, and Superstition gives you a save bonus against spells and (Su) and (Sp) abilities equal to +2 plus another +1 for every four levels.
Nerfs

The total number of rounds of rage a barbarian gets per day is slightly lower. An 8th-level 3.5 barbarian with a 14 Con and an item that gives him another +2 Con gets to rage for a total of 24 rounds per day. The same barbarian in Pathfinder gets a total of 20 rounds of rage each day - but can split them up. I think the flexibility probably makes this more of a buff than a nerf, but it's still worth noting.
Like fighters, barbarians are probably going to be disappointed with the new Power Attack.
Going unconscious drops you out of rage! This means that being knocked to negatives while raging is likely death at low levels (and certain death at mid and high levels).
Verdict?

Not great. The barbarian's rage powers look pretty weak compared to what some of the other classes have picked up, and the change regarding unconsciousness and rage is awful. Barbarians were probably the top martial class in core 3.5, but it looks like they've lost that position in Pathfinder.


Rogues

Buffs

Hit Die is now a d8. Helpful.
Most of the rogue's primary class skills have been merged; they can max out Stealth, Perception, Acrobatics, and Disable Device and get the same effect that they would have done from maxing about ten skills in 3.5. This means they can now easily afford classic rogue skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, Climb, and Sleight of Hand, which 3.5 rogues struggled to find points for. There's no need to choose between a 'social rogue' and a 'thiefy rogue' anymore, you can do both.
Trapfinding now lets a rogue add 1/2 her level to Perception checks to disarm traps, and to all Disable Device checks, including opening locks.
Sneak Attack now works against creatures without discernable anatomies and against creatures immune to critical hits! All creatures are now vulnerable to Sneak Attack unless they specifically say otherwise in their description. Obviously, this is a pretty big deal, but depends on whether undead, etc. in the Paizo MM now have an immunity clause. I don't have a copy, so can't check.
Rogue Talents! Rogues now get a talent every even-numbered level, and they're good - about as good as a bonus feat. In fact, many are feats, like Weapon Finesse, and 'bonus fighter feat' is one of the options.
Nerfs

All classes can now detect traps, though rogues are still the only class that can detect magic ones. This means that at low levels, druids and monks will probably be better trapfinders than rogues. At higher levels, the rogue's trapfinding bonus should put her about on even terms with them.
Tumbling to avoid AoOs is now a hell of a lot more difficult. You don't get a synergy bonus from Jump anymore, and the base DC to tumble is now equal to the target's CMD, which can easily be 30 or more for a mid-level enemy.

Verdict?

Excellent! Rogues get the ability to sneak attack crit-immune enemies and a truckload of bonus feats, plus a whole bunch of useful minor benefits as well. The only problem is the nerf to Tumble. Rogues will have to come up with new strategies to replace the "tumble, flank, sneak" routine, but they've gained far more than they've lost.


Rangers

Buffs

D10 hit dice! Much needed.
Marginally better skill list due to skill amalgamation - a ranger can afford a couple more skills now.
Combat style feats now allow more freedom of choice, and you get slightly more (5 instead of 4).
Favoured terrain ability to go with favoured enemy. Very flavourful, and actually quite useful if you know in advance where your campaign's going to be taking place. Interestingly, you're allowed to choose "Urban".
Rangers can now exchange their animal companion for a group favoured enemy ability, though it's nothing great. However, if they keep a companion, it now advances levels at druid speed -3, which makes it less of a liability in combat.
Caster level is now also level -3.
Quarry ability: gain some decent bonuses against a single enemy. Lengthly cooldown, however, and requires 11th-level.
The Deadly Aim feat basically lets archer rangers Power Attack. Unfortunately, it's received the same nerfs that Power Attack did.
Nerfs

No Acrobatics. Lame.
All characters can now track. The ranger's Tracking ability now gives a 1/2 level bonus, like the rogue's Trapfinding, meaning the ranger's going to be second fiddle to the druid if there's one in the party. This hurts the ranger a bit as it takes away an ability that only he used to have.
Verdict?

Rangers did okay out of Pathfinder. Not great, but okay. Their boosts are relatively small, but they were mostly in areas that were badly needed (better companion and spellcasting, better HP, more choice on combat style feats). The favoured terrain is a nice feature, too. Archer rangers are never going to win any awards for power, but they're a decent class as long as you don't expect too much. Unfortunately, TWF rangers are still very weak.


Clerics

Buffs

Clerics can use their Turn Undead ability (now renamed Channel Energy) to do a 30' healing burst. Total healed to all targets is 1d6, going up by another 1d6 every odd-numbered levels. Not great.
Cleric domain powers have been buffed a bit. For instance, the Travel (now Liberation) domain's freedom of movement ability now also gives a nice aura effect at level 8 as well. The Luck domain reroll now works once per day at level 6, twice at level 12, and three times at level 18. The Rune domain gives you two powers and Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat into the bargain.

Nerfs

Clerics have lost their heavy armour proficiency - no more fullplate.
The cleric's Channel Energy (previously Turn Undead) ability is now far weaker against actual undead. Instead of knocking undead out of the battle or destroying them, it can only hit them for some weak AoE damage. The healing ability also doesn't discriminate between allies and enemies, meaning that if you try to heal your allies in the middle of a melee you'll end up healing your enemies as well!
Defensive casting is much more difficult. This is more of a problem for clerics and druids than for wizards and sorcerers, since divine casters tend to mix it up in melee a lot more than arcane ones do.
Verdict?

Clerics made a net gain of just about zero. While their new domain abilities are nice, the new Channel Energy ability is frankly terrible, and the armour and defensive casting changes are a major nuisance.

However, when you're starting with a power level that's over 9000, gaining nothing isn't exactly a big deal. Clerics are still full casters with free domain spells and they still have spontaneous healing and they still have good saves and a d8 Hit Die. In short, they're still awesome. They just didn't get any awesomer.

[Stephen_E]

would have figured Pathfinder for all it's "we'll do it right" I've been hearing about from other people would have addressed these mechanical problems. I'm glad they are adding and increasing with the original intend behind it. But saddened it seems to be more of a bandaid usually.

Verdicts are still out though, so...

Actually both the strength and weakness of pathfinder so far that I've seen is that their head designer seems to be of the Roleplay not rollplay school.

So you get a lot of nice little fluff mechanics, such as the sorceror bloodlines ect, but no actual carefully thought out look at long-term mechanics.

Stephen E

[Oslecamo]

Damnit Saph, you're making me love pathfinder more and more!:smalltongue:

[imperialspectre]

Saph, how does your rogue contribute to the party in combat? If the answer is "sneak attack," how does the rogue generate those?

I haven't played in an actual PF game, but I strongly suspect that the rogue's effectiveness will fall off dramatically in combat from about 6th level on due to the fact that it's very difficult to generate ranged sneak attacks, and that the small HD increase doesn't change the melee rogue's basic fragility.

[Stephen_E]

Optimally, you can have 21 rounds of performance at 1st level - and most combats at that level only last for 2-3 rounds anyhow, so that could be 7 encounters' worth. Compared with 1 encounter in core.


As I've mentioned I'm playing Pathfinder at the moment, in a pathfinder module. we started at 1st and using fast progression have reached 4th (we're going to standard progression after 5th lev). We have 3 players.

The shortest e4ncounter was 3-4 rds long, the longest about 25-30rds. Medium would be about 6-7 rds.

So no, not 2-3 rds for most combats. In fact that's be 0 combats that short.
And this is playing a pathfinder module.

The best idea I've seen is use the 3.5 lingering music feat that doubles the time your music lingers in 3.5, and say that it makes each rd you spend in pathfinder last for 2 rounds.

If you have lots of short combats (2-3 rds) it's slightly weaker than +6 rds. If you have the length fight our group has been having then it makes the BArd still worth having.

Stephen E

PS. Saying "just use your feats to get extra rounds" sort've sucks. It would be like halfing the number of spell slots wizards got per day and saying "just use your feats to get extra spell slots".

[Paulus]

Actually both the strength and weakness of pathfinder so far that I've seen is that their head designer seems to be of the Roleplay not rollplay school.

So you get a lot of nice little fluff mechanics, such as the sorceror bloodlines ect, but no actual carefully thought out look at long-term mechanics.

Stephen E

well its the mechanics that caused the biggest problem in 3.5, not the fluff. I do enjoy me some fluff though, and I certainly don't mind it being retooled- it does follow the same intent after all- so that okay, but I don't know if it's a good alternative if it still has the same mechanical flaws. Would be some nice variants I'd think.... but to switch completely? meh.

Speaking of... wonder how a PF Fighter would fit in a 3.5 world?

[Stephen_E]

well its the mechanics that caused the biggest problem in 3.5, not the fluff. I do enjoy me some fluff though, and I certainly don't mind it being retooled- it does follow the same intent after all- so that okay, but I don't know if it's a good alternative if it still has the same mechanical flaws. Would be some nice variants I'd think.... but to switch completely? meh.

Speaking of... wonder how a PF Fighter would fit in a 3.5 world?

They have fixed some of the mechincal flaws, depending on whay you considered those were, but little of it was done in any consistient fashion.

Thay have made it smother IMO. Thnings like a trip attack could take 5 dice rolls to resolve. Now it's a flat 1 dice. But perfect it aint.

This is why I like Saph's report. It isn't "Pathfinder! the next best thing to heaven" or "Pathfinder! the evil heretics, even worse than the pagan 4th Ed's"


Stephen E

[Starbuck_II]

The cleric's Channel Energy (previously Turn Undead) ability is now far weaker against actual undead. Instead of knocking undead out of the battle or destroying them, it can only hit them for some weak AoE damage. The healing ability also doesn't discriminate between allies and enemies, meaning that if you try to heal your allies in the middle of a melee you'll end up healing your enemies as well!


They can take a feat to get the old turn undead. Aptly named Turn Undead. It make undead flee as if panicked with a will save.
Sadly there is no save or die turn ability against undead.

[Stephen_E]

Barbs - 1 nerf you missed. Now when they fall unconcious they expressly state that you end rage. In 3.5 no such rule existed, although some assumed/house ruled it.

Stephen E

[Kylarra]

Well I can agree with this part with the exception that I think a standard action is an OK cost (of course swift or free would be nicer...:smallsmile:)

Going through your spell examples, which are all good choices, but all also have theor downsides in comparison to Aura. Note I'm not claiming Aura is better, merely worth it's cost. Note the lev refers to wizard level when it's available. I've left out the last few because they seemed to going into a entirely different tactical area.

<spell stuff>
I'm aware that all of them would normally take a standard action, have downsides, etc, my contention was simply that the majority of times, using these as your standard action would be a better move than a less than short range -2 debuff (to attacks/saves/etc, no need to have you call me out on not seeing it, when I was just being concise out of well ... lazy), generally being either a more powerful debuff that would keep you from being attacked or just being a more powerful debuff in general.

but I'll agree to disagree and drop the subject until another line of questioning comes up. :smallsmile:

[Saph]

Saph, how does your rogue contribute to the party in combat? If the answer is "sneak attack," how does the rogue generate those?

Well, our rogue seems to mostly enjoy sitting back and watching the party get into trouble, so he might not be the best example. I suspect melee rogues who want to sneak attack regularly may start taking Spring Attack, since that's now the most easily accessible way of avoiding AoOs. Failing that, there's always magic.


Barbs - 1 nerf you missed. Now when they fall unconcious they expressly state that you end rage. In 3.5 no such rule existed, although some assumed/house ruled it.

Yikes, that's awful. Getting dropped to negatives is now likely death for barbarians up to level 4 and guaranteed death for barbarians of level 5 and up.

[Stephen_E]

Yikes, that's awful. Getting dropped to negatives is now likely death for barbarians up to level 4 and guaranteed death for barbarians of level 5 and up.

Well techincally death is now at - Con or -10, whichever is greater.

So dropping to -1 isn't auto death until lev 8+....
Yeah, right!:smalltongue:

I've been told that you should keep track and drop out of rage before it will kill you, or play a 1/2 Orc which gives you a variant of Diehard for free, or simply accept that BArbs are susposed to die due to rage. It's part of the character concept....

As you may guess I was less than impressed with any of these.

Stephen E

[Tiktakkat]

Well techincally death is now at - Con or -10, whichever is greater.

So dropping to -1 isn't auto death until lev 8+....
Yeah, right!:smalltongue:

No, theoretically you can manage until 10th level.
(18 point buy + 2 racial ability modifier + 6 stat item + 5 inherent = 31)
It is at 11th level where greater rage kicks in and you drop 33 hit points on losing consciouness that it become auto-death.

Perhaps with some non-standard effects you can squeeze another level or two out of it, or if you are some sort of monster class with a higher racial Con bonus, otherwise you may as well just give it up at 11th level.
And of course that means level dipping into barbarian and using rage is just begging to start a new character.

[Stephen_E]

I just thought I'd mention one little quirk in pathfinder for casting cantrips.

Memorising a cantrip takes a spellslot as normal but when you cast it you don't lose the spellslot, which allows you to recast the cantrip as often as you wish.

Here's where it gets amusing. If you metamagic a cantrip with anything other than Heighten Spell, it requires a higher spellslot, but the spell level doesn't change. This means while a Maximised Ray of Frost takes a 3rd lev spell slot, it's still a cantrip and thus you don't lose the spell when you cast it.

A quickened Orb of Acid would take a 4th lev slot, but again casting it doen't lose the slot, enableing you to cast a quiken Orb of acid every round all day if you wish.

Not powerful, but rather funky. :smallbiggrin:

Stephen E

[arguskos]

About Channel Energy: it's worth noting that channeling positive energy heals living creatures. This has had great effects in my group (until the cleric died anyways) since it means the cleric can heal the whole party in one shot w/o wasting spells. If they weren't fighting undead, it was just gravy. It's worth remembering that little bit there.

It's nothing amazing, but it's a change I actually really liked. :smallwink:

[imperialspectre]

Oh, one other thing. The "flexibility" in Barbarians being able to stop raging whenever they want is entirely a nerf. If you stop raging halfway through the combat to try and conserve your rounds of rage, you're fatigued for what will probably be the rest of the combat, which is fairly rough for a melee character. This means that the Pathfinder rage forces you to keep raging once you start, for fear of being irrelevant once you stop.

This is particularly significant once you hit about 5th level, where the presence of effects like Ray of Exhaustion (copy-pasted straight over from 3.5) means that Barbarians have to start raging basically as a precaution anytime they fight a spellcaster - but in 3.5, they still have another rage in reserve, where in Pathfinder, they might be stuck raging for the rest of the encounter.

Oh, and by the way, the Barbarian rage powers are a great example of why melee is worse off in Pathfinder than they were by the end of 3.5 - adding one single book to core (Tome of Battle) lets melee characters do way better stuff than anything Pathfinder added. It is probably true that if you compare Pathfinder to 3.5 core, melee is better off by a narrow margin (although most of the ways to make melee actually good are gone now). I wish, though, that the Paizo designers had learned something from the 6 years' worth of material between 3.5 core's release and Pathfinder's release.

Edit: Arguskos, you have to pick now whether the energy wave affects living or undead creatures - so if you're fighting undead, you can either heal your friends or hurt the enemy, but not both. This happened after the beta.

[Stephen_E]

Technically the Paladin can lay on hands and heal you, removing fatigue, but that does lose the Paladin a standard action,. :smalleek:

Stephen E

[pres_man]

Well techincally death is now at - Con or -10, whichever is greater.

So dropping to -1 isn't auto death until lev 8+....
Yeah, right!:smalltongue:

I've been told that you should keep track and drop out of rage before it will kill you, or play a 1/2 Orc which gives you a variant of Diehard for free, or simply accept that BArbs are susposed to die due to rage. It's part of the character concept....

As you may guess I was less than impressed with any of these.

Stephen E

In 3.5, I always added the extra hps on the bottom and not the top. In other words, if the barbarian got 20 extra hps, then he wouldn't be disabled until -20 and dead until -30. If you are sitting looking at your paper and see that you are -15 and your rage is going to end in another round, you know you are a dead man walking, so better do some healing quick.

[Oslecamo]

Oh, and by the way, the Barbarian rage powers are a great example of why melee is worse off in Pathfinder than they were by the end of 3.5 - adding one single book to core (Tome of Battle) lets melee characters do way better stuff than anything Pathfinder added. It is probably true that if you compare Pathfinder to 3.5 core, melee is better off by a narrow margin (although most of the ways to make melee actually good are gone now). I wish, though, that the Paizo designers had learned something from the 6 years' worth of material between 3.5 core's release and Pathfinder's release.


So, if you try to add ToB to your game using pathfinder, the creators will send their super ninja squad to burn down your house while you play?:smalltongue:

[Renegade Paladin]

About Channel Energy: it's worth noting that channeling positive energy heals living creatures. This has had great effects in my group (until the cleric died anyways) since it means the cleric can heal the whole party in one shot w/o wasting spells. If they weren't fighting undead, it was just gravy. It's worth remembering that little bit there.

It's nothing amazing, but it's a change I actually really liked. :smallwink:
If they weren't fighting undead, then the cleric was also healing their enemies, unless he took the feat that lets you pick who is affected and who isn't.

[lesser_minion]

So, if you try to add ToB to your game using pathfinder, the creators will send their super ninja squad to burn down your house while you play?:smalltongue:

Well, the ninja is actually an Imperator Titan, and someone thought it would be ironic if the rest of them were pirates, but that's about right.

The bizarre barbarian nerf is, well, bizarre.

I'm still surprised that Paizo didn't keep the nerfed version of specialist bonus spells.

I'm still not sure where I stand with Pathfinder overall. It seems to fix more problems than it creates, but it doesn't seem like an absolutely incredible piece of work.

[Akal Saris]

As I've mentioned I'm playing Pathfinder at the moment, in a pathfinder module. we started at 1st and using fast progression have reached 4th (we're going to standard progression after 5th lev). We have 3 players.

The shortest e4ncounter was 3-4 rds long, the longest about 25-30rds. Medium would be about 6-7 rds.

So no, not 2-3 rds for most combats. In fact that's be 0 combats that short.
And this is playing a pathfinder module.

The best idea I've seen is use the 3.5 lingering music feat that doubles the time your music lingers in 3.5, and say that it makes each rd you spend in pathfinder last for 2 rounds.

If you have lots of short combats (2-3 rds) it's slightly weaker than +6 rds. If you have the length fight our group has been having then it makes the BArd still worth having.

Stephen E

PS. Saying "just use your feats to get extra rounds" sort've sucks. It would be like halfing the number of spell slots wizards got per day and saying "just use your feats to get extra spell slots".

Well, your play experience with a bard beats my numbers. Still, I play PF modules as well, and our combat rounds are much, much shorter than yours. Mostly its because we have a larger group (4-6 players), and partly because my wizard makes them shorter :smallwink:

I don't think it's a bad thing to suggest taking Extra Music - I took it on every 3.5 bard that started at low levels too, and I took extra rage on every barbarian I've played who could fit it in somewhere (and the same in PF). It's a bit like how druids need Natural Spell to be effective.


I just thought I'd mention one little quirk in pathfinder for casting cantrips.

Memorising a cantrip takes a spellslot as normal but when you cast it you don't lose the spellslot, which allows you to recast the cantrip as often as you wish.

Here's where it gets amusing. If you metamagic a cantrip with anything other than Heighten Spell, it requires a higher spellslot, but the spell level doesn't change. This means while a Maximised Ray of Frost takes a 3rd lev spell slot, it's still a cantrip and thus you don't lose the spell when you cast it.

A quickened Orb of Acid would take a 4th lev slot, but again casting it doen't lose the slot, enableing you to cast a quiken Orb of acid every round all day if you wish.

Not powerful, but rather funky. :smallbiggrin:

Stephen E

Oooh, does it really work this way? That's pretty awesome given the lack of decent swift round actions for low-mid level core PF.

Not that many cantrips are particularly useful to quicken though - I could see Dancing Lights for instant in-combat lighting and distractions, maybe Acid Splash and Disrupt Undead, and Message for sneakily giving orders to people. Spell Compendium's Launch Object and Launch Bolt would be pretty crazy with this too, if allowed.

[Starbuck_II]

Well, your play experience with a bard beats my numbers. Still, I play PF modules as well, and our combat rounds are much, much shorter than yours. Mostly its because we have a larger group (4-6 players), and partly because my wizard makes them shorter :smallwink:

I don't think it's a bad thing to suggest taking Extra Music - I took it on every 3.5 bard that started at low levels too, and I took extra rage on every barbarian I've played who could fit it in somewhere (and the same in PF). It's a bit like how druids need Natural Spell to be effective.



Oooh, does it really work this way? That's pretty awesome given the lack of decent swift round actions for low-mid level core PF.

Not that many cantrips are particularly useful to quicken though - I could see Dancing Lights for instant in-combat lighting and distractions, maybe Acid Splash and Disrupt Undead, and Message for sneakily giving orders to people. Spell Compendium's Launch Object and Launch Bolt would be pretty crazy with this too, if allowed.

Metamagic doesn't increase spells level. Check.
Only the spell slot used. Check.
Cantrips with metamagic (baring Heighten) are still 0th level for all effects. Check.
In PF, cantrips are not used up when used. Check.

So since Cantrips don't use up spell when used in Pathfinder a Metamagic Cantrip will not be used up.

[Gnaeus]

This is why I like Saph's report. It isn't "Pathfinder! the next best thing to heaven" or "Pathfinder! the evil heretics, even worse than the pagan 4th Ed's"

Stephen E

I am offended. Don't go associating the evil that is 4th ed with my perfectly innocent religion.

[Stephen_E]

I don't think it's a bad thing to suggest taking Extra Music - I took it on every 3.5 bard that started at low levels too, and I took extra rage on every barbarian I've played who could fit it in somewhere (and the same in PF). It's a bit like how druids need Natural Spell to be effective.


The sugggestion that it makes the barb better is reasonable. The fact that the bard needs you to do this to make it reasonable is bad.

Druids truly don't need Natural Spell to be effective. Natural Spell is one of the tools to make CoDzilla, but completely unnecessary to be effective.

I can understan the difference in combat times. Modules are designed for 4 players. If you have 3 everything is that much more of a struggle, everything is effectively a higher CR. If you have 5 or 6 everything becomes that much easier, effectively dropping a CR level or 2.

Stephen E

[pres_man]

Metamagic doesn't increase spells level. Check.
Only the spell slot used. Check.
Cantrips with metamagic (baring Heighten) are still 0th level for all effects. Check.
In PF, cantrips are not used up when used. Check.

So since Cantrips don't use up spell when used in Pathfinder a Metamagic Cantrip will not be used up.

Just so you know the official stance of the Paizo folks is that the "Cantrip" ability to not use up the spell slot is only for spells prepared in 0-level slots. If you use a higher level slot to prepare (even if not using a metamagic feat), you don't get to keep the spell after casting. There is no actual rules to back this up, but that is the official position of the staff.

Link (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/rules/archives/aLittleGemAbout0LevelSpells27x7c&page=5)

Folks, James is right on here.

If you use a higher level slot, for any reason, be it because it is modified with metamagic, or you just prepared it in a higher slot, it is consumed when cast, just like any other spell. Only when it uses a 0-level slot, it is not consumed.

There is some poor wording there that I am going to correct the next time I am able.

And please folks.. play nice.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

[imperialspectre]

Lulz. "Play nice" is Jason's solution to RAW that's poorly-written? However, that still puts him ahead of the WotC people, since their general approach was the Sage making an off-the-wall, not-remotely-RAW "suggestion" and then slacking off on errata. At least Jason has the grace to admit that his wording needs improvement, which means a lot.

Anyway, more on-topic, after examining the cleric more carefully, I don't think it's any worse than 3.5. In fact, I'd argue that it's substantially more powerful than in 3.5 core as a caster and not substantially disadvantaged as a beatstick. Sure, Pathclerics aren't going to be wearing heavy armor. Big deal. It's a couple points of AC that don't come online until 3rd level or so (because full plate isn't affordable until then) and don't matter very much after 6th or 7th level at the latest (by then, you're either AC tanking with the aid of magic and Mithral Full Plate, or you're not worrying about AC because it's not worth the resources).

On the other hand, if you're actually trying to zilla, the PF cleric buffs go a lot farther as a single spell than their 3.5 counterparts. Divine Power now gives you a bonus to attacks and damage that's almost as good as the Strength buff + raised BAB from before, and it hastes you. That took two spells to do in 3.5, and one of them wasn't core. Righteous Might is unambiguously better, since Dexterity is a dump stat, the Constitution bonus is higher, and the DR is closer to actually mattering. Those are improvements (and while someone may say something about Divine Power not stacking with Divine Favor anymore, casting both in one encounter is a fairly horrifying waste of an action anyway).

But many of the best 3.5 cleric builds didn't 'zilla; instead, they focused on casting spells. How did Pathclerics fare on that score? Well, the answer is "pretty damn well." See, the result of knocking clerics down to medium armor proficiency is to incentivize having a decent Dexterity score (which goes along with the infamous Cleric Archer, but we won't go there). And with decent Dexterity comes a bunch of ranged touch attacks that do 1d6 a hit and are usable a whole lot of times in a day. Consider the Air domain, which gives you a number of really good BC spells, a blast, a free pass against archers, and a ranged attack that you can make a couple times in almost every combat. Low-level caster clerics are a lot better off, and higher-level caster clerics haven't lost any of their toys (aside from a general nerf to save-or-die spells that I personally disagree with, but that's really not that big of a deal).

Oh, and the much despised channel energy ability is statistically way better than a max-level cure spell, which means that clerics have even less reason to prep healing spells (except Heal, of course) and still keep their party members happy. I'll trade a little bit of effectiveness against undead for a fairly significant increase in party-friendliness any day, especially since undead aren't really very strong opponents anyway (and the ones that are threats basically laugh at level-appropriate turning anyway).

Clerics are doing fine in Pathfinder. They certainly didn't lose much of importance, and a lot of the new domain powers are very good.

[Stephen_E]

If you use a higher level slot, for any reason, be it because it is modified with metamagic, or you just prepared it in a higher slot, it is consumed when cast, just like any other spell. Only when it uses a 0-level slot, it is not consumed.

There is some poor wording there that I am going to correct the next time I am able.

And please folks.. play nice.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Now this eptimises part of what I don't like about this guys attitude.

Some guys found a feature of the rules he hadn't thought of. It wasn't broken or abusable but it feels like brokeness or powergaming so he wants to kill it as a kneejerk reaction.

The gem from him was commenting on the nerfing of spiked chains. paraphrased "Just because it requires a feat to use a weapon is no reason for the weapon to be any better than a martial weapon" and some stuff about you paying the feat for the privlege of using a "different" weapon. :smallannoyed:

Stephen E

[Stephen_E]

I did look in at the PF forums the other day and someone was asking about getting official rulings in the rules questions area.
He was told that Jason and the others have pretty much stopped coming because they'd turn up, give a ruling, people would look at it, and then ignore it and continue arguing on how it should go. :-)

Stephen E

[Akal Saris]

Well, I'm sure it's frustrating as a game designer to read all the forums complaining about changes that you thought were a great idea at the time =P

Pity about the cantrips ruling, especially since it's more of a nifty idea than a combat-reliable strategy. My wiz doesn't have precise shot, so his ranged touch attacks are absolutely abysmal most of the time, as I tend to be shooting into melee at opponents with cover from my allies. And the opponents are frequently tripped by my summons or the monk, so I generally have -12 to my ranged attacks to start with =P

[Dracomorph]

yeah.. but that relies on your craft skill. So you'd need Craft (armorsmithing), Craft (weaponsmithing) to be high enough alone to get you magic arms and armor. I don't even want to THINK about magic wondrous items. And as it has been mentioned Fighters already don't get enough skill points as it is...

and I won't even bother delving into how they'd need a wizard or outside spellcrafter to complete their items. Still, as I said, I'd play one. Though I am of course saddened. *shrug* mechanics.

You don't actually need to meet the spell prerequisites for an item, it just increases the craft check DC if you don't, by +5 per prerequisite missed.

So that keen flaming sword isn't bad, really, if you add the enhancements one at a time, and you've maxed out your craft skill (as you should if you're going this route.).

I think it's worth pointing out that the high investment required for fighters to craft is very reasonable lore-wise, if not game balance-wise. It makes sense if a master smith can forge a sword of power, but it doesn't really make sense if village blacksmith #42 can churn out magic arms and armor because there's no rule against it. Some sacrifices have to be made mechanically for a bare semblance of similarity to the broad fantasy mythos that DnD-type games draw from. It happens to also wreak havoc on game balance, if your party has lots of trouble buying appropriate gear, just as an unfortunate side effect. Unless, you know, you have a party with a crafting-capable spellcaster in it that doesn't hate you. Then you're probably fine.

Blah, wall of text. Sorry.

[Shisumo]

the new Channel Energy ability is frankly terrible

I think this is really untrue, actually. In 3.5, turn undead is basically useless without a divine feat or similar ability to convert a turn use into something else - undead HD scale so much faster than CR that you're basically not going to see undead you can turn (let alone destroy!) after about 6th level, unless they were so weak you could have killed them just as easily without the turn use. In Pathfinder, the healing side makes the ability hugely useful (and frees up spell slots for things that aren't cure spells), and even for fighting undead, even some damage is better than a completely wasted action...

[AllisterH]

Who actually bothered memorizing non-Heal spells ANYWAY?

Wands of Cure Light Wounds/Lesser Vigor are your friends.

Really, I'm not sure why the channel ability is actually Needed. Unless I"m reading it wrong, it still not good enough to heal in combat (crusader is still arguably the best incombat healer) given the damage from compareable attacks
and PF makes it much easier to craft ANYWAY.

So why would you use Channel ability to heal in the first place?

[Shisumo]

Who actually bothered memorizing non-Heal spells ANYWAY?
I was thinking more sponcasting, but...

Wands of Cure Light Wounds/Lesser Vigor are your friends.
Let's say you get into a fight and all five of your party members end up taking 10 hp of damage. Using a wand of lesser vigor to fix everyone up takes a minute and a half, as well as about 75 gp worth of resources.

A 5th level cleric can heal the entire group with a single standard action, for free.

You don't see how that might be more useful?


Really, I'm not sure why the channel ability is actually Needed. Unless I"m reading it wrong, it still not good enough to heal in combat (crusader is still arguably the best incombat healer) given the damage from compareable attacks
and PF makes it much easier to craft ANYWAY.

So why would you use Channel ability to heal in the first place?

Free AoE healing is really nothing to sneeze at, even in combat. Channeling with enemies in the area is tactically rather challenging, particularly if you decided not to take Selective Channeling, but I have seen it used on several occasions to turn a near TPK into a fight where everyone survives.

[arguskos]

If they weren't fighting undead, then the cleric was also healing their enemies, unless he took the feat that lets you pick who is affected and who isn't.
This is very true, but it was mostly used in our games after combat was over and all the baddies were dead. Since the cleric had a good Cha mod, it was good group healing at a level (1-4 mind you) when such things are not easily possible. It was merely an observation and a mild defense I wanted to toss out there.

imperial: I know that. It was still nice out-of-combat group healing.

[Oslecamo]

The bizarre barbarian nerf is, well, bizarre.

I'm still surprised that Paizo didn't keep the nerfed version of specialist bonus spells.

I'm still not sure where I stand with Pathfinder overall. It seems to fix more problems than it creates, but it doesn't seem like an absolutely incredible piece of work.

So, just keep the parts that you like and throw out the window the rest.

For example keep the spell nerfs and use the original wizard and cleric. Then go out there and give the barbarian rages per day like in the old days, and make the extra rage bonuses work all the time when you rage.

[lesser_minion]

Well, that's pretty much exactly what I will do.

Does anyone have a verdict on the specialist bonus spells nerf from the beta (where they had to choose a spell as their specialist bonus spell every even-numbered level)?

It's actually one of the things I like, but it seems to have been a bit unpopular, evidently.

[Saph]

Oh, one other thing. The "flexibility" in Barbarians being able to stop raging whenever they want is entirely a nerf. If you stop raging halfway through the combat to try and conserve your rounds of rage, you're fatigued for what will probably be the rest of the combat, which is fairly rough for a melee character. This means that the Pathfinder rage forces you to keep raging once you start, for fear of being irrelevant once you stop.

I don't think this is true at all. I think you're falling into the trap of looking at all the melee changes and only noticing weaknesses, and looking at all the caster changes and only noticing strengths (as quite a few people have been doing for some reason).

One of the most common complaints you used to hear from low-level Barbarian players in 3.5 was that you'd go into your daily rage, and 2 rounds into your 7 round duration all the enemies were dead, meaning that you either had to waste the rest of the rage or charge ahead looking for more enemies. This helps with that. Most fights are decided in less than 7 rounds - quite a few are decided in only 2 or 3 - so being able to conserve your rage is useful.


I think this is really untrue, actually. In 3.5, turn undead is basically useless without a divine feat or similar ability to convert a turn use into something else - undead HD scale so much faster than CR that you're basically not going to see undead you can turn (let alone destroy!) after about 6th level, unless they were so weak you could have killed them just as easily without the turn use. In Pathfinder, the healing side makes the ability hugely useful (and frees up spell slots for things that aren't cure spells), and even for fighting undead, even some damage is better than a completely wasted action...

Yes, but the Divine feats in 3.5 that use Turn Undead are AWESOME. They let you do all kinds of crazy things. And it's quite possible with a bit of work to boost Turn Undead up to the point where you can dust vampires and liches with a single standard action.

Channel Energy isn't useless, but in combat, healing all of your party members while not healing any enemies is incredibly fiddly (the cleric in our group has yet to manage it, he always misses half the party or gets the enemies too). And if you're out of combat, just use a Wand of CLW instead. I've never yet seen a party run out of healing wand uses, so I don't think Channel Energy would make much difference for out-of-combat healing unless you're playing a low-magic campaign where it's hard to find items.

[Tehnar]

In my campaign, a player is using a barbarian using pathfinder rules, and I feel he is better then the 3.5 version. Skills, hp generation and the like is from 3.5, class features are from pathfinder.

I have always played with the rule that when a barbarian falls unconscious the rage ends. However I have a houserule that PCs die at -25% of their hp, so death from ending rage is uncommon.

As far as I am aware in 3.5 barb's could also end the rage in mid combat, the difference being that pathfinders barb's can resume the rage again in the same combat, while 3.5 barbs can't. My player has a potion of lesser restoration for those situations.

The rage powers are very nice, add new things the barbarian can do, from being immune to fear, rerolling a failed will save to increased damage reduction.

From my experience the pathfinder barbarian is much better then 3.5 one, in every aspect of the class.

[Paulus]

So that keen flaming sword isn't bad, really, if you add the enhancements one at a time, and you've maxed out your craft skill (as you should if you're going this route.).

I think it's worth pointing out that the high investment required for fighters to craft is very reasonable lore-wise, if not game balance-wise. It makes sense if a master smith can forge a sword of power, but it doesn't really make sense if village blacksmith #42 can churn out magic arms and armor because there's no rule against it.

Unless, you know, you have a party with a crafting-capable spellcaster in it that doesn't hate you. Then you're probably fine.



Emphasis mine, and snipped for space:

Fighters already have fewer skill points then casters, and fighters have much more valuable places to spend such skill points because they don't have spells to fill in any gaps they may have missed skill wise.

Second, yes it makes sense that a master smith is better than black smith number 42, but it DOESN'T make sense that a character who spent his entire life dependent on weapons and armor would be less capable creating them then random arcanist who doesn't use or even need them simply because the feat choice are more open to casters.

But this is all beside the point, the fact is magic items are still a necessity, there is no nonmagical means to counter magical means, therefore all character designed to be non magical will be at a disadvantage to magical characters. Hence, casters > noncasters.

if say an item could be forged with such skill, craft, and spirit or will imbued into it- the very nature of it resists Magic (SR) then you might have something. But for a melee character to be unable to properly arm/defend themselves against casters, when casters are the most dangerous thing they are likely to meet, seems poor design. And as we all know, no melee character becomes strong enough to fight the bigger and badder monsters without magical means. There is simply no way.

TOB went a long way to fix this... but... only TOB wise, it basically left all the melee classes before it in the cold. Which is why you see so many suggest Maneuvers and such for melee instead of anything else. Pathfinder doesn't seem to try and correct this mechanical flaw, which in itself speaks to me that they missed something. Still I wouldn't mind playing it, I'm open enough to get around such a system if my group doesn't require optimization to play.

*shrug* we'll see.

[Akal Saris]

A bit of a sidenote, but I think a reasonable house-rule if adding ToB to PF would be that swordsages gain the crafting feat mentioned above as a bonus feat at 7th instead of the sense magical aura ability, and could craft items as if they had a craft skill equal to their swordsage level +3.

Also, Good to know about not needing the prereq spells anymore, whoever it was that mentioned that! =)

[Serenity]

A fighter is by definition a master of weapons. It does not necessarily follow from that that he should know the first thing about making them. He can get by just fine on what he finds in treasure hoards, what he purchases from the magic shops, and the enchantments his wizard friend weaves into his weapons. If he dedicates himself to training in the craft of weapons, than he can achieve master feats of craftsmanship that mimic magic. Otherwise, it's only sensible that the person who studies and manipulates magic is better at binding that magic into a weapon or other item.

I agree that fighters ought to get more skill points--I don't think any class should have less than 4+INT--but with skill consolidation and easier access to cross-class skills, it's less of a burden for the fighter to buy Craft than in 3.5, and ultimately, the feat would seem to provide a good bonus for people who want to play an intelligent fighter.

[Hurlbut]

It should be noted that you aren't prohibited from using divine feats from 3.5 for Channel Energy, Saph. You just need to know how to convert them properly.

[lesser_minion]

I suspect that the rebranding of Turn Undead may have as much to do with making sure that people don't expect to be able to use it with divine feats as to do with the repurposing it received at the same time.

I doubt that magic items which confer bonus turning attempts were ever supposed to be used as they are in highly optimised play.

[Kelpstrand]

It should be noted that you aren't prohibited from using divine feats from 3.5 for Channel Energy, Saph. You just need to know how to convert them properly.

I also converted 3.5 maneuvers, 3.5 power attack, and 3.5 EBTs.

If I wanted to play a 3.5 character, I'd just play a 3.5 game.

[Jerthanis]

So reading over the Pathfinder rules, it seems like Paladins got better, but I'm planning on playing a Barbarian in an upcoming Pathfinder Society game, and Barbarians seem either worse or barely just as good.

Am I being pessimistic, or are they really not as good as Barbarians were in 3.5? If I were to play one, is there any workaround to make them more playable? Some feat that is a must-take?

[Cedrass]

So reading over the Pathfinder rules, it seems like Paladins got better, but I'm planning on playing a Barbarian in an upcoming Pathfinder Society game, and Barbarians seem either worse or barely just as good.

Am I being pessimistic, or are they really not as good as Barbarians were in 3.5? If I were to play one, is there any workaround to make them more playable? Some feat that is a must-take?

A guy in my group did one, and he was just fine. I'll admit the Rage Powers aren't that great, but think about it that way, you get more feats and you get more bonuses* (spelling?) when in rage. All in all, I think you end up at least a bit better than your 3.5 counterpart.

*: By bonus I mean the rage powers. They are nothing incredible, but you still get them while your 3.5 Barb does not.

Oh and really, like Saph said, just think a little more when raging, time it so you won't end up without any turns left in middle of combat. Yes it is more troublesome than it was, but all in all I prefer that way.

Get yourself a Fullblade and have fun!

[Starbuck_II]

So reading over the Pathfinder rules, it seems like Paladins got better, but I'm planning on playing a Barbarian in an upcoming Pathfinder Society game, and Barbarians seem either worse or barely just as good.

Am I being pessimistic, or are they really not as good as Barbarians were in 3.5? If I were to play one, is there any workaround to make them more playable? Some feat that is a must-take?

Must-take? Extra Rage (+6 more, stackable). Dodge is just +1 dodge so good feat (no more have to choose who to dodge on). Toughness is useful (acts like Improved Toughness).
Power attack is decent at low levels.

[Kaldrin]

I was just perusing the spell list today at lunch while I was at work and I noticed that Read Magic isn't universal. I guess the guy who picks Divination as his opposition school is out of luck if he wants to ever learn new spells...

[Starbuck_II]

I was just perusing the spell list today at lunch while I was at work and I noticed that Read Magic isn't universal. I guess the guy who picks Divination as his opposition school is out of luck if he wants to ever learn new spells...

In PF, there isn't a real prohibited school. You just need 2 spell lots to use it. So you can still use them.
So if a Evoc-ist wants to prepare web, he must use 2 spell slots. Not a good deal sometimes, but not a true prohibited.

[Kelpstrand]

I was just perusing the spell list today at lunch while I was at work and I noticed that Read Magic isn't universal. I guess the guy who picks Divination as his opposition school is out of luck if he wants to ever learn new spells...

Um? Wizards don't like, ever actually use that spell for that purpose.

It a DC 15+spell level check to decipher the scroll. They have an Int mod, and 4 ranks at level 1. And gain ranks faster than spells gain levels.

An Orc Wizard with 14 Int still can't ever actually fail the check to decipher a scroll that he can cast. Going from level 1, to level 20 with his 19 int.

[Stephen_E]

So reading over the Pathfinder rules, it seems like Paladins got better, but I'm planning on playing a Barbarian in an upcoming Pathfinder Society game, and Barbarians seem either worse or barely just as good.

Am I being pessimistic, or are they really not as good as Barbarians were in 3.5? If I were to play one, is there any workaround to make them more playable? Some feat that is a must-take?

I'd suggest you ask your GM to house rule a Rage power along the lines of -
"insert name"
As an immediate action on going to negative hit points the barbarian enters a state of physical stasis for 5 rounds in which they can't die except through a coup-de-gra or death effect regardless of their hit point total. They also lose no points from bleeding during this time. At the end of this period they are checked for death based on their current hit points.

This ability would allow a Barb to rage away but give him a 5 rd buffer for the party to save him after he goes down.

Stephen E

[Akal Saris]

I'd also ask to houserule that a barbarian will not die immediately if coming out of a rage voluntarily would reduce his hit points far enough to kill him - instead he stabilizes at 1 point before that.

[Stephen_E]

I'd also ask to houserule that a barbarian will not die immediately if coming out of a rage voluntarily would reduce his hit points far enough to kill him - instead he stabilizes at 1 point before that.

That works, but given the existance of rage powers I thought mine was more elegant within the game. :-)
Also has some nice bonus effects.

Stephen E

[Dracomorph]

Fighters already have fewer skill points then casters, and fighters have much more valuable places to spend such skill points because they don't have spells to fill in any gaps they may have missed skill wise.

Yes, this is true. I wouldn't mind seeing fighters with a few more skill points, either.


Second, yes it makes sense that a master smith is better than black smith number 42, but it DOESN'T make sense that a character who spent his entire life dependent on weapons and armor would be less capable creating them then random arcanist who doesn't use or even need them simply because the feat choice are more open to casters.

Actually, yes it does, especially given what a feat is supposed to represent in game terms. A feat represents a significant investment of time and training, or at least practice. It makes perfect sense that it would be easier for someone who has prior experience with magic to gain further abilities with it, as opposed to someone who doesn't have previous experience manipulating its power.

Further, as was previously pointed out, knowing how to use a weapon has no bearing on your ability to create one. I can't say I've heard of too much overlap historically between blacksmiths and trained soldiers, because those are two very distinct skillsets. Certainly, it is possible for a person to know both how to use a weapon and how to make it, but the capabilities are not at all interdependent.


But this is all beside the point, the fact is magic items are still a necessity, there is no nonmagical means to counter magical means, therefore all character designed to be non magical will be at a disadvantage to magical characters. Hence, casters > noncasters.

This is a problem, yes. However, that doesn't make the underlying assumption that mages are better at putting magic into items any less logical.


if say an item could be forged with such skill, craft, and spirit or will imbued into it- the very nature of it resists Magic (SR) then you might have something. But for a melee character to be unable to properly arm/defend themselves against casters, when casters are the most dangerous thing they are likely to meet, seems poor design. And as we all know, no melee character becomes strong enough to fight the bigger and badder monsters without magical means. There is simply no way.

False dilemma. Just because you can't create your own magic items doesn't mean you don't have access. People complain about the magic mart, but it's still an assumption of the system. Breaking the assumptions of the system certainly does aggravate its problems, but that doesn't really say much.


TOB went a long way to fix this... but... only TOB wise, it basically left all the melee classes before it in the cold. Which is why you see so many suggest Maneuvers and such for melee instead of anything else. Pathfinder doesn't seem to try and correct this mechanical flaw, which in itself speaks to me that they missed something. Still I wouldn't mind playing it, I'm open enough to get around such a system if my group doesn't require optimization to play.

*shrug* we'll see.

I don't really disagree that Pathfinder missed the cue from TOB, but I just don't see magic item creation as the primary issue.

[Kaldrin]

Um? Wizards don't like, ever actually use that spell for that purpose.

It a DC 15+spell level check to decipher the scroll. They have an Int mod, and 4 ranks at level 1. And gain ranks faster than spells gain levels.

An Orc Wizard with 14 Int still can't ever actually fail the check to decipher a scroll that he can cast. Going from level 1, to level 20 with his 19 int.

Scrolls... the majority of any kind of spell learning are books of other wizards. Thanks to Starbuck for pointing out it just takes two slots to prepare an opposition school though. Missed that somehow.

It should still be universal, in my opinion.

[Kelpstrand]

Scrolls... the majority of any kind of spell learning are books of other wizards. Thanks to Starbuck for pointing out it just takes two slots to prepare an opposition school though. Missed that somehow.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

The check for books is an auto success. The check for scrolls is an autosuccess.

There is no reason they would ever need to use Read Magic for that.

[Starbuck_II]

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

The check for books is an auto success. The check for scrolls is an autosuccess.

There is no reason they would ever need to use Read Magic for that.

True, but it can take many failures as I'm not sure if you can take 10.

[DeathQuaker]

I'd suggest you ask your GM to house rule a Rage power along the lines of -
"insert name"
As an immediate action on going to negative hit points the barbarian enters a state of physical stasis for 5 rounds in which they can't die except through a coup-de-gra or death effect regardless of their hit point total. They also lose no points from bleeding during this time. At the end of this period they are checked for death based on their current hit points.

This ability would allow a Barb to rage away but give him a 5 rd buffer for the party to save him after he goes down.


Alternately, if your GM is not obliging to houserule, and if it fits with your character concept (evasive barbarian with dirty fighting tactics?), dip into a couple levels of Rogue so you can take the Resiliency Rogue Talent (getting Evasion and a die of sneak attack along the way could be nice too).



Resiliency (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this ability can gain a number of temporary hit points equal to the rogue's level. Activating this ability is an immediate action that can only be performed when she is brought to below 0 hit points. This ability can be used to prevent her from dying. These temporary hit points last for 1 minute. If the rogue's hit points drop below 0 due to the loss of these temporary hit points, she falls unconscious and is dying as normal.

Alternately, the Orc Ferocity ability that the Half-Orc has could be useful, as you can use your extra turn to heal yourself before becoming unconscious. Again, of course, you have to want to play a Half-Orc barbarian.

Maybe not as helpful as the houseruled solutions offered, but those are legal ways of giving yourself a chance to save your butt. Both abilities are only once per day, but if you're a Barbarian and you're frequently dropping below 0 hit points... what are you doing, walking barefoot over hot lava? Single handedly tackling Ancient Black Dragons? Barbarians should have a LOT of hit points to lose before they get to that point; they shouldn't be falling unconscious at all that often. It's possible I don't play as brutal games as others do (which is not a criticism of a combat heavy play style, just noting a difference in play style may contribute to how much a problem an unconscious de-raged barbarian may be).

[Paulus]

I don't really disagree that Pathfinder missed the cue from TOB, but I just don't see magic item creation as the primary issue.

Well yeah... that's why I said


But this is all beside the point, the fact is magic items are still a necessity, there is no nonmagical means to counter magical means, therefore all character designed to be non magical will be at a disadvantage to magical characters. Hence, casters > noncasters.

Hence why the inconsistency of magic uses who are less dependent on magic items have a better, (though yes, more logical) means to make them as opposed to non-magic uses whose need is obviously greater. That being said, allowing non-magic uses easier access to magic items really is just another bandaid, It does not address the mechanic that magic > everything else.

The balance use to be that if you studied magic you were weaker physically, unable to defend yourself in melee, etc. And if you studied martially, you were weaker against magic, the standard was two path. (This is what made Dragons so formidable, they had both paths open to them.) However, somewhere along the line monster began getting magic abilities, magic uses began getting melee abilities, and melee uses got nothing. Hence the huge breath of difference between the base classes. Then it didn't matter what you did, the basic rule became 'Magic trump's all'. Melee characters became useless unless highly specialized and/or magic dependent. "Maneuvers" were suppose to be the big fix all. But again, it became far to specialized about ToB and feat usage. (and honestly if a caster really wanted to they could take them as well. heh.)

So melee once more is somehow left wanting, unless you do not care for these kind of balance issues, work to just have fun in any situation. But then it really doesn't matter what system you play in that case.

I guess what I'm really saying is somewhere along the line an imbalance in mechanics occurred. We all know this, it's as obvious as the Wizard 20 being the highest tier class and the Fighter/?/?/? still being among the lowest. Part of me doesn't mind the double standard, their are groups who don't exploit and just have fun so everyone is useful. But the other part of me misses those days when it was natural that a fighter was better at melee and a wizard better at magic. and Melee and Magic were equally important to the game.

or... it is possible I, being a lover of melee, am simply too bitter to let it go. None the less, it is true, there are far bigger issues here.

[Jerthanis]

I'd suggest you ask your GM to house rule a Rage power along the lines of -

Houserule solutions like this would be perfect for a home game, but this is going to be a Pathfinder Society official-style game, like, with strangers.

Sounds like it's Half-Orc or bust (since I'm probably not going to play long enough to hit 4th or 5th, or whenever you get that talent)

[DeathQuaker]

Houserule solutions like this would be perfect for a home game, but this is going to be a Pathfinder Society official-style game, like, with strangers.

Sounds like it's Half-Orc or bust (since I'm probably not going to play long enough to hit 4th or 5th, or whenever you get that talent)

You get your first Rogue Talent at Rogue level 2, but yes, if you're multiclassing, you might not get there till later.

For a very low level, short term game, beyond being a half-orc--I'd also look when at 2nd level, taking the Rage Power Guarded Stance which boosts your AC (being harder to hit always helps). Also with this being a low-level, short term game in mind, you could consider Toughness as someone else mentioned, or the Endurance and Diehard feats (though diehard won't save you if you've already technically died). Heck, max Con and go along this line of thought, you might come up with a Barbarian who almost never goes down. ("I get knocked down, but I get up again...").

Alternately, along with Guarded Stance go for other feats that boost your AC. (Dodge and Mobility could be useful--especially if you can build to Spring Attack, because with the faster-moving Barbarian, you could build a character with a lot of hit and run tactics). You have Acrobatics as a class skill as well, which can help with that. Remember you get Uncanny Dodge at level 2 so building along the hard-to-hit line works well too.

[Akal Saris]

Houserule solutions like this would be perfect for a home game, but this is going to be a Pathfinder Society official-style game, like, with strangers.

Sounds like it's Half-Orc or bust (since I'm probably not going to play long enough to hit 4th or 5th, or whenever you get that talent)

Actually, if its PF Society (I play that too!), then the games only run until 12th level, so you're highly unlikely to ever risk dying from the damage until 11th level when your rage improves. At that point, definitely make a note to never leave rage when you're at ~10 HP or so.

[Dracomorph]

The balance use to be that if you studied magic you were weaker physically, unable to defend yourself in melee, etc. And if you studied martially, you were weaker against magic, the standard was two path. (This is what made Dragons so formidable, they had both paths open to them.) However, somewhere along the line monster began getting magic abilities, magic uses began getting melee abilities, and melee uses got nothing. Hence the huge breath of difference between the base classes. Then it didn't matter what you did, the basic rule became 'Magic trump's all'.

Actually, I don't see it so much as magic users gaining the ability to melee effectively, as gishing is still less powerful than full casting these days. I think it's more an issue that casters can reliably debuff, which drastically changes the playing field. And that change really creeped up on the designers. In games I've played, the deadliest spells weren't for meleeing, or damaging, but disabling enemies or limiting tactical options. The problem is that fighter-types lack such options, by and large, and when they have them, too much investment for too little return is required.

TL;DR: Agree in general, think the specifics are a bit different.

[Saph]

The Classes, Part 3


And finally, the last three of the core classes: bard, monk, and druid.

Note that I haven't had the chance to actually see any of these classes in action, so all of this is speculative and based only on the Pathfinder core book and SRD. Still, I'm doing them anyway for the sake of completeness. :)


Bard

Buffs

d8 Hit Die instead of a d6. Always nice.
More spells per day! The progression has changed, but averages to about one extra spell per day per spell level. Spells known have also slightly increased.
Improved skill list: like rogues, bards get pretty much all the new amalgamated skills, allowing them to afford far more of the skills they want. They get other skill-related abilities, such as a flat bonus on Knowledge skills, and . . .
Versatile Performance: a bard can use specific Perform skills in place of certain other skills! Dance can be substituted for Acrobatics and Fly; Sing can be substituted for Bluff and Sense Motive, etc. Effectively this lets the Bard base many of his skills off his primary stat and save on skill points. It also leads to some pretty hilarious effects. "I pull out my drum kit and play it to intimidate him!"
Bardic Music can now be used for healing and fear effects, and can be started as a move and even a swift action once you get to a high enough level.
Nerfs

No more Bardic Knowledge; bards and loremasters just get a bonus on Knowledge checks instead.
Bardic Performance now only works for a number of rounds per day equal to 2 + Cha mod + (level x2); a huge nerf from 3.5, where a bard could play for ages multiple times per day.
The DC against a bard's fascinate/suggestion effect is now 10 + Cha mod + (bard level/2), which is far weaker than 3.5's skill check.
Verdict?

Poor Bards. Always the comic relief, and now they get a bunch of nerfs too. Bards used to have two signature tricks that they could do better than anyone else: long-term party buffing, and delivering suggestions at an impossibly high DC, both of which are now pretty weak.

To make up for their losses, bards have gotten a boost in the skills and spells departments. A bard is now a kind of hybrid between a sorcerer and a rogue - half caster, half skillmonkey - but while both the sorcerer and the rogue picked up huge buffs out of Pathfinder, the bard's been left in the dust.


Monk

Buffs

Improved skill list due to skill amalgamation. They still only get 4 + Int skill points, but can now afford Acrobatics, Stealth, and Perception, and have points left over. Still no UMD, though. :P
More bonus feats, and more choice in their selection.
Flurry of blows now works like TWF, giving more attacks but at a lower bonus.
Stunning Fist can now apply other conditions instead of stun.
Most of the monk's per-day abilities and a handful of new ones now work off a point system called the ki pool, similar to the one the ninja class from Complete Adventurer gets. Gaining an extra attack on a full attack is 1 point, doing a Jedi-style force jump is 1 point, using the abundant step ability is 2 points, etc. A monk gets daily ki points equal to half his level + his Wis modifier.
Monks get to use their level instead of BAB on combat maneuvers, making them almost as good as a fighter or barbarian. :P
Nerfs

None I can see.
Verdict?

Not bad. No huge buffs, but a lot of little ones that do add up. The extra flexibility in bonus feats is nice, as is the ability to use different abilities more often with the ki pool. However, the basic problems of the class haven't changed; monks still have MAD, still don't hit very hard, and still need to stand still to use their extra attacks. At the end of the day the Pathfinder monk does pretty much the same thing as the 3.5 monk; he just does it better. If you hated the 3.5 monk, the Pathfinder one is unlikely to change your mind.


Druid

Buffs

Wild shape can now be accessed quicker, and you get the good forms faster; you get wild shape at level 4 and elemental form at level 6.
Druids can now choose to get a cleric domain instead of an animal companion. Technically a buff in that it gives you an extra option, I guess, but I can't imagine that many druids will take it.
Animal companions now have their own class table, and a lot more detail about what they get at each level. Not sure if it's a buff or a nerf, but it's nice to see them getting treated more thoroughly.
Nerfs

Shapeshifting in all forms, including wild shape, has been beaten thoroughly with the nerf stick. The new form's physical stats no longer override your own - all you get is something like +4 Strength, -2 Dex, +4 Natural Armour (for beast shape II). Druids who want to fight in melee will now have significant MAD issues, just like the monk.
Verdict?

Out of all the eleven classes, druids are the only one that unquestionably got nerfed. The polymorph change means that druids can no longer dump Strength and Dexterity without crippling their combat ability.

One nerf doesn't mean the class is weak, though. Druids were arguably the strongest core class in 3.5 due to having three powerful features: animal companion, wild shape, and full casting. Druid wild shape is now half as good as it used to be, if that, but their animal companion and full casting are just as powerful as ever. So they're now two-and-a-half classes instead of three. That's still good, even if they're no longer top of the heap.

[Gnaeus]

Half as good as it used to be doesn't really explain all the details of this change.

For standard PC race druidzilla, it is usually much weaker. Way more than half, because of the MAD. It is worth noting, however, that this opens the door to druids with racial strength bonuses making melee builds, stacking existing high strength with wildshape bonuses. Also, you get large at 6 instead of 8, huge at 8 instead of 15. There are probably opportunities here if mixed with MoMF, Draconic, Frozen, or the other wildshape feats.

For druids who don't intend to Dzilla, summoners for example, the nerf doesn't really affect them at all. You can still take natural spell and be a flying casting platform (now available at level 5), so the only difference is a few points of armor/dex.

Personally, I really like this change. I think the druid needed a nerf, but I always hated the shapeshift variant because it took away the utility of the power and made it into nothing but a combat buff. This change weakened the combat buff but kept most of the utility, which is how it should be in my opinion.

[Saph]

For druids who don't intend to Dzilla, summoners for example, the nerf doesn't really affect them at all. You can still take natural spell and be a flying casting platform (now available at level 5), so the only difference is a few points of armor/dex.

Personally, I really like this change. I think the druid needed a nerf, but I always hated the shapeshift variant because it took away the utility of the power and made it into nothing but a combat buff. This change weakened the combat buff but kept most of the utility, which is how it should be in my opinion.

Yeah, it's still not bad or anything. You can get movement abilities like flight, swim, and climb without any trouble, which makes it easy to stay out of reach. It just encourages druids to specialise more as caster or fighter, as it's going to be harder for them to do both effectively.

[Egiam]

Yesterday at my local game shop I found several copies of the new Pathfinder RPG campaign setting from Paizo.

What is it like?

[Serenity]

Well, if you mean the new ruleset--that's controversial, and while I personally like most of it, I don't really want to get involved in that discussion right now.

The setting itself, though, is generally agreed to be pretty brilliant (or at least, I haven't heard many criticisms of the setting flavor). There's lots of classic D&D tropes, but the world itself is a bit more Early Renaissance than Medieval. In some ways, it's subtly Grimmer and Darker than your standard D&D setting--many of their published adventures have included Lovecraftian-inspired material, the goblins are at once amusing and horrifying, and the Ogres come right out of The Hills Have Eyes. Definitely worth a read.

[FatR]

Yesterday at my local game shop I found several copies of the new Pathfinder RPG campaign setting from Paizo.

What is it like?
Forgotten Realms. Except with gods that never actually act in any way, more grimdarkness (as if FR and other 3.5 settings weren't bleak and horrifyng enough) and, arguably, less sense. Otherwise, it is the same stuff with NPCs and beings interacting with the world and each other as if none of them had CR greater than 5, even though it is hard to spit without hitting someone with CR 15+. And countries that are ripped off from Earth cultures and randomly dropped on the world's surface without much, if any, thought. And societies that cannot decide, whether life in them corresponds to the standards of XV century or of late XIX.

[bosssmiley]

Golarion was created by people who know and love the literary antecedents of the D&D hobby, and the sheer wealth of setting ideas therein reflects that. There are sly nods and affectionate shout-outs to lots of the foundational stories of the modern fantasy genre.

Of course, thanks to its "throw it all in" pulp inspiration Golarion suffers from the same kind of cultural/historical schizophrenia you got in the BECMI Known World (which was infamous for having Hollywood Indians next door to Renaissance Italy, Vikings adjacent to Sinbadistan, etc.). Golarion has ersatz Egypts, pulp jungle, mammoth-riding barbarians, mock-Byzantium, whacky cult-of-personality theocracies, and even a "What would happen if people used the tech from Barrier Peaks to found a kingdom?" country which calls back to sword-and-planet sagas and to Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor.

Such rampant kitchen sinkery ("...two gangster planets, and a cowboy world...") is arguably a feature, rather than a bug. Whether it meshes with the implied world of the Pathfinder game mechanics is another question entirely...

@v: Taldor = Byzantium in my head.

[Akal Saris]

It's a little too "big" to use all of it at once in my opinion. Much like FR if anything, though the emphasis on different empires that are each vaguely historical also reminds me a lot of the old Birthright setting. At least unlike FR the world isn't completely dominated by the deities.

In the PF game that I just started running, I basically explained to my PCs that it's a late medieval setting with five major factions and corresponding empires:
1. Taldorans, based on neutral evil decadent French nobility in decline
2. Andorans, sort of a chaotic good English/American with a free-spirited swashbuckling mentality
3. Qadirans, the lawful neutral Arabian traders
4. Osirans, the neutral Egyptian knowledge-worshippers
5. Chelaxians, the extremely lawful Byzantine devil-worshippers

That's my take on it, anyhow.

[reefwood]

Looks like this thread hasn't been active in a while. Found it through a link in a more recent post.

Anyway, I just want to say that I appreciated the effort put forth by Saph at providing a summary of the changes to the core classes in Pathfinder, along with opinions on said changes. A lot of the debating was informative too (sans seemingly angry/ranting posters, and discussions that probably should have been taken to PM).

My experience with Pathfinder is still pretty minor: I played in a very short-lived PbP game (one month? two?) using Pathfinder Beta, ran two FtF single-session adventures in the fall with Pathfinder Beta and am in the middle of a FtF two-session adventure using finalized Pathfinder rules. So far I like it for the most part, and I will probably continue to use it for the games I run (used to use D&D 3.5) as long as my players enjoy it and the system works for the adventures I create. Also, I should add that I am the kind of DM that leans toward core-only or core+setting books, and as I've seen mentioned here and elsewhere, it looks like Pathfinder is an improvement from 3.5 core in terms of simplicity/streamlining and versatility. It may not solve the balance problems between classes, but this has never been a serious issue, if an issue at all, in any game I have played in or run. The one time a problem came up was with a psionic, but it turned out that player wasn't following the rules properly and didn't realize it until the end of the campaign.

[arguskos]

Sir, perhaps I can direct you to the Pathfinder Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890) by Saph? It's much more recent, and is a compilation of thoughts about the system.

[Grifthin]

Thanks to the Original Poster - very nicely written and itemized. Hooray for fighters!

[Tyndmyr]

Rage Powers - this is the main benefit. Every second level a barbarian gets a rage power, which is a special ability that only functions while raging. Most are along the lines of extra abilities like low-light vision or a bonus to skills such as Climb, which frankly isn't all that impressive. But there are a few standouts - Unexpected Strike gives you a free attack once per rage, and Superstition gives you a save bonus against spells and (Su) and (Sp) abilities equal to +2 plus another +1 for every four levels.

One comment, Superstition makes you save against everything, though...so yeah, the guy trying to save your life? You get a bonus to save vs that. Now, sure, you *could* drop out of rage and be fatigued instead...but this means that a low hp barbarian w superstition can end up all kinds of screwed.

I prefer abilities that don't try to kill me. Bite is decent. It's basically an extra attack at your first iterative level. It's not amazing, but extra attacks are extra attacks.

[Saph]

One comment, Superstition makes you save against everything, though...so yeah, the guy trying to save your life? You get a bonus to save vs that. Now, sure, you *could* drop out of rage and be fatigued instead...but this means that a low hp barbarian w superstition can end up all kinds of screwed.

It requires a bit of thinking, but it's still useful. You just have to make sure to buff first, rage afterwards. Obviously, if you're in the habit of getting heals from the cleric mid-fight, it's not going to work so well.

[Hurlbut]

Superstition is risky but it is worthwhile if you value the big boost to your saves against hostile spells. (even though it make you save vs beneficial spells as well ;P)

[reefwood]

Sir, perhaps I can direct you to the Pathfinder Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890) by Saph? It's much more recent, and is a compilation of thoughts about the system.

Thanks, arg! I'll have to look at that thread next.

[Grifthin]

Does the pathfinder book contain monsters as well ? Or do you have to buy a Monster manual as well ?

[Reinboom]

Does the pathfinder book contain monsters as well ? Or do you have to buy a Monster manual as well ?

The Bestiary is separate.

[Grifthin]

Sad panda - oh well !

[Akal Saris]

But like in 3.5 you can see all of the monsters for free on the Pathfinder SRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/)

[bansidhe]

Read somewhere here that its basicaly a 3.5 analog,which was news too me as I ve been out of gaming for a while.

My main question is this ,is it worth buying ,cos my paydays coming up and 3.5 books etc. seem too be extortionate if you can even find them!

Also any words of wisdom on which bits too get or avoid like the plauge would be helpful.

And of course any general immpressions would be nice,so i can selfjustify spending that much! :D

And last but not least any forums for it,pref UK based?

Thanks for all the help in advance! :)

[9mm]

if your starting new; PF is the better buy. If you already have the beginings of a 3.5 libary, keep building that.

[Mathis]

Me and the group I play with find Pathfinder a much more fun system than 3.5. It doesn't matter if you already have a 3.5 library, everything you have from 3.5 easily fits into the Pathfinder system.

Pathfinder is basically normal 3.5 with the classes' powerlevel pumped up. The melee classes are now capable of going toe to toe with the casters when it comes to damage which makes it more fun to make a balanced group for us who find the "HULK SMASH" aspect of gaming interesting. This also means you don't have to have a wizard in the party to kill those really, really tough monsters.

Also, the pathfinder core rulebook is both a players and a DM's guide in one book, the bestiary another. With enough fantasy, combined with everything 3.5 out there, those two books should make you ready for a lifetime of exciting sessions. Depending on which country you are from, cause Im guessing prices vary slightly, it shouldn't cost you a fortune and the buy is definately worth it since you only really need two books.

In my mind, pathfinder is 3.5 perfected. It's recommended :smallsmile:

[arguskos]

Me and the group I play with find Pathfinder a much more fun system than 3.5. It doesn't matter if you already have a 3.5 library, everything you have from 3.5 easily fits into the Pathfinder system.
Emphasis added.

Now, don't get me wrong, I like PF, but the above isn't strictly true. Stuff fits, yes, but it takes some work. You have to rework skills, account for CMB/CMD, rewrite domains (ugh, that's a fun one), take a long hard look at PrC's and base classes for rewriting. It's work, but stuff does fit.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Me and the group I play with find Pathfinder a much more fun system than 3.5. It doesn't matter if you already have a 3.5 library, everything you have from 3.5 easily fits into the Pathfinder system.
This is untrue.


Pathfinder is basically normal 3.5 with the classes' powerlevel pumped up.
Druid got nerfed.


The melee classes are now capable of going toe to toe with the casters when it comes to damage which makes it more fun to make a balanced group for us who find the "HULK SMASH" aspect of gaming interesting.
What? Melee damage has never been a problem. Melee options have been the problem. A charger or ubercharger can do thousands of damage a round, yet they are still inferior to people who can tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up multiple times a day.



This also means you don't have to have a wizard in the party to kill those really, really tough monsters.

I suspect that this is untrue, because there are not enough differences between 3.5e and Pathfinder as far as I can tell.



In my mind, pathfinder is 3.5 perfected. It's recommended :smallsmile:
Meh. Pathfinder could have been so much more... but what we got was a house ruled version of 3.5 that still maintains the same paradigm of "if you don't cast spells, you become useless."