PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder RPG: Reviews?



SlaadLord
2009-12-30, 06:45 PM
What are your thoughts on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game as an upgrade on 3.5 D&D? (3.75E if you will)? Does it solve some of the class balance issues that are present in 3.5 adequately? Is it worth buying the core book and giving it a shot?

taltamir
2009-12-30, 06:48 PM
it solves some problems and has some neat ideas. but it has some bad ideas and introduces some new issues...

If you already have a bunch of houserules, it is a good idea to read pathfinder to look for ideas to add to your houserules.

if you have never played DnD... I recommend starting with 4e and getting ideas from pathfinder and 3.5 to replace things you don't like about 4e.

if you hate 4e and never played 3e, or you want to keep things simple, you might want to start with pathfinder, and then add houserules to overrule the bad ideas in path finder (or specifically, changes from 3.5 that you didn't like).

overall pathfinder has more good than bad I think... which makes it a better starting point that 3.5 to build house rules upon.

jmbrown
2009-12-30, 06:49 PM
Despite its advertisement, Pathfinder isn't a fix to 3.5 and shouldn't be mistaken as one. It builds upon 3.5 and creates something different but the problem of casters vastly overshadowing non-casters still exists in full force and some argue that it's even more obvious (like how polymorph, despite being broken up into different forms, has fewer restrictions as a whole).

It's not 3.75 so much as it is 3.5a. I recommend it if you're looking for something different but with familiar roots. The adventure paths Paizo publishes are generally pretty good.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 06:57 PM
i think the issue of casters overshadowing non casters is one of time management...

in 3e, casters have only strong daily powers. non casters have weak at will powers...
Who is stronger is exactly a function of how much time passes between encounters, how much rest you are given, etc... And since PCs can usually chose to run away and regroup, they are given enough time and rest so that casters are completely overpowered...
in CRPG adaptations you are often expected to slaughter hundreds of enemies within a single "day", and casters are vastly under powered (unless they give you unlimited rest, in which case vastly overpowered).

Some casters (the tier 1 casters) also have access to an infinite amount of different "daily" powers, which they may exchange freely every day (aka, prepare different spells today, learn new spells from someone else, etc).

this was one of the fundamental changes in 4e, now everyone has "daily", "encounter", and "at will powers", and they have an equal amount of it. whether it is a "special sword technique" or a "spell" doesn't matter, its either a weak one that is at will, a medium strength one per encounter, or a very strong one that is daily.

part of the problem in 3e is the "15 minute workday"... casters can blow all their daily powers (which is the only powers they have) in 15 minutes, making them vastly overpowered for those 15 minutes... rather then suffer through sucking the rest of the day, they use magic which they reserved (say, 2 castings of extended rope trick) to make themselves undetectable and unattackable for the rest of the day, as they rest.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 06:58 PM
it solves some problems and has some neat ideas. but it has some bad ideas and introduces some new issues...

If you already have a bunch of houserules, it is a good idea to read pathfinder to look for ideas to add to your houserules.

Pretty much. It's not really a 3.5 fix as such, but it's got some fun stuff. It integrates a number of common houserules into it(dodge giving a flat +1 AC, no multiclassing xp penalties, etc), and has some fun stuff. For example, every level in a favored class grants +1 skillpoint or hitpoint, at the players choice. Kinda nice.

Im not sure why they gave casters so many hit points, though...

jmbrown
2009-12-30, 07:04 PM
i think the issue of casters overshadowing non casters is one of time management...

More than just that. If you check out one of the "2nd edition/3rd edition" topics you'll see how casters overshadow non-casters. Biggest offenders are:

-Casters can completely avoid melee and make themselves harder to hit through sheer stacking effects than a fighter in even the toughest armor.

-Save or die

-Caster's primary ability score directly effects everything. Non-casters require multiple ability scores to be of any use.

-At level 5 casters can effectively break physics.

-Metamagic increases the effects of spells that are powerful enough.

-Casters are rarely bound by normal movement rules.

-Casters can do everything non-casters can and then some.

If you want to fix casters in 3.5 you have to completely change the way they operate and this has been addressed in several topics already.

Raewyn
2009-12-30, 07:04 PM
Here's a link to the OGC if you want to look at the Pathfinder rules for yourself without buying the core book.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

taltamir
2009-12-30, 07:13 PM
More than just that. If you check out one of the "2nd edition/3rd edition" topics you'll see how casters overshadow non-casters. Biggest offenders are:

-Casters can completely avoid melee and make themselves harder to hit through sheer stacking effects than a fighter in even the toughest armor.

-Save or die

-Caster's primary ability score directly effects everything. Non-casters require multiple ability scores to be of any use.

-At level 5 casters can effectively break physics.

-Metamagic increases the effects of spells that are powerful enough.

-Casters are rarely bound by normal movement rules.

-Casters can do everything non-casters can and then some.

If you want to fix casters in 3.5 you have to completely change the way they operate and this has been addressed in several topics already.

None of the above things happens when you run out of spells.. hence the time management. You own the first few combats, then you are out of spells and suck for the rest of the day... and it is just a matter of WHEN the DM allows you to rest.

I created a thread specifically for it: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136710

Hashmir
2009-12-30, 07:16 PM
Pretty much. It's not really a 3.5 fix as such, but it's got some fun stuff. It integrates a number of common houserules into it(dodge giving a flat +1 AC, no multiclassing xp penalties, etc), and has some fun stuff. For example, every level in a favored class grants +1 skillpoint or hitpoint, at the players choice. Kinda nice.

Im not sure why they gave casters so many hit points, though...

I recall another large set of houserules -- Tome of something? -- that had a lot of cool fixes to feats, much of which was just combining feat trees and making them scale. No surprise that the general idea was integrated into 4e.

9mm
2009-12-30, 07:17 PM
Pathfinder is not the standard 3.5 experience; do not mistake it for anything else other than a game that has a passing resemblence.

now when it comes to balance; some issues are tightened up, others not. In fact the biggest issue is few have actually pushed the game to it's char-op limits enough to find the holes; mostly just a whole lot of "if it has 3.5's structure and didn't completely re-write casters to X amout it's borked."

So far it suffers a bit of "melee can't have nice things" and "our beta material is really Alpha material"

jmbrown
2009-12-30, 07:23 PM
Pathfinder is not the standard 3.5 experience; do not mistake it for anything else other than a game that has a passing resemblence.

now when it comes to balance; some issues are tightened up, others not. In fact the biggest issue is few have actually pushed the game to it's char-op limits enough to find the holes; mostly just a whole lot of "if it has 3.5's structure and didn't completely re-write casters to X amout it's borked."

So far it suffers a bit of "melee can't have nice things" and "our beta material is really Alpha material"

But those are the holes. You can optimized a non-caster all you want, the fact remains that Pathfinder casters are still leagues above everyone else.

3.5: Melee can't have nice things.
Pathfinder: Melee still can't have nice things.

SlaadLord
2009-12-30, 07:24 PM
My personal opinions on present (3.5 D&D) class balance issues are thus:

Barbarian: Underpowered. Compared to fighter, barbarians are barely a match for them even when raging, although both classes are underpowered at high levels.

Bard: No comment.

Cleric: Very Overpowered. Heavy armor, d8 hit die, 3/4 BAB, and two good saves make for this class being almost too good at both magic and melee.

Druid: Overpowered, especially wild shape.

Fighter: Underpowered. Better than barbarians, but still weak.

Monk: No comment, although I've heard arguments for both overpowered and underpowered.

Paladin: Mostly balanced. The requirements for four good abilities is a bit off to me though.

Ranger: Mostly Balanced.

Rogue: No comment.

Sorcerer: Slightly underpowered, although the best fixes for that via house rules tend to be something small like upgrading hit dice from d4 to d6 or giving them the use of light armor without arcane spell failure.

Wizard: Balanced? If you base the balance system on the wizard, everything else is somewhat weaker. The wizard is almost strictly stronger than everything else.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 07:33 PM
My personal opinions on present class balance issues are thus:

Barbarian: Underpowered. Compared to fighter, barbarians are barely a match for them even when raging, although both classes are underpowered at high levels.

Really? I thought some of the rage powers, combined with the new per-round usage of rage were quite powerful. Sure, it tapers off at higher levels, just like other non-full casters, but the ability to gain nifty abilities that are automatically active(or alternative attacks, in certain situations) whenever you rage...which you will essentially every round of every combat...is pretty handy.

On a side note...its not really a balance issue, but skills do seem to be done better overall in pathfinder. It's one of the elements I would suggest taking as a house rule for 3.5.

9mm
2009-12-30, 07:36 PM
But those are the holes. You can optimized a non-caster all you want, the fact remains that Pathfinder casters are still leagues above everyone else.

3.5: Melee can't have nice things.
Pathfinder: Melee still can't have nice things.

have gone through and checked each spell to make sure they are exactly the same?

no. no they haven't

have anyone given serious looks at things like the vital strike line?

no. no they haven't.

has anyone given a hard look at how skill ranks now work, and the effects on the system as a whole?

no. no they haven't.

After a semester of playing PF I feel confident saying the system smaller changes have actually had far greater impacts then initially thought; it's a different game, albeit similar to 3.5, but different enough that old assumptions often turn out badly.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 07:44 PM
have gone through and checked each spell to make sure they are exactly the same?

no. no they haven't

Not every spell, no. That said, there's a great deal of similarities in a wide number of spells, and casters haven't lost any huge amount of power.


have anyone given serious looks at things like the vital strike line?

no. no they haven't.

You're sure of this? I wouldn't claim to have gone over everything in exacting detail, but I have read all the feats, and through the nifty abilities for each melee class. Some nice options in there, sure. I wouldn't consider them capable of drastically changing the caster/melee balance though. For one thing, while melee has more options now, casters have more hp, which helps negate the primary form of melee attack, hp damage.


has anyone given a hard look at how skill ranks now work, and the effects on the system as a whole?

no. no they haven't.

Brief summary. Buy whatever you want at a 1-1 ratio. Training class skills results in a one time +3 bonus. There are no synergy bonuses and such. Some DCs have changed. Some skills were combined, such as spot/listen. As a result, it's somewhat harder to stack specific skills to ridiculous heights, but it's easy to get a good spread of skills, and it's easier to boost cross class skills.

This is nice in general, but not a major balance factor between melee and casters. It makes skill monkeys less important in general, but having a better climb skill on your caster or what have you is generally pretty unimportant so far as balance is concerned.

jmbrown
2009-12-30, 08:00 PM
have gone through and checked each spell to make sure they are exactly the same?

no. no they haven't

have anyone given serious looks at things like the vital strike line?

no. no they haven't.

has anyone given a hard look at how skill ranks now work, and the effects on the system as a whole?

no. no they haven't.

After a semester of playing PF I feel confident saying the system smaller changes have actually had far greater impacts then initially thought; it's a different game, albeit similar to 3.5, but different enough that old assumptions often turn out badly.

This is all well and good but when magic can do everything a sword or skill can but more efficiently it doesn't really matter. This isn't to say that aspects of the system should be completely ignored but magic still blows them away completely. Casters can still freely change their shape, bind outsiders, fly, turn invisible, teleport, and create personal dimensions to rest unaffected by the outside world.

9mm
2009-12-30, 08:01 PM
Not every spell, no. That said, there's a great deal of similarities in a wide number of spells, and casters haven't lost any huge amount of power.

and that's my point... let's take an well known problem spell, grease: in PF it's a mild annoyance at BEST; far cry from the old fight-ender it used to be. everyone looks at the class ablities and cried foul; not noticing the significant nerfbatting that happened in the spell section.



You're sure of this? I wouldn't claim to have gone over everything in exacting detail, but I have read all the feats, and through the nifty abilities for each melee class. Some nice options in there, sure. I wouldn't consider them capable of drastically changing the caster/melee balance though. For one thing, while melee has more options now, casters have more hp, which helps negate the primary form of melee attack, hp damage.

more hp doesn't keep up with easy-peasy near doubling (or more) of damage, which, is hillariously written to apply to ANY BASIC ATTACK YOU MAKE. Cleave is now rapid-shot for melee for all intents and purposes. Again people are assuming Feats are as useless and toothless as they used to be, there're not. people are so hung up on the capping of the attack penelty of power attack they don't notice how its now 1:2 for one handers and 1:2.5 for two handers, and can be used with any melee weapon, including lights.



Brief summary. Buy whatever you want at a 1-1 ratio. Training class skills results in a one time +3 bonus. There are no synergy bonuses and such. Some DCs have changed. Some skills were combined, such as spot/listen. As a result, it's somewhat harder to stack specific skills to ridiculous heights, but it's easy to get a good spread of skills, and it's easier to boost cross class skills.

This is nice in general, but not a major balance factor between melee and casters. It makes skill monkeys less important in general, but having a better climb skill on your caster or what have you is generally pretty unimportant so far as balance is concerned.

what it's now possible for fighters to spot hidden enemies? thats the point. a fighter in no longer gimped into submission by his low skill-points, and can do things OUT OF COMBAT, one of the biggest knocks against melee.

SlaadLord
2009-12-30, 08:19 PM
Really? I thought some of the rage powers, combined with the new per-round usage of rage were quite powerful. Sure, it tapers off at higher levels, just like other non-full casters, but the ability to gain nifty abilities that are automatically active(or alternative attacks, in certain situations) whenever you rage...which you will essentially every round of every combat...is pretty handy.

On a side note...its not really a balance issue, but skills do seem to be done better overall in pathfinder. It's one of the elements I would suggest taking as a house rule for 3.5.

I was not clear. My statements above were regarding present D&D 3.5 rules.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 08:24 PM
and that's my point... let's take an well known problem spell, grease: in PF it's a mild annoyance at BEST; far cry from the old fight-ender it used to be. everyone looks at the class ablities and cried foul; not noticing the significant nerfbatting that happened in the spell section.

Casters at low levels were never that much of a problem. Sure, grease is a good spell at that level, but nobody complains about low level casters in PF. It's the high level portion that is, and was the issue.


more hp doesn't keep up with easy-peasy near doubling (or more) of damage, which, is hillariously written to apply to ANY BASIC ATTACK YOU MAKE. Cleave is now rapid-shot for melee for all intents and purposes. Again people are assuming Feats are as useless and toothless as they used to be, there're not. people are so hung up on the capping of the attack penelty of power attack they don't notice how its now 1:2 for one handers and 1:2.5 for two handers, and can be used with any melee weapon, including lights.

Additional 1 hp average per hit die. Additional 1 hp per level for favored class(since wizard doesnt need extra skill points). That's another 40hp by level 20, which is pretty significant.

Yes, some nifty feats were added. More melee damage doesn't really change the basic weaknesses of melee damage. IE, easy to avoid, limited range, countering spells. It pretty much just keeps pace with extra hp.


what it's now possible for fighters to spot hidden enemies? thats the point. a fighter in no longer gimped into submission by his low skill-points, and can do things OUT OF COMBAT, one of the biggest knocks against melee.

You still have the issue of attribute bonuses contributing heavily to skills. I mean, sure, you can now get more skills than a fighter previously...but if you compare to say, ToB classes, it's kinda a meh.

9mm
2009-12-30, 08:24 PM
This is all well and good but when magic can do everything a sword or skill can but more efficiently it doesn't really matter. This isn't to say that aspects of the system should be completely ignored but magic still blows them away completely. Casters can still freely change their shape, bind outsiders, fly, turn invisible, teleport, and create personal dimensions to rest unaffected by the outside world.

lets see:
Change shape: whee flat numerical changes to ab scores! seriously have you looked at polymoph, it got sliced and diced into nearly 4 different spells

bind outsiders: you enjoy casting 3 spells per outsider?

Create Personal dimensions: Odd... Genesis has appeared to have flat out DISAPPEARED from the rule book!

invisible: still just dc 20 to notice them, remeber how skills are easier to get now?

so you got me on 2 of 6 hardly a ringing endorsement.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 08:26 PM
I was not clear. My statements above were regarding present D&D 3.5 rules.

Huh. Well, even in 3.5, I was under the impression that a pure barb typically outperformed a pure fighter for damage.

Obviously, a mix will be superior, but still...

Mushroom Ninja
2009-12-30, 08:30 PM
I was not clear. My statements above were regarding present D&D 3.5 rules.

For 3.5 balance, the tier system (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0) gives a pretty accurate picture.

ex cathedra
2009-12-30, 08:38 PM
This review (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083) has several opinions that I agree with, and that you may be interested in.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-30, 08:41 PM
Barbarians are stronger than fighters in 3.5 edition.

Rixx
2009-12-30, 09:43 PM
My experiences with Pathfinder as opposed to my experiences with 3.5 have been very positive. Most people who express negative opinions about it have never tried it.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 09:50 PM
My experiences with Pathfinder as opposed to my experiences with 3.5 have been very positive. Most people who express negative opinions about it have never tried it.

Right...no, I've tried it(and in fact, am still playing it), and it has it's good sides, definitely, but I tend to agree with most of the criticisms leveled against it, especially the recurring charge that they didn't fix caster/melee balance.

aje8
2009-12-30, 10:01 PM
Essentially, my feelings on Pathfinder is that if you were previously playing large number of splatbook 3.5, then that's probably better than Pathfinder.

If you're just starting 3.5 or were playing core only 3.5, then Pathfinder is a improvement.

Casters in Pathfinder are...... differently broken. Some of their spells were nerfed, but others were buffed and their actual class abilities are better...... they're still just as good on the whole.

My essential gripe with Pathfinder is this: They went into saying they would 3.5's balance issues. This was so great because it was basically impossible to any given homebrewer to fix them because it would require them going through every possible spell and changing/removing them OR it would require that homebrewer to change the fundamental system. Either of these things would be possible if a company was handling the job over a large period of time.

Then the actual system came out...... and it didn't fix balance very much. Thus, they utterly failed at the very worthy goal they set out to complete. THAT is why I dislike pathfinder.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 10:23 PM
Exactly. It's not that it's actually a bad system, it's that it failed to deliver on it's promises.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-30, 10:27 PM
Change shape: whee flat numerical changes to ab scores! seriously have you looked at polymoph, it got sliced and diced into nearly 4 different spells

(like how polymorph, despite being broken up into different forms, has fewer restrictions as a whole).

*shrug* I haven't played, I can't comment in-depth.


lets see:
bind outsiders: you enjoy casting 3 spells per outsider?

I thought we were at the point where it was common to cast about half a dozen spells per outsider.


Create Personal dimensions: Odd... Genesis has appeared to have flat out DISAPPEARED from the rule book!

Genesis was never core, and never actually common. I presume he spoke of Rope Trick.


I dislike Pathfinder for the same reason I dislike 4e: too little novelty for the money I'd be paying. 4e is pretty different from 3.5, but I still think they overlap too much for me to justify jumping head-on into the edition. And if 4e isn't different enough for me, Pathfinder...

EDIT:

This review (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083) has several opinions that I agree with, and that you may be interested in.

How recent is that? Because I hear the finalized product is marginally better.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-30, 10:30 PM
This review (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083) has several opinions that I agree with, and that you may be interested in.

A bit harsh in some places, but generally what my experience is turning into.
It keeps hashing out to a collection of house rule tweaks that go the reverse of balancing spellcasters against weapon users, and seems to contain a never ending supply of unpleasant surprises. The latest one I discovered was with orcs and Ferocity.
Apparently, for issues of flavor, it was decided that orcs should get the Ferocity ability. Or maybe it was so half-orcs could get it to be of use. On the face of it, it does not seem too bad, it is really just the Diehard feat without needing Endurance as a pre-requisite. Unfortunately, on closer examination, is it ludicrously unbalanced when applied to a basic orc, since it effectively gives a Bestiary standard orc 12 additional hit points, which triples their normal hit point total. An "18 hit point" orc warrior 1 is not CR 1/3, particularly when equipped with an 18-20 crit falchion.
That is a seriously bad decision that very basic playtesting should have revealed.
I have a group that wants to try PFRPG, but as things go I an less and less inclined to suggest a full blown conversion for my other group.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 10:37 PM
Yeah...I've done a *lot* of playing at low levels in 3.x, and orcs were already one of the nastier things out there. The only redeeming aspect was low enough hp to normally be one shottable.

For example, in my solo dungeon, of the level 1s and 2s that have taken on the four orc encounter, 60% have died. That's against basic 3.5 orcs.

An additional 12 hp per orc would have made that a 100% kill rate, guaranteed. I mean, yeah...its a very tough encounter in 3.5, but in pathfinder, it's a sufficiently dangerous encounter that a party of four level 1s would probably be scraping bodies off the ground.


It's not well thought out enough. And yeah, true backward compatibility with 3.5 would be incredibly annoying/time consuming to work out. So many subtle changes, many of which simply dont mesh well with the older systems.

arguskos
2009-12-30, 10:45 PM
You know, the more and more I watch and read PF stuff, the more I am convinced that Jason Buhlman is actually George Lucas' clone: they both need to be smacked away from the design table, given a coloring book, and real men need to design the damned product!

Everything Jason touches in PF goes straight to hell. Anyone remember the senseless Monk nerf from awhile back? :smallsigh:

ex cathedra
2009-12-30, 10:58 PM
How recent is that? Because I hear the finalized product is marginally better.


Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:05 pm

Oh, and yes, when he decided that monks shouldn't benefit from Improved Natural Attack because it was broken? :smallconfused:

taltamir
2009-12-30, 11:26 PM
You know, the more and more I watch and read PF stuff, the more I am convinced that Jason Buhlman is actually George Lucas' clone: they both need to be smacked away from the design table, given a coloring book, and real men need to design the damned product!

Everything Jason touches in PF goes straight to hell. Anyone remember the senseless Monk nerf from awhile back? :smallsigh:

the monk nerf...
the notion that psions were way overpowered compared to wizards...
yea, give the guy a coloring book already.

arguskos
2009-12-31, 12:55 AM
Oh, and yes, when he decided that monks shouldn't benefit from Improved Natural Attack because it was broken? :smallconfused:
Yeah, because increased damage dice REALLY break the monk wide open. :smallannoyed:

Seriously, just give him a coloring book or a Paint-By-Numbers of the Tarrasque and let real people design dammit. Hell, I'd take Monte Cook over this. >_<

icefractal
2009-12-31, 02:27 AM
and that's my point... let's take an well known problem spell, grease: in PF it's a mild annoyance at BEST; far cry from the old fight-ender it used to be. everyone looks at the class ablities and cried foul; not noticing the significant nerfbatting that happened in the spell section.The funny thing about this is that it hurts Rogues a lot more than it hurts casters.

Actually, that's my main gripe with Pathfinder. For an experienced group that knows how to optimize, it actually leaves the non-casters farther behind the casters, due to removing/nerfing many of their previous tricks.

pres_man
2009-12-31, 08:29 AM
Most people who express negative opinions about it have never tried it.

Sounds familiar.


Most people who express negative opinions about 4e have never tried it.

Oh, yeah, that's it.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-31, 08:43 AM
Sounds familiar....


Most people who express negative opinions about 4e have never tried it.


Most people who express negative opinions about the rulebook revision have never tried it.

What does the comparison to 4e prove?

Saph
2009-12-31, 08:58 AM
We've been playing a Pathfinder campaign for a few months now. It's fairly similar to 3.5, slightly improved, but suffers from the issue of backwards compatibility. Pathfinder core beats 3.5 core by a long way, though.

I've read several reviews claiming that Pathfinder sucks, and frankly, most of them have no clue what they're talking about. I'm tempted to update my previous guide.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-31, 09:07 AM
I'm tempted to update my previous guide.

I forgot about that... Link for those disinclined to search. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127797)

Scanning over it, I note something interesting: paladins can dump wisdom. I find that amusing and in many ways fitting.

I've only read the first page, so a question for you: did you do an analysis from the DM's side? Because I recall a post earlier in this thread stating that Pathfinder still had some notable bookkeeping problems.

pres_man
2009-12-31, 09:21 AM
Sounds familiar....

What does the comparison to 4e prove?

Only that I found the argument familiar and as equally unconvincing as I did then. It is funny, I wonder how many people spout such statements were frustrated when it was spouted at them from people interested in game systems they were not.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 09:23 AM
Pathfinder core beats 3.5 core by a long way, though.

That's actually possible. Much of the good melee stuff is non-core in 3.5.

That said, 3.5 core is broken as hell, so being better than that really isn't saying much.

Paul H
2009-12-31, 11:06 AM
Hi

Been playing Pathfinder for a while now, both in the 'Living' PFS amd a homebrew campaign.

I normally play spellcasters (I can't understand how to play NON - spellcasters), and I've seen a few things that caught me out.

Clerics are NOT proficient with heavy armour, You can't take a Str 10 Druid & Wildshape into a Str 21 Dire Ape anymore. Your Animal Companions work differently. Sleep spell takes FULL round to cast. etc.

Bards actually get spells at 1st level now, but bardsong only lasts rnds/lvl. No more singing all day counbting as one use!

Character creation has greatly changed - Half Orcs get +2 to one stat, and are proficient with Gt Axe, no matter what class! (Str 14 Half Orc Sorceror/Dragon Disciple- here I come)!

It will take some time before any of us can play the game enough to make any form of definitive judgement, but I for one like what I've seen/used so far.
The new Advanced Character Guide (or somesuch) comes out next year too.

Cheers
Paul H

Reinboom
2009-12-31, 11:16 AM
Sleep spell takes FULL round to cast. etc.

Bards actually get spells at 1st level now, but bardsong only lasts rnds/lvl. No more singing all day counting as one use!

Sleep took 1 round to cast in 3.5. This wasn't changed in Pathfinder.

Many people (myself included) consider the changing of bard songs to rounds/level to be a terrible thing. It causes more book keeping in order to nerf something that didn't need to be nerfed.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-31, 02:57 PM
It will take some time before any of us can play the game enough to make any form of definitive judgement, but I for one like what I've seen/used so far.
The new Advanced Character Guide (or somesuch) comes out next year too.

Given how close it is to 3.5, making a judgement does not require all that much playing.
It does a bunch, but there is more it does not do. And some of the stuff it does is very narrowly focused. Options for non-spellcasters in particular direct very heavily to using either a bow (because of how the feats stack now) or a high threat weapon (because of all the feats that trigger off of scoring a crit).
And then of course there is the instant death for any barbarian who takes 11th level in the class.

As for another splatbook, with more options predicated on designer image of cool over balance, I have a shelf of that from WotC.

Paul H
2010-01-02, 09:21 PM
Hi

I challenge the previous poster's view that you don't have to play it much to make a judgement call. You have to actually experience it to give an informed view - anyone who's read Asimov's Foundation series knows his view on that.

The concepts very similar, and that's the problem. People make false assumptions, believing things are the same. Quite often they're NOT. Two Wpn style using a Shield Bash - no problem. (New feats). Max dex allowed for hvy armours on fighters is increased. Every class has had some form of revamp.

I've played 3.5 in several homebrew AND the international Living Greyhawk & Sarbreenar campaigns to notice the differences. You might like them, you might not, but you really DO have to play it for a while to make a proper, informed assessment.

Cheers
Paul H

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 10:07 PM
Wizards have, IMO, gotten more powerful.

First off, we have the stat boost from races. This helps SAD classes more...now you can take human to get the free feat AND boost your int. This is pretty nice. Sure, it helps everyone, but SAD gets the most from choosing which stat to boost.

Secondly, skillpoints. Wizards have a small class skill list. The revamped skill system makes it easier for wizards to be good with a wide range of skills. Together with int being a focus stat, you should have an excess of skill points. Fly is less important to you, since magical flight ignores nasty effects like losing altitude if damage is taken. Also, concentration got collapsed into spellcraft.

Thirdly, Concentration. It's not a skill any more, you can just do it. It's now CL + casting ability modifier + d20. So, Joe, the first level wizard with a 20 int has a 50% chance of making a con check to cast a level 1 spell defensively. It gets easier as you level. Significant amounts of damage by say, a readied action are still the only reliable way to make a caster fail their check.

Fourthly, hitpoints. The increase to a d6 is nice. Additionally, since you get a bonus hitpoint or skillpoint for each level in your preferred class now, and you don't need skillpoints...you get another free hp per level. This fixes one of the main weaknesses casters had at low levels, and makes casters even more SAD.

Fifth. Specialization. You can cast from your banned schools. Yes, they take double slots. No, you really don't care, because specializing got you more slots to begin with. Thus, everyone specializes. It's awesome.

Sixth. Familiars. Item familiars exist. They let you cast any spell you know spontaneously without counting against your daily spell slots. This is exactly as badass as it sounds. Oh, both types of familiars now, if killed/destroyed are replacable in a week for a trivial sum of gold. No xp cost. Yay for familiars actually being useful instead of walking bombs.

Seventh. Cantrips. This is minor, but you can fire off as many cantrips as you want. You know how in 3.5 you had to pay xp and such to permanency things like Detect Magic? You basically have that automatically now for free.

Eighth. Spells. Mostly exactly the same, and exactly as broken as those found in 3.5 core. Most of the classic power spells, like Haste, Grease, Simulacrum, and Time Stop are completely unchanged.

Ninth. Specialization Su Powers. Yeah, you heard me right. Spells weren't enough power, we had to give wizards supernatural powers too. I won't outline them all, but just as an example, I give you those from the first one, Abjuration.

Su 1. Resistance 5 to energy type of choice. May change it once per day. At level 11, it becomes Resistance 10. At level 20, it becomes immunity.

Su 2. Protective AC bubble. +1AC(+1/5wizard levels) to all allies in 10ft. Lasts for rounds/int modifier. Usable 3+int modifier times per day. So, before every action then. Clearly, wizards needed more AC to go with their added Hp.

Su 3. At sixth level, you gain damage absorption of 3*wizard level per day. This applies after things like immunities and resistances, so it's reasonably handy.



In general, these replicate all the favored tricks used by those who abuse each school. Conjurer? Enjoy your short ranged teleportation. Also, permanent summoning. Divination? Enjoy never being surprised. And always starting the init order.

Yay for balance!

Starbuck_II
2010-01-02, 10:56 PM
Eighth. Spells. Mostly exactly the same, and exactly as broken as those found in 3.5 core. Most of the classic power spells, like Haste, Grease, Simulacrum, and Time Stop are completely unchanged.



Yay for balance!

Grease was changed. But the rest is correct except Simulcrum no longer has a XP cost (now it cost 500 gold/HD).

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 11:10 PM
Grease was changed. But the rest is correct except Simulcrum no longer has a XP cost (now it cost 500 gold/HD).

You're right! I missed that change in grease. Instead of rounds/level, it's now minutes per level. Otherwise, it acts the same.

Oh yeah, I should have listed that. XP costs in general have gone away, which is pretty nice for wizards. Now keeping a huge collection of scrolls and crafting other handy items won't make you lag a level behind the party.

There's now literally no reason not to constantly craft scrolls of everything. If you ever want to sell it, well...selling at half price is exactly the same as you paid for it.

Stephen_E
2010-01-02, 11:15 PM
This review (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083) has several opinions that I agree with, and that you may be interested in.

Frank Trollman didn't review Pathfinder.
Saph has reviewed PF.
Frank vomited his hate for piazzo and PF into cyberspace.
That doesn't constitute a review.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2010-01-02, 11:25 PM
I agree that PF really doesn't adress balance in 3.5.

On the otherhand would u really want Jason to seriously try and address the balance issue?:smalleek:

The guy has no idea about what is or isn't balanced. He confuses fluff with mechanics and balance.

Stephen E

Roam7
2010-01-02, 11:35 PM
Frank Trollman didn't review Pathfinder.
Saph has reviewed PF.
Frank vomited his hate for piazzo and PF into cyberspace.
That doesn't constitute a review.

Stephen E

Very much so.
I could hardly read through that "review".

tyckspoon
2010-01-03, 12:18 AM
Thirdly, Concentration. It's not a skill any more, you can just do it. It's now CL + casting ability modifier + d20. So, Joe, the first level wizard with a 20 int has a 50% chance of making a con check to cast a level 1 spell defensively. It gets easier as you level. Significant amounts of damage by say, a readied action are still the only reliable way to make a caster fail their check.


Pathfinder Concentration is actually more difficult. In 3.5, a Cast Defensively check was 15 + Spell level. You would start with +4 from skill ranks alone, and then your bonus just from skill ranks would increase twice as fast as the DC you had to beat. Add in your Con bonus (second most important stat for pretty much everybody- sooner or later you would get a +5 or so in this) and you would eventually achieve auto-success on a 1 without even trying. If you wanted to focus on it with any skill-boosting optimization you would get there quite early in your character's career.

Pathfinder makes Concentration effectively a modified level-check and increases the difficulty. Casting through injury is 10+ spell level + damage (3.5: 10 + damage only). Casting Defensively is 15 + double spell level, which means that the DC of the check keeps pace with your natural progression until you hit level 17 and stop gaining new spell levels, unlike a 3.5 check where the DC doesn't grow as rapidly as your ability to put points into Concentration.

So- Level 1 3.5 Wizard may reasonably have a +6 Concentration bonus (4 points + 2 Con modifier.) He tests against DC 16. A level 1 Pathfinder caster may reasonably have a +5 Concentration modifier (+4 casting stat +1 caster level.) He tests against DC 17. Significantly worse odds.

Level 5? 3.5 is looking at +10 Concentration (8 skill points, still 2 Con) against DC 18 for his highest spells. Beats it on an 8. Pathfinder Caster also gets +10 (Caster 5, assumed to have found/purchased a Widget of +2 Caster Stat for a +5 stat mod) but is testing against DC 21 and needs an 11.

10? 13 skill points, at least 3 Con on the 3.5 Wizard, DC 20 for his 5th level spells. Beats it on 4 now. Pathfinder caster gets 10 plus.. mm.. probably 7 (4 start, 2 levelup bumps, +4 item) against DC 25. His advantage in focusing on a single stat shows here, but he still needs an 8. That pattern holds unless/until the Pathfinder caster becomes able to increase his caster level above his actual level. Not until the near-Epic does the Pathfinder Concentration check actually become an auto-success for the Pathfinder caster, while the 3.5 caster never has worse than a 50% success rate, and can push himself into auto-success quite cheaply (such as with a Third Eye: Concentrate, granting a +10 bonus to Concentration for a mere 10,000 gp.)

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-03, 01:00 AM
You're right! I missed that change in grease. Instead of rounds/level, it's now minutes per level. Otherwise, it acts the same.
What. Why. How. Urgh.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 01:09 AM
What. Why. How. Urgh.

Yeah...I get that reaction a lot looking through there. Ironically, in my pathfinder group, Im playing a barbarian who does *all* the work. The mages are all wildly incompetent. You know, walking around and stabbing things with a dagger level of incompetent. I literally don't dare let myself roll a wizard, because I'd break the game without trying.

Concentration was ridiculously easy in 3.5, yeah. Basically, after low levels, you simply didn't fail it unless someone readied an attack to blast you while casting.

The advantage to the pathfinder version is that you don't need to bother using skill points on it...I mean, you only have 26 skills total(counting knowledge and craft as one each), and quite a few of those are meaningless to a caster. You end up being almost as good a skill monkey as the rogue without trying.

In pathfinder, damage interrupts remain likely to disrupt your spell...more likely even. But those were the ones you were going to likely fail anyway. Casting while threatened is still easy.

Even better, since it works off CL, the CL boosters you were going to buy anyway(yes, the orange ioun stone still exists) now boost your con checks. So, in the end, it gives you a very similar effect as moderate concentration boosting in 3.5, but you don't have to spend resources on it.

Tiktakkat
2010-01-03, 01:18 AM
Hi

I challenge the previous poster's view that you don't have to play it much to make a judgement call. You have to actually experience it to give an informed view - anyone who's read Asimov's Foundation series knows his view on that.

The concepts very similar, and that's the problem. People make false assumptions, believing things are the same. Quite often they're NOT. Two Wpn style using a Shield Bash - no problem. (New feats). Max dex allowed for hvy armours on fighters is increased. Every class has had some form of revamp.

I've played 3.5 in several homebrew AND the international Living Greyhawk & Sarbreenar campaigns to notice the differences. You might like them, you might not, but you really DO have to play it for a while to make a proper, informed assessment.

By that standard, you are wrong as well.
I was a Living Greyhawk campaign administrator for about 5 years combined in two separate positions, and I know that most people who played LG have very little idea of just how the campaign functioned or the differences between it and a regular campaign on a mechanical level.
Based on that, just playing the game, in no matter how many different campaign structures, is not enough. You have to go beyond that into various levels of design for extended periods to even have a chance of appreciating the intricacies of a system.

Which to some extent is true.

However, if you have made a previous effort to actually understand the mechanical underpinnings of various game systems, you can actually develop a reasonably informed view of the function and structure of a rules set by reading through it and playing it just a modest number of times.
If not, then any sort of review is impossible to make in a short time, and indeed would require the sort of in-depth playing and developing I mention. While it might be nice to try and defer judgement for another 3-5 years while people work with the system, it makes it rather impossible to discuss any sort of recommendations for the game before them. As such, we are left defaulting to accumulated experience with games of all sorts, particularly with specific experience with 3.5 to review the Pathfinder RPG.
I think there are people who can manage that, whether the reviews are positive or negative, without needing the extensive experience with the system you are suggesting.

taltamir
2010-01-03, 01:21 AM
Wizards have, IMO, gotten more powerful.
snip
Yay for balance!

you know, the changes would have been sensible to increase survivability and enjoyment, and discourage abuse... IF they also nerfed spells a lot. Baning spells left and right, nerfing the heck out of others, and increasing the spell levels of powerful effects.

Because really, all those things don't actually matter any if you still get to abuse spells to rape the world.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 01:35 AM
Actually, the main achievement of all those is to make various tricks with PrCs and such mostly unnecessary. The only real flaw in wizard is the tendancy to die at low levels in harsh circumstances. They fixed that, and took nothing in return.

I forsee increasingly ridiculous optimization tricks for them, being that the normal PrCs seem mostly the same. Loremaster was the same. Mystic Theurge looked the same, but with the addition of the ability to use spell slots of one class for the other...so leftover sorc slots could spont cast divine spells. Eldritch Knight has more feats and abilities.

Basically, the melee guys got a few more skillpoints and a coupla damage options.

Casters got more hp, which roughly balances the melee increases, and sick abilities.

Saph
2010-01-03, 09:26 AM
Wizards have, IMO, gotten more powerful.

Actually, I cover most of this stuff in my handbook. Link is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890) if you'd like to see for yourself.

Short version: yes, wizards are stronger. So is pretty much every class except for three that stayed about the same, and one which got nerfed. You're listing all the things that wizards got, but you're missing all the things the other classes got.


Ironically, in my pathfinder group, Im playing a barbarian who does *all* the work. The mages are all wildly incompetent. You know, walking around and stabbing things with a dagger level of incompetent. I literally don't dare let myself roll a wizard, because I'd break the game without trying.

No, you wouldn't (or if you did, it wouldn't be because of the class). I'm playing a PF wizard at the moment. In the low levels, a PF wizard is more survivable than a 3.5 one, but their attack options are more limited. It's pretty much a wash IMO. Oh, and most of the specialist wizard abilities are only average, though there are a few standouts.

FatR
2010-01-03, 09:36 AM
more hp doesn't keep up with easy-peasy near doubling (or more) of damage, which, is hillariously written to apply to ANY BASIC ATTACK YOU MAKE. Cleave is now rapid-shot for melee for all intents and purposes. Again people are assuming Feats are as useless and toothless as they used to be, there're not.
Actually, people are assuming that feats are much more useless and toothless than they used to be. Because they mostly are. And equating PF Cleave with Rapid Shot clearly demonstrates that you have no idea, what you're talking about.


people are so hung up on the capping of the attack penelty of power attack they don't notice how its now 1:2 for one handers and 1:2.5 for two handers, and can be used with any melee weapon, including lights.
Still a bad deal whenever it actually matters.


what it's now possible for fighters to spot hidden enemies? thats the point. a fighter in no longer gimped into submission by his low skill-points, and can do things OUT OF COMBAT, one of the biggest knocks against melee.
Skills, except Stealth/Perception and UMD, still don't matter much past the low levels, and fighter still has low skill points. Giving it Perception does not change these facts. Particularly the first one.

FatR
2010-01-03, 09:44 AM
None of the above things happens when you run out of spells.. hence the time management. You own the first few combats, then you are out of spells and suck for the rest of the day... and it is just a matter of WHEN the DM allows you to rest.

I created a thread specifically for it: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136710
Maraphon runs are more than 9000 times harder to melee-type characters than they are to casters thanks to the only substantial improvement that 3.X actually gave to wizards - swift rememorizing. In 2E leaving mooks to fighters and using spells only in real fights made sense at mid-high levels, but in 3.X HPs run out so much faster than buff durations. Moreover, without blatant fiat you hardly can force a level 9+ party to go on when they don't want to or not to skip right to their goal.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 10:33 AM
Short version: yes, wizards are stronger. So is pretty much every class except for three that stayed about the same, and one which got nerfed. You're listing all the things that wizards got, but you're missing all the things the other classes got.

True...but wizards were on top of the pile to begin with. Even if all other classes were buffed equally, wizards would still be on top. Since a fair proportion of classes didn't receive buffs equal in power to wizards, it's reasonable to claim that balance has, if anything, gotten worse.

'course, balance isn't everything.

FatR, there are a few ways of preventing skipping to goals without fiat. However, preventing escape/resting is significantly harder. There's stuff like dimensional anchor and dimensional anchor, but if they're out of combat, it's not exactly hard to figure out a way out.

Saph
2010-01-03, 10:47 AM
True...but wizards were on top of the pile to begin with. Even if all other classes were buffed equally, wizards would still be on top. Since a fair proportion of classes didn't receive buffs equal in power to wizards, it's reasonable to claim that balance has, if anything, gotten worse.

First point: Wizards are not the most powerful class in 3.5. Wizards are a Tier 1 class. Cleric and Druid are also Tier 1 classes, and the Druid is, if anything, ahead in the early levels. Focusing only on Wizards (as a huge amount of people do, for some reason) is missing 10/11ths of the game.

Second point: Out of those three, Wizards are now slightly better, Clerics are about the same, and Druids are slightly worse. So when you say that "a fair proportion of classes didn't receive buffs equal in power to wizards" you're missing the kinda important detail that two of those classes didn't need buffing in the first place.

This is why you need to look at all the classes to make a judgement on balance in Pathfinder, not just Wizards.

Sir_Ophiuchus
2010-01-03, 10:58 AM
I really think people aren't paying enough attention to Pathfinder's feats and how they power up the melee classes.

Here's a quick overview, but you can take a look here: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/feats.html


There are TEN "critical feats" giving a huge number of awesome effects on criticals that have BAB entry requirements and are thus obviously intended for melee classes.

There's the "Disruptive" and "Spellbreaker" feats for fighters (one of which Roy took, I'm guessing!) which let them mess up adjacent spellcasting (already harder in Pathfinder).

Bards can take the "Extra Performance" feat to get 6 more rounds of music a day, and it stacks. Remember there are more feat slots in PF too. Barbarians can do this for rage as well.

Rogues get stuff like "Wind Stance" and "Lightning Stance" from "Dodge", granting them concealment when they move.

Similarly, monks have whole new chains of feats.

Crafting magic items is not only the province of spellcasters now ("Master Craftsman").

The "Vital Strike" chain of feats. Mmmm.

The "Dazzling Display" and "Shatter Defenses" line. So beautiful for a rogue. First attack can flat-foot the opponent, so the rest are sneak attacks!

Fighters can take feats to ignore DR.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-03, 11:02 AM
The paradigm has not shifted. You should re-evaluate your statement.

oxybe
2010-01-03, 11:13 AM
you know, i keep forgetting the only game you're allowed to post spiteful bile post about it and still have it called a "review" is 4th ed :smallamused: :smalltongue:

Leolo
2010-01-03, 11:21 AM
I had played Pathfinder RPG a while (half a year) and had a lot of fun. Mostly because of 3.5 is a good game, and Pathfinder RPG is based on it. And i liked the campaign.

But i do not like most of the changes. I do not like nearly all the classes getting stronger, the missing backward compatibility and the lost options from my now worthless 3.5 splat books.

I also do not like most of the changes on spells. The changes regarding Polymorph spells are only the worst change.

The main problem i have with the system is that it never arise the thought in me: "Yes, this change has been done to improve the game, they have thought about the issue. And at least tried to fix it."

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 11:31 AM
I really think people aren't paying enough attention to Pathfinder's feats and how they power up the melee classes.

Here's a quick overview, but you can take a look here: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/feats.html


There are TEN "critical feats" giving a huge number of awesome effects on criticals that have BAB entry requirements and are thus obviously intended for melee classes.

These are fun, yes. However, they require BaB +9 to even start the chain, making them solely the domain of mid/high lev full BaB classes. Some of them are also worthless...deafen your target after critting them? Meh.

More importantly, they boost your absolute best attacks, crits. This leads to very spiky damage output, and as shown elsewhere, randomness is generally bad for players. I sorta like the crit build possibility myself, but I do wish that other melee builds were competitive.


There's the "Disruptive" and "Spellbreaker" feats for fighters (one of which Roy took, I'm guessing!) which let them mess up adjacent spellcasting (already harder in Pathfinder).

It's called Mage Slayer in 3.5. Not really a change. Also, absolutely useless unless you can get next to the mage and have a reach weapon. If you can do both, then yes, it's awesome. This is also true in 3.5.

Oh, but lets compare the two. In mage slayer, it's just "you can't cast defensively". Incredibly powerful, and basically forces casters to take an AoO somehow. Disruptive is merely a +4 DC check increase. Spellbreaker simply allows you to AoO if they fail. The two feats combined are not nearly as powerful as the 3.5 option.


Bards can take the "Extra Performance" feat to get 6 more rounds of music a day, and it stacks. Remember there are more feat slots in PF too. Barbarians can do this for rage as well.

My barbarian happens to have this, incidentally. Since all barb powers are rage connected, running out is...bad.

See, the rounds/day thing is new in pathfinder for both classes. Before, you could play a song all day, and it counted as one use. The rounds/day does allow more flexibility in turning things on/off, but frankly, beyond the very early levels, bards and barbs got plenty of music and rage in 3.5


Rogues get stuff like "Wind Stance" and "Lightning Stance" from "Dodge", granting them concealment when they move.

Huh? A feat chain starting with dodge? With BaB requirements? Lightening stance requires Bab +11. Congrats, you wasted three feats to sorta replicate the ring of blink.

Wait. It's even worse. You only get the concealment when you take a withdraw or double move action. Thus, it's useless for granting sneak attack.

Wind stance is only 20% concealment, and only functions when moving, and only works vs ranged attacks. Meh. It's a waste of feats.


Similarly, monks have whole new chains of feats.

More importantly, they are also monks. They haven't changed all that much from 3.5...they have a few minor tidbits, like automatically getting stunning fist for free at level 1, but nothing that matters all that much.


Crafting magic items is not only the province of spellcasters now ("Master Craftsman").

This is good, yeah. However, it does take a feat for non-casters, but casters can create magic items automatically. If a melee type takes this, then blows feats to pick up magic item types he can create(which he needs to do), he's investing heavily to do this. More so than a caster needs to.


The "Vital Strike" chain of feats. Mmmm.

It's ok. It's a single attack though, so only relevant on the round you charge in most cases, since the BaB requirements preclude it being taken before you have iteratives.

Also note that it only increases the weapon die damage. Not any of your bonuses. So, you're spending a feat to add a few points of damage on single attacks. It doesn't stack with crits, giving no synergy with the crit line. Powerattacking is generally more useful.


The "Dazzling Display" and "Shatter Defenses" line. So beautiful for a rogue. First attack can flat-foot the opponent, so the rest are sneak attacks!

They have to be shaken, panicked, or frightened first. The effect is applied by your first attack, and only lasts until the end of next turn.

This is again, a situational damage boost. Rogues have better ways of gaining sneak attack. IE, any magic item that grants concealment.


Fighters can take feats to ignore DR.

At 12th and 16th level respectively for 5 and then 10. Okish situational damage increase, yes. Not amazing.

This goes back to the principle of casters getting abilities like "immunity from an energy type of choice", while fighters get to hit things harder.

Saph
2010-01-03, 12:28 PM
This goes back to the principle of casters getting abilities like "immunity from an energy type of choice", while fighters get to hit things harder.

I'm assuming you're referring to the ability that Abjurers get at 20th-level? Frankly, it's pretty poor. Unless you know in advance what energy type you're going to be attacked by, it's useless, and in any case an ability that you have to wait until level 20 to get is pretty much irrelevant for 99% of games. There are better picks.

As for item creation, I think you're missing the fact that anyone with a caster level can effectively make items now. "Everyone with a caster level" means Bards, Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers, Rangers, and Paladins. So only 4 out of 11 base classes don't automatically qualify for item creation feats, and even they can get it with Master Craftsman. Alternatively, you could just ask one of the other characters in the party to do it for you - the chances of no-one having any casting ability is pretty slim.

In short, item creation in Pathfinder is common as dirt. Everyone can get it. It explains why there are so many magic items floating around the gameworld, anyway.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 12:38 PM
I'm assuming you're referring to the ability that Abjurers get at 20th-level? Frankly, it's pretty poor. Unless you know in advance what energy type you're going to be attacked by, it's useless, and in any case an ability that you have to wait until level 20 to get is pretty much irrelevant for 99% of games. There are better picks.

Abjuration isn't the most powerful set, no. Diviner probably is. Always act in surprise round? From level 1? At level 20, automatically get nat 20s on init? All that's only one of their abilities, and for a wizard, it ends up being practically an autowin. The scrying/antiscrying ability is also pretty badass.

But you do get resistances until 20, and you also have energy absorption, which isn't type specific. If you have any idea what types of energy you'll be facing, you can swap to that, and if not, well, leave it on the most common type you don't have resists to from gear. It makes it much easier to make yourself practically immune to energy in general.


As for item creation, I think you're missing the fact that anyone with a caster level can effectively make items now. "Everyone with a caster level" means Bards, Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers, Rangers, and Paladins. So only 4 out of 11 base classes don't automatically qualify for item creation feats, and even they can get it with Master Craftsman. Alternatively, you could just ask one of the other characters in the party to do it for you - the chances of no-one having any casting ability is pretty slim.

Yes...realistically, this is what's going to happen. With no xp investment, it doesn't matter who actually crafts the item. Thus, you have your caster do it instead of wasting a feat on a melee character. Master Craftsman ends up being mostly an NPC feat.

Sir_Ophiuchus
2010-01-03, 12:51 PM
You make a lot of very valid points; I only have an issue with one.


They have to be shaken, panicked, or frightened first. The effect is applied by your first attack, and only lasts until the end of next turn.

That's what the prerequisite feat "Dazzling Display" lets you do: make an Intimidate check to shake them.

Also, are people overlooking the bard's "Dirge of Doom"? It automatically shakes all enemies within range, no save.

Saph
2010-01-03, 12:52 PM
Abjuration isn't the most powerful set, no. Diviner probably is. Always act in surprise round? From level 1?

Does nothing unless there's a surprise round.


At level 20, automatically get nat 20s on init?

Pointless IMO. Level 20 abilities are pretty much irrelevant. You'll have won or lost the game long before then.


The scrying/antiscrying ability is also pretty badass.

Does nothing unless you're level 8+ and spend a lot of time scrying or being scryed on.


All that's only one of their abilities, and for a wizard, it ends up being practically an autowin.

It's two abilities, not one, and it's not an autowin.

Diviner abilities are highly situational. Scrying boosts are great - if you typically spend hours each day on scrying. The initiative boost is great - once you get to higher levels; at low levels, it's strictly worse than Improved Initiative. Finally, there's the major problem that being a Diviner requires you to spend your bonus spells known and bonus spells memorised on Divination spells. This is fine in a social/political campaign or a very high-level campaign where the sessions revolve around information gathering, but for low- to mid-level kick-in-the-door-kill-stuff play it's fairly subpar.

So it's inaccurate to say that the Diviner abilities are the most powerful. They're great in a highly specific subset of games (high-level, information-focused). For low-level or combat-centric games they're not the best choice at all.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 01:07 PM
Does nothing unless there's a surprise round.

Technically true, but it basically makes you impossible to surprise.

For fun, keep your familiar in your pocket. He's unaware of attack, and thus surprised. Surprise rounds being heavily biased toward non melee anyhow, there's really no reason not to.

Or more fun, walk around with a blindfold on. Thus, you get surprised, and can act in the surprise round. Has the added benefit of fitting the whole Blind Seer concept pretty perfectly.


Pointless IMO. Level 20 abilities are pretty much irrelevant. You'll have won or lost the game long before then.

It's true A. the game falls apart at epic anyway in 3.5, so 20 is the last commonly played level, and B. most gameplay takes place much lower....but if you lower the level cap at which the game falls apart, I'd consider that a bit of a bad thing.

But yeah, in practice, due to increasing imbalance at high levels, I expect play will center on low levels. This isn't all that different from 3.5, honestly.


Does nothing unless you're level 8+ and spend a lot of time scrying or being scryed on.

Given that scrying is a 4th level spell, that's hardly a burden. You get the ability one level after you get the spell.


It's two abilities, not one, and it's not an autowin.

Both of the init roll of 20 and acting in the surprise round come from the same ability.


Diviner abilities are highly situational. Scrying boosts are great - if you typically spend hours each day on scrying. The initiative boost is great - once you get to higher levels; at low levels, it's strictly worse than Improved Initiative. Finally, there's the major problem that being a Diviner requires you to spend your bonus spells known and bonus spells memorised on Divination spells. This is fine in a social/political campaign or a very high-level campaign where the sessions revolve around information gathering, but for low- to mid-level kick-in-the-door-kill-stuff play it's fairly subpar.

Huh? Divination has Detect Magic, Identify, True Strike, Detect Secret Doors, Locate Object and See Invisibility. That's just from spell levels 0-2, and all of those are pretty handy in your normal dungeon crawling campaign.

Plus, you've still got all those normal spell slots that can be whatever. And, if an item familiar, a bonus, spont spell.


So it's inaccurate to say that the Diviner abilities are the most powerful. They're great in a highly specific subset of games (high-level, information-focused). For low-level or combat-centric games they're not the best choice at all.

What would you consider the best choice? I consider the melee and non scaling missile attacks to be subpar, personally. Conjurer is great, as always. Illusion is powerful, but is still subject to the usual illusion downsides(ie, true seeing).

Saph
2010-01-03, 01:14 PM
Huh? Divination has Detect Magic, Identify, True Strike, Detect Secret Doors, Locate Object and See Invisibility. That's just from spell levels 0-2, and all of those are pretty handy in your normal dungeon crawling campaign.

Most of those are inferior to the 1st- and 2nd-level alternatives. At level 12, having See Invisibility is great. At level 3, it's pretty useless. Do you really get attacked by invisible enemies often enough at level 3 to make it worth spending a third of your highest-level spell slots on a counter to it?


What would you consider the best choice? I consider the melee and non scaling missile attacks to be subpar, personally. Conjurer is great, as always. Illusion is powerful, but is still subject to the usual illusion downsides(ie, true seeing).

Conjuration is mediocre - see in the handbook for reasons. Illusion is probably the strongest. Sure, it can be beaten by true seeing - what fraction of enemies in your Level 8-10 campaigns come with true seeing? 15%? 10%? Less?

The melee attacks are poor, but the missile attacks are decent. Bear in mind that they're intended for low levels, which is where you need extra abilities the most. At high levels, you're going to be relying on your spells and you don't really need the extra power anyway (plus the campaign will probably have ended by then).

Sir_Ophiuchus
2010-01-03, 01:16 PM
A few more niggles with what you said, now that I'd thought it over.


These are fun, yes. However, they require BaB +9 to even start the chain, making them solely the domain of mid/high lev full BaB classes. Some of them are also worthless...deafen your target after critting them? Meh.

I thought the point was to attempt to get some class balance at the higher levels? Also, deafening a spellcaster gives them a 20% spell failure on most spells, which is nothing to sneeze at.


It's called Mage Slayer in 3.5. Not really a change. Also, absolutely useless unless you can get next to the mage and have a reach weapon. If you can do both, then yes, it's awesome. This is also true in 3.5.

Oh, but lets compare the two. In mage slayer, it's just "you can't cast defensively". Incredibly powerful, and basically forces casters to take an AoO somehow. Disruptive is merely a +4 DC check increase. Spellbreaker simply allows you to AoO if they fail. The two feats combined are not nearly as powerful as the 3.5 option.

I'm not really familiar with that feat, but a "mere" +4 increase to DC is a big deal in Pathfinder as, as mentioned earlier, defensive casting has become more difficult. Mage Slayer as you describe it honestly seems excessive, maybe not in 3.5 (which, after all, had easy defensive casting) but certainly in Pathfinder.


See, the rounds/day thing is new in pathfinder for both classes. Before, you could play a song all day, and it counted as one use. The rounds/day does allow more flexibility in turning things on/off, but frankly, beyond the very early levels, bards and barbs got plenty of music and rage in 3.5

Yes, but in 3.5 a bard using bardic music (even one that didn't require concentration) could not "cast spells or activate magic items by spell completion (such as scrolls), spell trigger (such as wands), or command word". In Pathfinder that limit is removed - this is a really, really big deal.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 01:35 PM
I thought the point was to attempt to get some class balance at the higher levels? Also, deafening a spellcaster gives them a 20% spell failure on most spells, which is nothing to sneeze at.

If you get in a position to hit a spellcaster, and confirm the crit on them...then at least in 3.5, they're generally dead. The power disparity doesn't come from crit damage being bad...it comes from it being extremely difficult to make them take it in the first place.


I'm not really familiar with that feat, but a "mere" +4 increase to DC is a big deal in Pathfinder as, as mentioned earlier, defensive casting has become more difficult. Mage Slayer as you describe it honestly seems excessive, maybe not in 3.5 (which, after all, had easy defensive casting) but certainly in Pathfinder.

It's been upped mostly in areas where you frankly weren't going to make the check even in 3.5.

Aright, lets say I'm a level 10 spellcaster casting a level 4 spell. First off, if it's a swift action, concentration is not needed. I automatically win. If it's not, I take my int modifer(assuming a +4 enhancement bonus, +8) + CL(at least 10. probably 11+) and a d20. With only a single CL booster, that means my roll ranges from a 20 to a 39. Since all I need is 15+2*spell level, a 23 is sufficient to pass the check.

So, without you having those feats, I'm successful on a 4+. With those feats, I'm successful on a 8+.

These checks get easier to pass at higher levels, so by the time you actually get to take an AoO, I can easily ensure that you will never actually get to do so.


Yes, but in 3.5 a bard using bardic music (even one that didn't require concentration) could not "cast spells or activate magic items by spell completion (such as scrolls), spell trigger (such as wands), or command word". In Pathfinder that limit is removed - this is a really, really big deal.

So? Inspire Courage, Inspire Greatness and such had the effects continue 5 rounds after you performed. So...you quit performing, and do other stuff, and the effects linger. An additional 5 rounds is almost invariably plenty.

Since you get a perform/level, this is rather easy to pull off without running dry being a real worry.

On a side note, this now means that in PF, since the additional rounds of effect are gone, taking out the bard is now a means of stopping the effect.

On the flip side, in pathfinder, all bardic performances with a visual component now have a 50% failure rate. Fun.

Inspire Competence now does not work on some skills. Stealth, for example.

UglyPanda
2010-01-03, 01:36 PM
Yes, but in 3.5 a bard using bardic music (even one that didn't require concentration) could not "cast spells or activate magic items by spell completion (such as scrolls), spell trigger (such as wands), or command word". In Pathfinder that limit is removed - this is a really, really big deal.Smart 3.5 Bards would end the song immediately after starting and let the "and 5 rounds after..." last the rest of the battle. Just refusing to continue to sing allowed multiple stacking songs and allowed you to do whatever the heck you wanted.

Plus there's the whole thing that splatbooks were a Bard's best friend. Harmonizing Weapons from MIC, Song of the Heart from EbCS, etc.

Edit:
Ninja'd. But yeah, ending the song early is a major & important strategy for Bards.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 01:38 PM
Conjuration is mediocre - see in the handbook for reasons. Illusion is probably the strongest. Sure, it can be beaten by true seeing - what fraction of enemies in your Level 8-10 campaigns come with true seeing? 15%? 10%? Less?

I don't actually disagree much with your power evaluations...I just don't think that balance comparisons should end at level 10ish. All 20 levels should be considered for balance, IMO.

Saph
2010-01-03, 01:46 PM
I don't actually disagree much with your power evaluations...I just don't think that balance comparisons should end at level 10ish. All 20 levels should be considered for balance, IMO.

Well, if I remember right, last time I took a poll and asked what levels the people on this forum were playing D&D 3.5 at, the responses were:

Level 1-5: about 40%
Level 6-10: about 45%
Level 11-15: about 13%
Level 16-20: about 2%

These numbers match up with my experiences: a lot of games get to levels 6-10, some get to 11-15 but usually end there if they do, and only a vanishingly small fraction ever get to level 20.

So an ability that requires you to be level 20 is, IMO, basically useless. The chances of you ever getting high enough level to use it are incredibly small, and even if you do, game balance is so whacked-out by then that it's almost impossible to make meaningful comparisons anyway.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 01:49 PM
That, to me, is one of the flaws in 3.5.

I wish that would have been fixed, rather than made worse.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-03, 01:50 PM
Saph, do you plan on informing the Paizo forums of this and seeing if they have any contributions to make?

Saph
2010-01-03, 01:51 PM
Informing them of what? The game's out now, after all.

edit: ah, I see. Yeah, could be fun. I'll get a few more contributions and suggestions then put it up.

Paul H
2010-01-03, 02:03 PM
Hi

All of us have out own (limited) experiences of PF, I don't think the final version's been out long (5 months) enough to make a definitive judgement.

So far, my experience has been positive - I'm playing in the 'Living' campaign, (PFS). What do people think so far about the Sorceror? I like the flavour of the sorcerous power being gained from 'somewhere'. Draconic background is my current favourite, but that could change.

Just starting up a Half Orc Sorceror1/Paladin4/Dragon Disciple xx if anyone's interested.

Cheers
Paul H

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 02:47 PM
On a side note, how is PFS, and how does it compare to other living campaigns?

9mm
2010-01-03, 03:06 PM
It's ok. It's a single attack though, so only relevant on the round you charge in most cases, since the BaB requirements preclude it being taken before you have iteratives.

Also note that it only increases the weapon die damage. Not any of your bonuses. So, you're spending a feat to add a few points of damage on single attacks. It doesn't stack with crits, giving no synergy with the crit line. Powerattacking is generally more useful.


Let me say this to be clear; anyone who thinks vital strike requires you make a single attack, and only a single attack, is not reading the full entry, and is mistaking the table as crunch.

"whenever you take an attack action" =/= single attack, it means ANY attack.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 03:12 PM
Let me say this to be clear; anyone who thinks vital strike requires you make a single attack, and only a single attack, is not reading the full entry, and is mistaking the table as crunch.

"whenever you take an attack action" =/= single attack, it means ANY attack.

The initial description is "You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal".

The full line out of which you quoted says "When you use an attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage".

It does not say whenever.

Tiktakkat
2010-01-03, 03:15 PM
I really think people aren't paying enough attention to Pathfinder's feats and how they power up the melee classes.

Most of which are relevant if you only compare core to core.
Once PFRPG has to stand up to the full run of WotC splatbooks, a lot of the "new hawtness" becomes just renamed variants.


There are TEN "critical feats" giving a huge number of awesome effects on criticals that have BAB entry requirements and are thus obviously intended for melee classes.

They are quite nice.
Of course, since they are based on scoring crits, they overwhelmingly favor using high crit weapons, forcing an optimization path for anyone who considers them.
As long as you are happy using a falchion, they are great. Otherwise they are less relevant.


There's the "Disruptive" and "Spellbreaker" feats for fighters (one of which Roy took, I'm guessing!) which let them mess up adjacent spellcasting (already harder in Pathfinder).

Mage Slayer, from Complete Arcane, completely prohibits casting defensively by anyone next to you.


Bards can take the "Extra Performance" feat to get 6 more rounds of music a day, and it stacks. Remember there are more feat slots in PF too. Barbarians can do this for rage as well.

Extra Music is in Complete Adventurer, Extra Rage is in Complete Warrior.
Also, Lingering Song is in Complete Adventuerer, and Extend Rage is in Complete Warrior, enhancing both further if needed.


Rogues get stuff like "Wind Stance" and "Lightning Stance" from "Dodge", granting them concealment when they move.

Which are great if you are worried about range attacks and do not care about attacking.
If you actually want to, you know, make attacks at 15th level, you can do significantly better than Lightning Stance, and if you want to be attacking before then, going from Dodge to Mobility to Elusive Target in Complete Warrior, has always been much better.


Similarly, monks have whole new chains of feats.

I am not sure I can track down all the feats based off Improved Unarmed Strike and Stunning Fist in the WotC splatbooks . . .
Eagle Claw Attack, Earth's Embrace, Flying Kick, Roundabout Kick, Versatile Unarmed Strike, Fiery Fist, Fiery Ki Defense, Fists of Iron, Freezing the Lifeblood, Ki Blast, Pain Touch, Rapid Stunning, Water Splitting Stone, and Weakening Touch are just Complete Warrior and Player's Handbook 2. And we cannot overlook Superior Unarmed Strike and Snap Kick from the Tome of Battle.
Next to those, Scorpion Style -> Gorgon's Fist -> Medusa's Wrath are just not that impressive.


Crafting magic items is not only the province of spellcasters now ("Master Craftsman").

Crafting wondrous items, arms, and armor, are not only the province of spellcasters now.
That is with an extra prerequisite feat requirement, and requiring a reasonable investment in a Craft skill.
Potions, scrolls, rods, staves, wands, and rings remain exclusive to spellcasters.


The "Vital Strike" chain of feats. Mmmm.

Manyshot for melee, but it requires two extra feats to get base damage from your other iterative attacks.
Why not just take Manyshot and save the extra feats?


The "Dazzling Display" and "Shatter Defenses" line. So beautiful for a rogue. First attack can flat-foot the opponent, so the rest are sneak attacks!

Daunting Presence in Libris Mortis, Intimidating Strike in PHB II, Haunting Melody in Eberron Campaign Setting, Dreadful Wrath in Player's Guide to Faerun, Kiai Shout in Complete Warrior, Intimidating Rage in Complete Warrior, Draconic Presence in Complete Arcane, all provide ways to make an opponent shaken.
Shatter Defenses is pretty nice for an 8th level rogue. Of course it requires a full round action, making a DC 20 + HD + Wis modifier Intimidate check (DC 15+ if they are nice enough to move next to you), getting next to them, and finally making a full attack.
Naturally Charisma could not be a dump stat if you expect to have better than a 50% chance of suceeding at that on a regular basis.


Fighters can take feats to ignore DR.

I do not think I ever saw a 3.5 fighter who really cared more than a vague half-tick about DR at 12th level, never mind at 16th level.
At that point you should either be unloading so much damage per attack that even DR 20 is little more than a rumble strip, or have enough magical support that you can bypass anything other than DR /- or DR /your (your party spellcaster's) alignment.
Since PFRPG let's a +3 adamantine weapon ignore anything but alignment based DR, the feats seem more than a little superfluous.

Sir_Ophiuchus
2010-01-03, 05:25 PM
Most of which are relevant if you only compare core to core.

You're absolutely right, that's all I was doing. I don't think Pathfinder is as compatible with past splatbooks as it tries to be, and I'd restrict a Pathfinder game I ran to Pathfinder core books except for GM discretion.

Tiktakkat
2010-01-03, 06:48 PM
You're absolutely right, that's all I was doing. I don't think Pathfinder is as compatible with past splatbooks as it tries to be, and I'd restrict a Pathfinder game I ran to Pathfinder core books except for GM discretion.

I am not talking about compatibility, I am talking about content.
A significant amount of what you cite as power ups for melee classes already exists in various WotC splatbooks in one form or other. On that basis, Pathfinder RPG offers very little that is new, and what it does is of questionable, limited, or limiting utility.
Sure, it might be interesting. But completely new edition with limited compatability interesting?

Paul H
2010-01-03, 07:12 PM
On a side note, how is PFS, and how does it compare to other living campaigns?

Hi

So far. so good. Bear in mind that PFS only went true PF in August, so only been around a few months. It has limited access to magical items, but the Prestige Reward (rewards for doing extra missions) seems to work even better than Living Greyhawk (In my opinion).

Conception's coming up in a few weeks, I hope to get several games in there. Should be well supported, if Dragonmeet was anything to go by.

The more I play, the more I see the differences. Obviously some people will be against anything, no matter how good, because of their considerable investment in 3.5 and all the splatbooks. I just ask them to stop dissing something just because they're not into it personally. I can't stand shellfish - but I won't stop others eating it (If properly cooked.)!

Cheers
Paul H

oxybe
2010-01-03, 07:46 PM
Hi

So far. so good. Bear in mind that PFS only went true PF in August, so only been around a few months. It has limited access to magical items, but the Prestige Reward (rewards for doing extra missions) seems to work even better than Living Greyhawk (In my opinion).

Conception's coming up in a few weeks, I hope to get several games in there. Should be well supported, if Dragonmeet was anything to go by.

The more I play, the more I see the differences. Obviously some people will be against anything, no matter how good, because of their considerable investment in 3.5 and all the splatbooks. I just ask them to stop dissing something just because they're not into it personally. I can't stand shellfish - but I won't stop others eating it (If properly cooked.)!

Cheers
Paul H

cooked? bah. the only way to properly eat shellfish is to shuck it down cold and salty. with some spirits on the side, of course.

pres_man
2010-01-04, 01:07 AM
In my game, I'm running the Rise of the Runelords campaign. After the session tonight, one of the players (a guy who sometimes DMs) asked me about Pathfinder.
Player: "So what do you think, should I buy the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game?"
Me: "Why? Do you not want to play 3.5 anymore?"
Player: "But it is 3.5, right?"
Me: "Nope. It is too different to be actually used in a 3.5 game. They've made changes to all the classes, changed some spells, different special action mechanics."
Player: "Oh, so probably not."
Me: "It depends, if you have an extra $50 you'd like to spend on something to give you a few ideas, sure go for it. Or if you don't want to play 3.5."
Player: *looks over at the shelves of 3.5 materials* "Yeah, I think we have enough 3.5 stuff, we should stick with it."
Me: "If a brand new group of players had never played 3.5 and didn't like 4e, I would totally recommend it for them. But hey, we got 3.5, so why bother, right? I wish they had stuck with the 3.5 rules, then I could have recommended it to 3.5 players as well. I can always use another PHB around the game room for when someone forgets their book."

FatR
2010-01-04, 05:30 AM
There's the "Disruptive" and "Spellbreaker" feats for fighters (one of which Roy took, I'm guessing!) which let them mess up adjacent spellcasting (already harder in Pathfinder).
Doesn't freaking matter. Because adjacent spellcasting that provokes AoO is not something you're going to ever see beyond low levels, unless you caught a caster in a tight corner with his pant... buffs down. In which case you can just freaking stab him to death.

I would understand talks about harsher life for spellcasters, if they made a feat like this:

DIE, SPELLSLINGER, DIE [GENERAL]
You have studied the ways and weaknesses of spellcasters and can hit them where it really hurts both them and their ability to concentrate on their spells.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 2 ranks.
Benefit: Damage you inflict by weapon attacks or natural attacks is considered “continuous damage” and forces appropriate Concentration checks, if the target attempts to cast spells before the beginning of your next round. All your attacks in a round are considered the same source of continuous damage, so damage from them stacks for determining the difficulty of Concentration checks.

But Spellbreaker and Disruptive just don't do anything.



Bards can take the "Extra Performance" feat to get 6 more rounds of music a day, and it stacks. Remember there are more feat slots in PF too.
Yeah. So, why, again, PF drilled that huge, bleeding hole in the bard's musical abilities, it tries to inadequately bandage with this feat?


Rogues get stuff like "Wind Stance" and "Lightning Stance" from "Dodge", granting them concealment when they move.
And again, does not matter. Not only because DnD combat beyond low levels demands from them to move as little as possible, but because this too is a bandage on a huge, bleeding hole, left by nerfing of ring of blinking and other things, that actually allowed a rogue to get sneak attacks without too much moving.


Similarly, monks have whole new chains of feats.
And who cares?


Crafting magic items is not only the province of spellcasters now ("Master Craftsman").
It is. Items still have spells as prerequisites. All Master Craftsman does in giving spellcasters the privilege of not actually spending time to make them.


The "Vital Strike" chain of feats. Mmmm.
Who cares, again. Basic damage dice are nearly meaningless beyond low level. In what kind of mad world adding, like, 21 average damage to a single attack is worth sacrificing your iteratives? At level 16 and the cost of three feats, mind you.


The "Dazzling Display" and "Shatter Defenses" line. So beautiful for a rogue. First attack can flat-foot the opponent, so the rest are sneak attacks!
Horrible $hit. Read what PFeats actually freaking do before offering examples. Freaking Dazzling Display is a freaking full-round action to possibly inflict a freaking -2 penalty on a bunch of foes for a round or three. And Shatter Defenses demands from you to also hit one of this foes, before he even becomes flat footed. While in 3.5. a rogue can just put on ring of blinking.


Fighters can take feats to ignore DR.
Yeah, except in 3.5 they can too, (like Power Attack + Shock Trooper + Leap Attack combo), and without waiting until levels 12-16. Penertating Strikes would have been useful at level 3, but at levels you actually get them, they are a joke.

Oslecamo
2010-01-04, 06:26 AM
Me: "If a brand new group of players had never played 3.5 and didn't like 4e, I would totally recommend it for them. But hey, we got 3.5, so why bother, right? I wish they had stuck with the 3.5 rules, then I could have recommended it to 3.5 players as well. I can always use another PHB around the game room for when someone forgets their book."

This is somewhat true. If you already have a lot of splatbooks and know your way around them, there's little new stuff in PF. If you want to enter 3.X whitout any previous experience, then PF works well as a concentrated compendium of cool feats and house rules.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-04, 09:35 AM
Hi

So far. so good. Bear in mind that PFS only went true PF in August, so only been around a few months. It has limited access to magical items, but the Prestige Reward (rewards for doing extra missions) seems to work even better than Living Greyhawk (In my opinion).

Conception's coming up in a few weeks, I hope to get several games in there. Should be well supported, if Dragonmeet was anything to go by.

Interesting. I'll have to see about getting a local campaign started.


The more I play, the more I see the differences. Obviously some people will be against anything, no matter how good, because of their considerable investment in 3.5 and all the splatbooks. I just ask them to stop dissing something just because they're not into it personally. I can't stand shellfish - but I won't stop others eating it (If properly cooked.)!

Cheers
Paul H

That's not really an argument for pathfinder, there. It's simply a personal attack on those who have issues with pathfinder.

I suggest that if you have differences of opinion with people regarding different editions, you speak to the rulesets themselves, not the player's perceived biases. That way lies edition war mayhem.

Boci
2010-01-04, 09:59 AM
This is somewhat true. If you already have a lot of splatbooks and know your way around them, there's little new stuff in PF. If you want to enter 3.X whitout any previous experience, then PF works well as a concentrated compendium of cool feats and house rules.

Yes, but if you want to enter 3.5, bear in mind thatr using Pathfinder will limit your options for expandiong the game.

pres_man
2010-01-04, 10:41 AM
Yes, but if you want to enter 3.5, bear in mind thatr using Pathfinder will limit your options for expandiong the game.

I'm not sure if that is too much of a worry, Paizo I believe is basically going to redo most stuff anyway. Don't need Oriental Adventures because Paizo is going to do an asian themed product. Don't need expanded psionics because Paizo is going to do a psionic themed producted. etc.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-04, 10:45 AM
Hmm, I see incompatibility as a likely growing problem, though. I mean, not all that stuff is OGL material, so it HAS to be different.

pres_man
2010-01-04, 11:05 AM
Hmm, I see incompatibility as a likely growing problem, though. I mean, not all that stuff is OGL material, so it HAS to be different.

True, but my point is, if you are worried you won't have as many options (though not necessarily worried about having the exact same options), then I don't think you need to worry. Paizo seems quite interested in further expanding on their roleplaying line and will eventually have plenty of splatbooks for everyone. Sure their asian themed book will not be the exact same as oriental adventures, but if you want an asian themed book and are playing PF, then you'll want to grab theirs than try to get a copy of something you have to convert anyway.

sonofzeal
2010-01-04, 11:07 AM
Don't need expanded psionics because Paizo is going to do a psionic themed producted. etc.
What's the word on that, anyway? Are they still ditching the classic point-cost system it's had since... when, AD&D?

Xenogears
2010-01-04, 11:22 AM
What's the word on that, anyway? Are they still ditching the classic point-cost system it's had since... when, AD&D?

That was one of their worst decisions...
I mean atleast saying monks can't use INA was for design aesthetic instead but this is just...

Another_Poet
2010-01-04, 11:29 AM
I have now played multiple Pathfinder campaigns at varying levels. I've played at level 5-6 with a caster, and I've DM'd a level 12 adventure and an ongoing campaign that's gone level 1-3 so far. I've also run a gestalt online campaign that mostly uses PF rules and runa couple of 5th level PF one-shots. I find Pathfinder really enjoyable at all the levels I've played or run. 5 out of 5 of my players agree (one of them also having GM'd the system). Slightly more enjoyable than 3.5.

I find that the changes to individual spells does in fact limit down the power of casters, despite their added special abilities. The channel energy mechanic works nicely and makes a cleric invest more feats to aproach the power level a 3.5 cleric, while at the same time lessening the burden of being the "heal bot." The wildshape fix seems reasonable, though the druid is still the strongest class. Often when a wizard looks up the spell they're about to cast they find it works slightly differently than in 3.5 and is not as uber (Web is one example that I can think of from recent play).

All in all, a tight system - not much different than 3.5, better in some ways. Not worse in any ways. Still leaves melee types trailing a bit behind casters but in truth that's never been much of a problem in real life groups that I've seen, played in, or run - and it's quite easy to fit ToB material in if you are so inclined.

If you like 3.5 then IMO it's worth making the conversion just so you can use the wealth of adventures being offered for PF. Even if you don't love the rules changes they're so minor that it will only be a hiccup. But in truth you'll probably find you like the rules changes.

ap

Grommen
2010-01-04, 12:38 PM
I just don't have these problems with casters in my campaigns that some others do, so I'm not gonna jump into that debate (Like it ever goes anywhere anyway).

From what I've seen so far, and were only up to like level 5 and 6, it's been pretty much the same. The nice thing is that we have a Palidian in the party for the fist time in forever. So far she has turned out to be very strong warrior. Coarse were fighting a lot of demons and outer planners, so that hole smite evil thing (whow). She has not failed a save that I can think of yet either. We are really digging the skills system, the versatility is very nice.

The changing concentration from a skill to a CL thing, has become a very nice Pain in the butt. The party's cleric, played by me (I'm DM'ing at the moment too) ends up in melee combat a lot. Every time I go to roll for a concentration check to cast something, I fail it and promptly get whacked by some sword swinging fool. So it seems to be working the way it was intended.

Another thing I've noticed is that their are a lot more combat maneuvers getting thrown around. Perhaps this is because of the changes in Pathfinder making the rules easier to remember, or because of the changes more people are looking at them and using them. Can't really say but the melee types are very happily tripping, charging, and grappling everything in site. it's made our melees a lot more than just "Hack and Slash".

All in all we like the rules very well. I'm running the "Second Darkness" adventure, I've had no compatibility issues what so ever. Yes I have to add CMB and CMD's on the fly, and I do use the Pathfinder Beastiary when I can. Everything else has slid into place. I rebuilt the drow (only cause they are the prime feacher in the adventure path) to Pathfinder rules, but so far it's equated to several hours of me looking up rules and perhaps adding a feat here or their, and giving most of the drow melee types Perception so the party does not sneak up and kill them all the time. I'm expecting a few more things in the higher level adventures, cause pathfinder NPC's and PC's get more feats and I think that will finally begin to catch up.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-04, 02:09 PM
The changing concentration from a skill to a CL thing, has become a very nice Pain in the butt. The party's cleric, played by me (I'm DM'ing at the moment too) ends up in melee combat a lot. Every time I go to roll for a concentration check to cast something, I fail it and promptly get whacked by some sword swinging fool. So it seems to be working the way it was intended.

Um, failing the check just means you lose the spell. You don't provoke an AoO unless they took both the feats for that. IE, level 12+ fighter.


Another thing I've noticed is that their are a lot more combat maneuvers getting thrown around. Perhaps this is because of the changes in Pathfinder making the rules easier to remember, or because of the changes more people are looking at them and using them. Can't really say but the melee types are very happily tripping, charging, and grappling everything in site. it's made our melees a lot more than just "Hack and Slash".

If you've played with ToB at all, it's not really that different. Plus...tripping, charging and grappling were all quite viable in 3.5. It'd probably be difficult to make a build that does all them terrifically, but optimizing for one or two is quite doable.

Stephen_E
2010-01-04, 07:00 PM
Re: The Diviner abilities.

I agree with Saph that for the Pure Wizard they're so-so, and quite situational.

Where IMHO the diviner abilities shine is in the hands of the Gish builds.
Always act in the surprise round (as well as at least a +1 to Init) is awesome for melee scout type builds, and not bad for other melee types. And with the PF combat manuver system True Strike kicks arse. It gives a +20 to your combat manuver roll, which is pretty much auto suceed.

Stephen E

lesser_minion
2010-01-04, 07:44 PM
It's ok. It's a single attack though, so only relevant on the round you charge in most cases, since the BaB requirements preclude it being taken before you have iteratives.

Also note that it only increases the weapon die damage. Not any of your bonuses. So, you're spending a feat to add a few points of damage on single attacks. It doesn't stack with crits, giving no synergy with the crit line. Powerattacking is generally more useful.


Actually, it has a very specific list of bonuses that do not apply. Power Attack is not in any of those categories.

Combined with a crit, it behaves the exact same way as it would have done if it said "you do double damage"

The "and suck" part of Grease lost a tiny bit of its bite (you aren't off-balance if you don't move any more).


Pathfinder certainly isn't the ultimate fix to every D&D issue, but it isn't as awful as some people seem to think.

Matthew
2010-01-05, 01:53 PM
There is some interesting stuff in Path Finder; I do not think I would actually choose to replace the D20/3e rules with it as the basis, but on the other hand I would happily take bits and pieces to add to a given campaign. If I was considering starting an actual Path Finder campaign, I would probably convert.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-05, 02:04 PM
Actually, it has a very specific list of bonuses that do not apply. Power Attack is not in any of those categories.

Combined with a crit, it behaves the exact same way as it would have done if it said "you do double damage"

Not at home with my PF book atm, but I could have sworn that it stacks in the same way that 3.5 empower and maximize stack. Ie, you get both, but there's no synergy there.


The "and suck" part of Grease lost a tiny bit of its bite (you aren't off-balance if you don't move any more).

I posit that the duration from rounds/levels to minutes/levels is at least as significant. Grease isn't really less powerful than it was in 3.5


Pathfinder certainly isn't the ultimate fix to every D&D issue, but it isn't as awful as some people seem to think.

I don't think Pathfinder is awful. I just don't think it fixes balance.

FatR
2010-01-06, 09:27 AM
Pathfinder certainly isn't the ultimate fix to every D&D issue, but it isn't as awful as some people seem to think.
It is not awful, but the wasted potential for improvement and lack of promised backwards compatibility are agrravating.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-06, 09:28 AM
It is not awful, but the wasted potential for improvement and lack of promised backwards compatibility are agrravating.

+5 Super Special Awesome post.

taltamir
2010-01-06, 01:55 PM
Well, if I remember right, last time I took a poll and asked what levels the people on this forum were playing D&D 3.5 at, the responses were:

Level 1-5: about 40%
Level 6-10: about 45%
Level 11-15: about 13%
Level 16-20: about 2%

These numbers match up with my experiences: a lot of games get to levels 6-10, some get to 11-15 but usually end there if they do, and only a vanishingly small fraction ever get to level 20.

So an ability that requires you to be level 20 is, IMO, basically useless. The chances of you ever getting high enough level to use it are incredibly small, and even if you do, game balance is so whacked-out by then that it's almost impossible to make meaningful comparisons anyway.

highest level I have ever reached was 13..
I am now starting a new game... it will start at 5 and end at 11 according to the DM

Matthew
2010-01-07, 01:07 PM
It is not awful, but the wasted potential for improvement and lack of promised backwards compatibility are aggravating.

I can imagine that, but on the other hand "improvement" is quite subjective, and the degree of backwards compatibility can be significantly affected by which are implemented.

lesser_minion
2010-01-07, 02:38 PM
Not at home with my PF book atm, but I could have sworn that it stacks in the same way that 3.5 empower and maximize stack. Ie, you get both, but there's no synergy there.

Multipliers don't compound by RAW - "You deal double damage" translates into "you deal +X damage, where X is the damage you normally deal with that attack". In this case, it's just spelled out in the feat description because some of the damage bonuses you get are excluded.

It is still rather weak, and only really useful against opponents with high but not ridiculous AC. You'd also be better off with "Can has buff plz kthx?" a lot of the time.


I posit that the duration from rounds/levels to minutes/levels is at least as significant. Grease isn't really less powerful than it was in 3.5

I'm not sure if that's really much of an issue. Rounds/level Grease basically disappears at the end of the encounter. Most of a minutes/level Grease is either going to be wasted, and it could actually hinder the party.


I don't think Pathfinder is awful. I just don't think it fixes balance.

I agree with you there. Pathfinder is a lot weaker than it could have been.

Akal Saris
2010-01-07, 03:46 PM
I'd say Saph's guide is pretty much spot-on as far as PF goes. PF improves a lot of things, fails to improve a lot of things, and makes a couple of things worse. I really hate the PF system for poisons, for example, even though the 3.5 wasn't a particularly good system for them either.

Something that I don't see mentioned a lot is the art style for PF, which I really like a lot. 4E art and a lot of early 3E art definitely turned me off the aesthetics of the game (though the 4E MM does have a few stand-outs like the lamia!), but I really like the quirky look that PF's adopted, kind of a fantasy motiff with a bit of anime-esque blockiness. I wish Paizo had stuck with the same art style for their bestiary and APG.

I haven't converted any of the 3.5 games that I run to PF, and I don't plan to do so except maybe for a very low level game I've been running. But all of the new games that I've started have been PF games, and so far the PCs have preferred the new system, though they were surprised that it didn't go further in changing the game.

As a sidenote, it really irritates me when people tear into PF for not fixing all the problems with 3.5. Obviously 3.5 has a ton of problems with balance and whatnot, but it's pretty inane to state that PF is a worse product than 3.5 because it hasn't completely solved those issues - especially when 3.5 is still a lot of fun to play, balance issues and all.

Nero24200
2010-01-07, 04:05 PM
We've been playing a Pathfinder campaign for a few months now. It's fairly similar to 3.5, slightly improved, but suffers from the issue of backwards compatibility. Pathfinder core beats 3.5 core by a long way, though.

I've read several reviews claiming that Pathfinder sucks, and frankly, most of them have no clue what they're talking about. I'm tempted to update my previous guide.to be honest Saph, I feel this is a really unfair comment. Yes, some of the critisim rgarding PF isn't legit, but some is. And on the flip side, theres alot of people willing to defend it even if they are ignorent of it's changes. If you look at my comments on some previous PF topics, you'll see examples of this.

{Scrubbed}


I really think people aren't paying enough attention to Pathfinder's feats and how they power up the melee classes. Well some of the feats (such as the sheild feats and the feat that allows you to follow a 5ft-stepping foe) already existed outwith PF, they were just in splatbooks. Besides, some melee feats also take a hit, specifically the "Combat Manuever" feats.

Kylarra
2010-01-07, 04:10 PM
As a sidenote, it really irritates me when people tear into PF for not fixing all the problems with 3.5. Obviously 3.5 has a ton of problems with balance and whatnot, but it's pretty inane to state that PF is a worse product than 3.5 because it hasn't completely solved those issues - especially when 3.5 is still a lot of fun to play, balance issues and all.
It's probably because PF was toted as a fix for 3.5's issues and that was [supposed to be] one of its selling points.

FMArthur
2010-01-07, 04:48 PM
It doesn't really fix much (it does fix some things, but introduces a fair amount of its own problems), and plays roughly the same as regular 3.5, but is just different enough to remove backwards compatibility with the huge amount of existing 3.5 material. So what is the point, exactly? I thought those things were supposed to be the primary design goals and selling points. Why play Pathfinder? :smallconfused: