View Full Version : The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook
The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook
Being a general handbook and guide to the changes made from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
1. Contents
1. Contents (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7607412#post7607321)
2. Intro (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7607412#post7607327)
3. General Changes - Races, Skills, Feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7607412#post7607335)
4. General Changes - Combat Maneuvers, Spells, Magic Items (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7607412#post7607351)
5. The Classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7607412#post7607362)
6. The Classes (In-Depth) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7607412#post7607377)
7. Class Power Rankings (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7607412#post7607386)
8. Conclusion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7607412#post7607391)
9. FAQ (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7607412#post7607402)
10. Notes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7607412#post7607412)
2. Intro
Pathfinder threads have been cropping up on this forum at the rate of several a week ever since Paizo announced the system. Most come down to the same two questions:
1. What’s changed?
2. Is it any good?
This handbook is designed to answer these two questions, and provide a handy link to point people towards when they come and ask them.
Chapters 3-7 in this handbook cover the differences between 3.5 and final-version Pathfinder. They’re derived from info off the Pathfinder SRD, and also from personal experience of the Pathfinder campaign one of my groups has been playing since mid-2008. We started with the beta, and switched over to the book version once it was released. Chapters 8-9 give a conclusion and answer some common questions.
Since most of this handbook covers the changes between the two systems, it helps if you have at least a passing knowledge of 3.5, but it’s not essential.
Useful links if you want to check information for yourself:
D&D 3.5 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/)
Pathfinder SRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/)
So without further ado, let’s get started on the changes.
3. General Changes - Races, Skills, Feats
Races
All the Pathfinder core races are much stronger than their 3.5 equivalents. They all get a net bonus to abilities (elves are +2 Dex +2 Int -2 Con, humans and half-elves are +2 to any one stat). They also get extra abilities, some of which are quite nice (elves get free Spell Penetration, for instance).
One effect of the changes has been to narrow the power gap between the strongest and weakest races quite a bit. As an example, let’s compare a human to a half-orc in Pathfinder. Both get the same stat bonuses (+2 to any one stat). The human gets a bonus feat and an extra skill point per level. The half-orc gets Darkvision, ferocity, weapon familiarity, and a couple other minor benefits. As you can see, there isn’t much in it. I’d still say the human comes out ahead, but the difference is much smaller than it was in 3.5.
Skills
System Changes
The 4x starting skills rule is gone. Classes now get a number of skill points each level equal to their class skill points + Int bonus. Cross-class skill penalties are also gone; they're now 1:1, no limit, same as anything else. If a skill is a class skill and you put at least one rank in it, you get +3 to that skill.
As a result, there’s a mechanical incentive in Pathfinder to be at least moderately competent at all your class skills. Since putting 1 rank into a class skill gives you a +4 bonus, there's no real reason not to do it once you've levelled up a few times and have the points to play with. Cross-class skills are also now a much more attractive proposition: a 10th-level Fighter who's maxed out Perception has +10, a 10th-level Rogue who's maxed out Perception has +13.
Skill Categories
Balance, Tumble, and Jump have all been folded into a new skill, Acrobatics. Forgery, Decipher Script, and Speak Language have all been folded into a new skill, Linguistics. Listen, Search and Spot have been folded into a new skill, Perception. Hide and Move Silently have been folded into a new skill, Stealth. Gather Information is folded into Diplomacy. Open Lock is folded into Disable Device. One old skill has been removed, Concentration (now a caster level + ability modifier check). One new skill has been created, Fly (Dex-based, class skill for Dru, Sor, Wiz).
What this means in practice is that your skill points go further than they used to, and previously obscure skills like Balance and Forgery are a lot more common. Oh, and everyone now has Perception.
Feats
Feats are now gained at every odd-numbered level, ie at levels 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19.
Individual feats have had many, many changes, way too many for me to list. Many of the old standard feats have been weakened, while others have been improved. It’s impossible to sum up the feat changes without making this article the length of a Robert Jordan novel, so I’m not going to try. If you want to see for yourself, go over to the Pathfinder SRD and have a browse.
4. General Changes - Combat Maneuvers, Spells, and Item Creation
Combat Maneuvers
In Pathfinder, Trip, Disarm, Bull Rush, Overrun, Sunder, and Grapple are now handled by one flat roll: 1d20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (your BAB + your Strength + your size modifier) vs 10 + the enemy's Combat Maneuver Defence (enemy's BAB + enemy's Strength + enemy's Dex + enemy's size modifier). IMPORTANT NOTE: Size modifiers are much weaker now! Small is -1, Large is +1, Huge is +2, etc.
This seems to be the subject of a lot of debate, so let's look at a specific example. Bob the 2nd-Level Human Fighter with the Improved Trip Feat wants to trip an Ogre.
Under 3.5 Rules: Bob has Strength 16, a MW weapon, and +2 BAB. First he has to hit the Ogre's touch AC of 8: no problem there. He then needs to win an opposed roll. His bonus is +7, the Ogre's is +9. Not good odds, and the ogre can counter-trip him. Bob will need to get an Enlarge Person off the party wizard for this to be worth trying. That'll push him up to +12 against the Ogre's +9, which makes it worth trying . . . but you can't always count on the wizard buffing you, and you still risk a counter-trip. On the plus side, if he does pull the trip off, he’ll get a free follow-up attack.
Under Pathfinder Rules: Bob has Strength 18, a MW weapon, and +2 BAB (humans in Pathfinder get +2 to one stat, ie Strength for a Fighter). He makes one roll with his Combat Maneuver Bonus of +8 (+4 for Strength, +2 BAB, +2 Improved Trip) against the Ogre's CMD of 17 (10 + 3 BAB + 5 Str -1 Dex +1 Size). 60% chance of success, and you aren't counter-tripped unless you fail by 10 or more (which is impossible in this case). So the odds are more favourable, but the payoff is lower (since Improved Trip doesn’t grant a free follow-up attack anymore).
So, the major changes are:
1) Combat maneuvers resolve faster.
2) Size differences matter a LOT less.
In terms of effectiveness, combat maneuvers have gained a bit and lost a bit. There’s not much in it, IMO, though you could make a good argument for them being slightly better or slightly worse. However, for some reason (partly through not crunching the numbers, and partly as a holdover from the Beta, where CMD was 15+ instead of 10+), a lot of people seem to have decided that combat maneuvers in Pathfinder are useless. Having seen them in play, I can conclusively say that this is one hundred percent wrong. The monk and fighter in my party have been happily tripping and grappling everything in sight.
Spells
Concentration
The most significant change to Pathfinder magic has been the defensive casting nerf. Concentration is no longer a skill - it’s an ability check. Concentration checks are calculated by:
1d20 + caster level + relevant ability score
and the DC for casting defensively is now:
15 + (spell level)x2.
As you can see, casting defensively is now a LOT harder, enough to make it a very bad idea unless you’ve got no other option. Taking a 5’ step away out of an enemy’s range is a much better plan. Of course, if the enemy has Step Up (a new Pathfinder feat that lets you take a 5’ step as an immediate action) you’re kinda hosed. The moral? In Pathfinder, if you’re planning to spend the fight casting spells, keep your distance.
Spell Changes
The Pathfinder spell list is pretty much identical to the 3.5 one, but many of the spells have gotten some significant changes. Here are a few of the highlights for low-level arcane spells.
Grease - Slightly nerfed. Doesn’t flat-foot enemies who don’t move, and moving through it is easier (Balance is a part of Acrobatics now, and loads of things have Acrobatics). Still a great spell.
Ray of Enfeeblement - Nerfed, now allows a save for half.
Glitterdust - Nerfed, now allows repeated saves to un-blind.
Alter Self - Heavily nerfed, lasts a tenth as long and can only give a very limited set of abilities.
Flaming Sphere - Buffed, now does 3d6 damage instead of 2d6. Actually not a bad choice now.
Mirror Image - Targeting rules have changed.
Rope Trick - Rope can no longer be removed or hidden.
Probably the biggest change has been to polymorph spells. Polymorph is gone, replaced by a line of specific transmutation spells - Beast Shape, Plant Shape, Elemental Body, and Form of the Dragon. All of them modify your stats rather than replacing them entirely, and can only give benefits from a specified list, rather than giving you anything you can find. In short, polymorph has been dragged out back and beaten with the nerf stick. On the whole, this is probably a good thing, given that 3.5 polymorph is so broken that WotC basically gave up trying to fix it and started printing replacements instead.
Conclusion: Spells in Pathfinder are slightly weaker than in 3.5, as many of the standouts have been nerfed. Note that for every spell that has been nerfed, there are two that haven’t, so you can still put together a good spell list, you just have to look a bit harder. However, having played a wizard for several months in Pathfinder now, I have to admit it does limit your options slightly.
Magic Items
XP costs have been removed for everything. That includes magic items. Oh, and you don’t need the prerequisite spells to craft a magic item anymore. In fact, with the Master Craftsman feat, you don’t even need spells to craft a magic item anymore. Any class can go in for crafting - wizard, cleric, bard, sorcerer, fighter, monk, whatever - and it doesn’t cost you anything except for the feat you spent to do it. Go hog-wild.
5. The Classes
Most of the Pathfinder base classes are a fair bit stronger than the 3.5 ones. All of them now keep getting class features, many of which are tied to their class level. This, combined with the new favoured class rules makes single-classing much more attractive compared to multiclassing or taking a PrC. PrCing in Pathfinder has gone from “always do it” to a bit suboptimal.
I’ve now seen every one of the Pathfinder core classes in action except for the bard. Each one will be quickly analysed in terms of buffs and nerfs, because let's face it, that's what you guys are interested in. A brief verdict is attached to each.
Barbarians
Buffs
Slightly improved skill list; having Perception and Acrobatics gives barbarians Spot, Search, Balance, and Tumble, which they didn't have in 3.5. Oh, and barbarians are no longer illiterate.
Rage is now measured in rounds, not by rages. Each day the barbarian can rage for a number of rounds equal to 2 + Con mod + (level x 2). This lets you spread your rage out over multiple encounters, so if the enemy you're fighting dies after two rounds, you can save the rest of your rage for later. The stat boosts for rage are unchanged.
Rage Powers - this is the main benefit. Every second level a barbarian gets a rage power, which is a special ability that only functions while raging. Most are along the lines of extra abilities like low-light vision or a bonus to skills such as Climb, which frankly isn't all that impressive. But there are a few standouts - Unexpected Strike gives you a free attack once per rage, and Superstition gives you a save bonus against spells and (Su) and (Sp) abilities equal to +2 plus another +1 for every four levels.
Nerfs
The total number of rounds of rage a barbarian gets per day is slightly lower. An 8th-level 3.5 barbarian with a 14 Con and an item that gives him another +2 Con gets to rage for a total of 24 rounds per day. The same barbarian in Pathfinder gets a total of 20 rounds of rage each day - but can split them up. I think the flexibility probably makes this more of a buff than a nerf, but it's still worth noting.
Like fighters, barbarians are probably going to be disappointed with the new Power Attack.
Going unconscious drops you out of rage! This means that being knocked to negatives while raging is likely death at low levels (and certain death at mid and high levels). A raging barbarian in a dangerous battle now has the life expectancy of a one-legged rabbit.
Verdict?
Not great. The barbarian's rage powers look pretty weak compared to what some of the other classes have picked up, and the change regarding unconsciousness and rage is awful. Barbarians were probably the top martial class in core 3.5, but Pathfinder’s knocked them down a few pegs.
Bard
Buffs
d8 Hit Die instead of a d6. Always nice.
More spells per day! The progression has changed, but averages to about one extra spell per day per spell level. Spells known have also slightly increased.
Improved skill list: like rogues, bards get pretty much all the new amalgamated skills, allowing them to afford far more of the skills they want. They get other skill-related abilities, such as a flat bonus on Knowledge skills, and . . .
Versatile Performance: a bard can use specific Perform skills in place of certain other skills! Dance can be substituted for Acrobatics and Fly; Sing can be substituted for Bluff and Sense Motive, etc. Effectively this lets the Bard base many of his skills off his primary stat and save on skill points.
Bardic Music can now be used for healing and fear effects, and can be started as a move and even a swift action once you get to a high enough level.
Nerfs
No more Bardic Knowledge; bards and loremasters just get a bonus on Knowledge checks instead.
Bardic Performance now only works for a number of rounds per day equal to 2 + Cha mod + (level x2); a huge nerf from 3.5, where a bard could play for ages multiple times per day.
The DC against a bard's fascinate/suggestion effect is now 10 + Cha mod + (bard level/2), which is far weaker than 3.5's skill check.
Verdict?
Poor Bards. Always the comic relief, and now they get a bunch of nerfs too. Bards used to have two signature tricks which they could do better than anyone else: long-term party buffing, and delivering suggestions at an impossibly high DC, both of which are now pretty weak.
To make up for their losses, bards have gotten a boost in the skills and spells departments. A bard is now a kind of hybrid between a sorcerer and a rogue - half caster, half skillmonkey - but while both the sorcerer and the rogue picked up huge buffs out of Pathfinder, the bard's been left in the dust.
Clerics
Buffs
Clerics can use their Turn Undead ability (now renamed Channel Energy) to do a 30' healing burst. Total healed to all targets is 1d6, going up by another 1d6 every odd-numbered levels. Okay at low levels when healing wands aren’t always available, but it gets left behind fairly quickly as you go up levels.
Cleric domain powers have been buffed a bit. For instance, the Travel (now Liberation) domain's freedom of movement ability now also gives a nice aura effect at level 8 as well. The Luck domain reroll now works once per day at level 6, twice at level 12, and three times at level 18. The Rune domain gives you two powers and Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat into the bargain.
Nerfs
Clerics have lost their heavy armour proficiency - no more fullplate.
The cleric's Channel Energy ability is now far weaker against actual undead. Instead of knocking undead out of the battle or destroying them, it can only hit them for some weak AoE damage (you need to spend a feat to actually turn them). The healing ability also doesn't discriminate between allies and enemies, meaning that if you try to heal your allies in the middle of a melee you'll end up healing your enemies as well!
Defensive casting is much more difficult. This is more of a problem for clerics and druids than for wizards and sorcerers, since divine casters tend to mix it up in melee a lot more than arcane ones do.
Verdict?
Clerics made a net gain of just about zero. While their new domain abilities are nice, the new Channel Energy ability is unimpressive, and the armour and defensive casting changes are a major nuisance.
However, when you're starting with a power level that's over 9000, gaining nothing isn't exactly a big deal. Clerics are still full casters with free domain spells and they still have spontaneous healing and they still have good saves and a d8 Hit Die. In short, they're still awesome. They just didn't get any awesomer.
Druid
Buffs
Wild shape can now be accessed quicker, and you get the good forms faster; wild shape at level 4 and elemental form at level 6.
Druids can now choose to get a cleric domain instead of an animal companion. Technically a buff, I guess, but I can't imagine that many druids will take it.
Animal companions now have their own class table, and a lot more detail about what they get at each level. Not sure if it's a buff or a nerf, but it's nice to see them getting treated more thoroughly.
Nerfs
Shapeshifting in all forms, including wild shape, has been beaten thoroughly with the nerf stick. The new form's physical stats no longer override your own - beast shape II, for instance, only gives you +4 Strength, -2 Dex, +4 Natural Armour. Druids who want to fight in melee will now have significant MAD issues, just like the monk.
Verdict?
Out of all the eleven classes, druids are the only one that unquestionably got nerfed. The polymorph change means that druids can no longer dump Strength and Dexterity without crippling their combat ability.
One nerf doesn't mean the class is weak, though. Druids were arguably the strongest class in core 3.5 due to having three powerful features: animal companion, wild shape, and full casting. Druid wild shape is now half as good as it used to be, but their animal companion and full casting are just as powerful as ever. So they're now two-and-a-half classes instead of three. That's still good, even if they're no longer top of the heap.
Fighters
Buffs
Bravery: gives a bonus against fear effects. It's not bad, but should have been higher (it's still worse than what a bard gets just for having a good Will save).
Armour Training: fighters get to move at full speed in medium and eventually heavy armour, and modify their armour's max Dex and ACP upwards and downwards. Fighters should now be able to have the best AC of all the core martial classes.
Weapon Training: this is a the big one. Free Weapon Focus with weapon groups, not specific weapons, and a damage bonus into the bargain. It gets better as you go up levels, and lets you add additional groups too.
There are a bunch of new fighter feats which I haven’t had the chance to look at yet. Some, like Step Up and the critical feats, seem quite nice.
Nerfs
Various fighter feats are now less exciting than they used to be. Power Attack now gives better damage returns, but can't be adjusted. Cleave is weaker. Improved Trip & co are weaker.
Still only 2+Int skill points. I know it's not actually a nerf, but come on, would 4 really have been too much to ask?
Verdict?
Fighters are better . . . but they could have done with more. The Weapon Training and Armour Training gives fighters great DPS and AC, but they still suffer from a lack of options. I’d put the Pathfinder Fighter ahead of the Barbarian, but behind the Paladin.
Monk
Buffs
Improved skill list due to skill amalgamation. They still only get 4 + Int skill points, but can now afford Acrobatics, Stealth, and Perception, and have points left over. Still no UMD, though. :P
More bonus feats, and more choice in their selection.
Flurry of blows now works like TWF, giving more attacks but at a lower bonus.
Stunning Fist can now apply other conditions instead of stun.
Most of the monk's per-day abilities and a handful of new ones now work off a point system called the ki pool, similar to the one the ninja class from Complete Adventurer gets. Gaining an extra attack on a full attack is 1 point, doing a Jedi-style force jump is 1 point, using the abundant step ability is 2 points, etc. A monk gets daily ki points equal to half his level + his Wis modifier.
Monks get to use their level instead of BAB on combat maneuvers, making them almost as good at combat maneuvers as a fighter or barbarian. :P
Nerfs
None I can see.
Verdict?
Not bad. No huge buffs, but a lot of little ones that do add up. The extra flexibility in bonus feats is nice, as is the ability to use different abilities more often with the ki pool. However, the basic problems of the class haven't changed; monks still have MAD, still don't hit very hard, and still need to stand still to use their extra attacks. At the end of the day the Pathfinder monk does pretty much the same thing as the 3.5 monk; he just does it better. If you hated the 3.5 monk, the Pathfinder one is unlikely to change your mind.
Paladins
Buffs
Good Will save. Very nice.
Casting stat is now Cha! Improves pally spellcasting greatly, and reduces their MAD. Paladins can now dump Wisdom without a qualm and still have a great Will save.
Lay on Hands has been buffed. It heals more HP on average (though it's now random), it can remove status conditions, and best of all, it can be done on yourself as a swift action - handy in combat.
Smite Evil has been heavily buffed. It now targets one enemy as a swift action, and gives you smite benefits against that target until they're dead. In addition it auto-bypasses DR, does extra damage against evil outsiders, and gives you a deflection bonus to AC equal to your Cha bonus versus that creature's attacks. Smiting evil has never been so much fun!
The pally's mount is now as powerful as a druid's animal companion. Also nice.
Your Aura of Courage upgrades as you gain levels, giving a variety of handy bonuses.
Detect Evil has been sped up. Now your Pally can determine that someone's evil and smite them all in one combat round, meaning Miko-types can fit as much as 300% more killing into their daily schedule. Note: You'll probably see this as a buff, but your party might not.
Nerfs
Lay on Hands can no longer be used to dump all your healing in a single shot. Uh, that's about it.
Verdict?
Two thumbs up! Paladins got just about everything they could possibly have wanted out of the Pathfinder change. The only class that can compete with them for sheer number of upgrades is the Sorcerer.
Rangers
Buffs
D10 hit dice! Much needed.
Marginally better skill list due to skill amalgamation - a ranger can afford a couple more skills now.
Combat style feats now allow more freedom of choice, and you get slightly more (5 instead of 4).
Favoured terrain ability to go with favoured enemy. Very flavourful, and actually quite useful if you know in advance where your campaign's going to be taking place. Interestingly, you're allowed to choose "Urban".
Rangers can now exchange their animal companion for a group favoured enemy ability, though it's nothing great. However, if they keep a companion, it now advances levels at druid speed -3, which makes it less of a liability in combat.
Caster level is now also level -3.
Quarry ability: gain some decent bonuses against a single enemy. Lengthy cooldown, however, and requires 11th-level.
The Deadly Aim feat basically lets archer rangers Power Attack. Unfortunately, it's received the same nerfs that Power Attack did.
Nerfs
No Acrobatics. Lame.
All characters can now track. The ranger's Tracking ability now gives a 1/2 level bonus, like the rogue's Trapfinding, meaning the ranger's going to be second fiddle to the druid if there's one in the party. This hurts the ranger a bit as it takes away an ability that only he used to have.
Verdict?
Rangers did okay out of Pathfinder. Not great, but okay. Their boosts are relatively small, but they were mostly in areas that were badly needed (better companion and spellcasting, better HP, more choice on combat style feats). The favoured terrain is a nice feature, too. Archer rangers are never going to win any awards for power, but they're a decent class as long as you don't expect too much. Unfortunately, TWF rangers are still very weak.
Rogues
Buffs
Hit Die is now a d8. Helpful.
Most of the rogue's primary class skills have been merged; they can max out Stealth, Perception, Acrobatics, and Disable Device and get the same effect that they would have done from maxing about ten skills in 3.5. This means they can now easily afford classic rogue skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, Climb, and Sleight of Hand, which 3.5 rogues struggled to find points for. There's no need to choose between a 'social rogue' and a 'thiefy rogue' anymore, you can do both.
Trapfinding now lets a rogue add 1/2 her level to Perception checks to disarm traps, and to all Disable Device checks, including opening locks.
Sneak Attack works on everything! All creatures are now vulnerable to Sneak Attack unless they specifically say otherwise in their description. Want to sneak attack undead? Go for it. Golems? No problem. Plants? Bring the blender. This is huge for rogues - being unable to touch anything immune to crits used to be the single biggest handicap of the class.
Rogue Talents! Rogues now get a talent every even-numbered level, and they're good - about as good as a bonus feat. In fact, many are feats, like Weapon Finesse, and 'bonus fighter feat' is one of the options.
Nerfs
All classes can now detect traps, though rogues are still the only class that can detect magic ones. This means that at low levels, druids and monks will probably be better trapfinders than rogues. At higher levels, the rogue's trapfinding bonus should put her about on even terms with them.
Tumbling to avoid AoOs is now a hell of a lot more difficult. You don't get a synergy bonus from Jump anymore, and the base DC to tumble is now equal to the target's CMD, which can easily be 30 or more for a mid-level enemy.
Verdict?
Excellent! Rogues get the ability to sneak attack crit-immune enemies and a truckload of bonus feats, plus a whole bunch of useful minor benefits as well. The only problem is the nerf to Tumble. Rogues will have to come up with new strategies to replace the "tumble, flank, sneak" routine, but they've gained far more than they've lost.
Sorcerers
Buffs
D6 Hit Die, yay!
UMD as a class skill, double yay!
Free Eschew Materials. Minor yay, but hey, sorcs really should always have had this.
Bloodlines, and this is the big one. Sorcerers now choose a heritage, and get a whole variety of bonuses depending on which one you pick. There's bonus feats, Su, Sp, and Ex abilities, a free class skill, and best of all . . .
Bonus spells! A sorcerer now gets a free spell known at every odd-numbered level starting at 3rd! You don't get to pick them, but this gives a massive boost to the Sorcerer's traditional weak point; lack of spells known. Note that you do not get any of these bonuses if you PrC out, so sorcerers have gone overnight from being the class which you most want to PrC out of, to the class which you never want to PrC out of.
Nerfs
Casting defensively is harder.
As mentioned, many of the power spells that sorcs used to rely on have been weakened significantly. Alter Self and Glitterdust, the two standouts of Level 2, have both been hit with the nerf stick.
Verdict?
Two thumbs up! The variant bloodlines give you loads more options and toys to play with as a Sorcerer. While they're still a bit behind Wizards, the gap has been closed dramatically; a well-played Sorc should be now able to adventure in a party with a Wizard without worrying about being outclassed. I’d say that sorcerers did the best out of Pathfinder than any other caster, neck and neck with Paladins. See the next chapter for an in-depth look.
Wizards
Buffs
D6 Hit Die, nice.
Slightly improved skill list due to skill amalgamation.
Arcane Bond - you get to choose between a familiar and an item that lets you spontaneously cast any spell you know 1/day. The flexibility is huge and you can even enchant it, but beware - if you lose it you can't cast any spells without succeeding on a high Spellcraft check. On the other hand, your spellcasting is dependent on an item anyway . . .
School powers. Depending on what you specialise in, you get a small selection of special abilities. These are generally mediocre, though the Illusionist gets some nice stuff. Have a look at the next chapter for a more in-depth look.
Item creation. Though all characters can now make items, wizards are the best placed to take advantage of it. Expect the Craft Wondrous Item and Craft Magic Arms and Armour feats to become VERY popular.
Nerfs
Casting defensively is harder.
Again, many of the spells Wizards used to rely on have been nerfed.
Generalist wizards have been beaten with the nerf stick. There’s very little reason to play a non-specialist Wizard anymore.
Verdict?
Wizards didn’t get a huge amount out of the Pathfinder change, but the abilities they did get were useful. The specialist abilities help them through the early levels, and they now have a definite niche as the specialist crafter. Players used to 3.5 will have to adjust their tactics to make up for the minor nerfs, but Wizards still have the most pure spellcasting power of any base class.
6. The Classes (In-Depth)
For those who like arcane casters, here’s a more detailed look at two of the Pathfinder classes, the sorcerer and the wizard. I’ve picked the Sorcerer because they’ve gained the greatest sheer volume of new class features, and because their new abilities are probably the most fun. The Wizard is in there because my current character is one, and because this forum is obsessed with Wizards. Since I know at least a quarter of the regular posters on this forum are going to jump straight to the bits that deal with Wizards and ignore everything else, I figure I might as well play to my audience.
Class features and other changes that Sorcerers and Wizards get from 3.5 will be rated on the highly scientific scale of Excellent, Good, Meh, and Lame.
Sorcerers In Depth
Every Pathfinder Sorc has a Bloodline, which gives them a different set of abilities. I don't have time to analyse them all, so I'll just do the Arcane Bloodline, as that's the one the Pathfinder rules assume as the 'standard' one.
Stuff All Sorcerers Get
Hit Die: d6.
More HP is a good thing. Verdict: Good.
Class Skills: The sorcerer's class skills are Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Craft (Int), Fly (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (arcana) (Int), Profession (Wis), Spellcraft (Int), and Use Magic Device (Cha).
Use Magic Device, the best skill in the game, on a class with Cha as its primary stat! Verdict: Excellent!
Eschew Materials: A sorcerer gains Eschew Materials as a bonus feat at 1st level.
. . . which they should always have had, really. No real mechanical benefit, but it's occasionally handy, it makes sorcerers more distinct from Wizards flavour-wise, and it's free. Verdict: Good
Bloodline-Specific Stuff
Arcane
Your family has always been skilled in the eldritch art of magic. While many of your relatives were accomplished wizards, your powers developed without the need for study and practice.
Flavour text, yadda yadda.
Class Skill: Knowledge (any one).
You already have Know (arcana) and probably not that many spare skill points. Verdict: Meh.
Bonus Spells: identify (3rd), invisibility (5th), dispel magic (7th), dimension door (9th), overland flight (11th), true seeing (13th), greater teleport (15th), power word stun (17th), wish (19th).
Now this is more like it. Bonus spells are exactly what you want as a Sorc and the list here is pretty damn good. The only spells I'd consider 'meh' on that list are Identify and Wish; the others are all useful, letting you spend your precious spells known slots on stuff you actually want. Verdict: Excellent!
Bonus Feats: Combat Casting, Improved Counterspell, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Scribe Scroll, Skill Focus (Knowledge [arcana]), Spell Focus, Still Spell.
The list isn't all that amazing, but there are some decent choices on there. Besides . . . hey, free feats. Verdict: Good.
Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you apply a metamagic feat to a spell that increases the slot used by at least one level, increase the spell's DC by +1. This bonus does not stack with itself and does not apply to spells modified by the Heighten Spell feat.
Kind of like Metamagic Spell Focus. Decent if you're a metamagic Sorc, but the spells you're most likely to use metamagic on are probably the ones without a Save DC. Verdict: Meh.
Bloodline Powers: Magic comes naturally to you, but as you gain levels you must take care to prevent the power from overwhelming you.
Yeah, right. Magic is your chew toy like any other Sorcerer.
Arcane Bond (Su): At 1st level, you gain an arcane bond, as a wizard equal to your sorcerer level. Your sorcerer levels stack with any wizard levels you possess when determining the powers of your familiar or bonded object. This ability does not allow you to have both a familiar and a bonded item.
This is a good one; either a familiar or the wizard's bonded item. Both are useful. Verdict: Good.
Metamagic Adept (Ex): At 3rd level, you can apply any one metamagic feat you know to a spell you are about to cast without increasing the casting time. You must still expend a higher-level spell slot to cast this spell. You can use this ability once per day at 3rd level and one additional time per day for every four sorcerer levels you possess beyond 3rd, up to five times per day at 19th level. At 20th level, this ability is replaced by arcane apotheosis.
Kind of like the Rapid Metamagic ACF from the 3.5 PHB2. Would be nicer if you could use it a bit more often. Still, metamagic is useful. Verdict: Good.
New Arcana (Ex): At 9th level, you can add any one spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list to your list of spells known. This spell must be of a level that you are capable of casting. You can also add one additional spell at 13th level and 17th level.
You just can't ever have enough spells known, and this gives you extras of any level you like. Verdict: Excellent!
School Power (Ex): At 15th level, pick one school of magic. The DC for any spells you cast from that school increases by +2. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Spell Focus.
Very nice. It's Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus for free. Verdict: Excellent!
Arcane Apotheosis (Ex): At 20th level, your body surges with arcane power. You can add any metamagic feats that you know to your spells without increasing their casting time, although you must still expend higher-level spell slots. Whenever you use magic items that require charges, you can instead expend spell slots to power the item. For every three levels of spell slots that you expend, you consume one less charge when using a magic item that expends charges.
Yeah, like it says. It looks good, but the truth is that by 20th-level you probably won't care about item charges, and you'll almost certainly have already found some way around the metamagic issue. Verdict: Meh.
Wizards In Depth
Pathfinder wizards get notably fewer new class features than sorcerers, so I can cover all of the wizard specialities instead of only one.
Stuff All Wizards Get
Hit Die: d6.
HP is nice. Verdict: Good.
Class Skills: The wizard's class skills are Appraise (Int), Craft (Int), Fly (Dex), Knowledge (all) (Int), Linguistics (Int), Profession (Wis), and Spellcraft (Int).
Nothing very exciting here. Wizards now get Appraise as well as the equivalent of Forgery and Speak Language, which is okay, but nothing to write home about. Verdict: Meh.
Arcane Bond (Ex or Sp): At 1st level, wizards form a powerful bond with an object or a creature. This bond can take one of two forms: a familiar or a bonded object . . . Once a wizard makes this choice, it is permanent and cannot be changed . . .
Wizards who select a bonded object begin play with one at no cost. Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon. These objects are always masterwork quality. Weapons acquired at 1st level are not made of any special material. If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell. The DC for this check is equal to 20 + the spell's level. If the object is a ring or amulet, it occupies the ring or neck slot accordingly.
A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared. This spell is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard, including casting time, duration, and other effects dependent on the wizard's level. This spell cannot be modified by metamagic feats or other abilities. The bonded object cannot be used to cast spells from the wizard's opposition schools (see arcane school).
A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat. For example, a wizard with a bonded dagger must be at least 5th level to add magic abilities to the dagger (see the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat in Feats). If the bonded object is a wand, it loses its wand abilities when its last charge is consumed, but it is not destroyed and it retains all of its bonded object properties and can be used to craft a new wand. The magic properties of a bonded object, including any magic abilities added to the object, only function for the wizard who owns it. If a bonded object's owner dies, or the item is replaced, the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type.
If a bonded object is damaged, it is restored to full hit points the next time the wizard prepares his spells. If the object of an arcane bond is lost or destroyed, it can be replaced after 1 week in a special ritual that costs 200 gp per wizard level plus the cost of the masterwork item. This ritual takes 8 hours to complete. Items replaced in this way do not possess any of the additional enchantments of the previous bonded item. A wizard can designate an existing magic item as his bonded item. This functions in the same way as replacing a lost or destroyed item except that the new magic item retains its abilities while gaining the benefits and drawbacks of becoming a bonded item.
This is nice, very nice. The ability to spontaneously cast any spell from your spellbook, even if it's only once per day, adds a lot of flexibility. In addition you can enchant the bonded item, which is almost as good as getting an item creation feat for free.
There are, however, two catches. You give up your familiar, which (as those skilled in the art of familiar-fu will know) is a significant loss. In addition, if you lose the item, spellcasting becomes ridiculously difficult. I'd say the benefits probably outweigh the drawbacks, though, and in any case you can choose not to take it if you’re planning to get some use out of your familiar. Verdict: Good.
Arcane School: A wizard can choose to specialize in one school of magic, gaining additional spells and powers based on that school. This choice must be made at 1st level, and once made, it cannot be changed. A wizard that does not select a school receives the universalist school instead.
A wizard that chooses to specialize in one school of magic must select two other schools as his opposition schools, representing knowledge sacrificed in one area of arcane lore to gain mastery in another. A wizard who prepares spells from his opposition schools must use two spell slots of that level to prepare the spell. For example, a wizard with evocation as an opposition school must expend two of his available 3rd-level spell slots to prepare a fireball. In addition, a specialist takes a –4 penalty on any skill checks made when crafting a magic item that has a spell from one of his opposition schools as a prerequisite. A universalist wizard can prepare spells from any school without restriction.
Each arcane school gives the wizard a number of school powers. In addition, specialist wizards receive an additional spell slot of each spell level he can cast, from 1st on up. Each day, a wizard can prepare a spell from his specialty school in that slot. This spell must be in the wizard's spellbook. A wizard can select a spell modified by a metamagic feat to prepare in his school slot, but it uses up a higher-level spell slot. Wizards with the universalist school do not receive a school slot.
This is probably the biggest buff for wizards. Now being a specialist doesn't cut you off from schools! While adventuring, you probably still won't make a habit of using opposition schools; the opportunity cost of losing two spell slots is too high. But the ability to use something like, say, Contingency during days off is great. Verdict: Excellent!
So, What Do The Specialists Get?
In general, the answer is "not that much". However, there are a few standouts. Illusionists probably benefit the most, and Diviners get some abilities that are excellent at high levels (but weak at low ones). Universalists and Enchanters do worst out of the deal, with Universalists coming in last by a mile.
Abjurer
Resistance (Ex): You gain resistance 5 to an energy type of your choice, chosen when you prepare spells. This resistance can be changed each day. At 11th level, this resistance increases to 10. At 20th level, this resistance changes to immunity to the chosen energy type.
Pretty weak. You're rarely going to know what energy type you'll be attacked by, and 5 points of resistance isn't going to make all that much difference even if you do. Verdict: Meh.
Protective Ward (Su): As a standard action, you can create a 10-foot-radius field of protective magic centered on you that lasts for a number of rounds equal to your Intelligence modifier. All allies in this area (including you) receive a +1 deflection bonus to their AC for 1 round. This bonus increases by +1 for every five wizard levels you possess. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
Contradictory wording aside, this isn't all that impressive. A standard action is a high cost to pay for something with such a small effect and radius. It's also just begging for the enemy to fireball you. Verdict: Meh.
Energy Absorption (Su): At 6th level, you gain an amount of energy absorption equal to 3 times your wizard level per day. Whenever you take energy damage, apply immunity, vulnerability (if any), and resistance first and apply the rest to this absorption, reducing your daily total by that amount. Any damage in excess of your absorption is applied to you normally.
This is more like it. Since it works on any type of energy damage, you can actually expect it to apply frequently. The total protection is still not that high, but it could save your neck. Verdict: Good.
Overall Verdict: Mediocre. Abjuration isn't the best of specialities in the first place, and these abilities don't make it any more attractive.
Conjurer
Summoner's Charm (Su): Whenever you cast a conjuration (summoning) spell, increase the duration by a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum 1). At 20th level, you can change the duration of all summon monster spells to permanent. You can have no more than one summon monster spell made permanent in this way at one time. If you designate another summon monster spell as permanent, the previous spell immediately ends.
As a general rule, for every round a wizard or sorcerer casts a spell that's on the cleric spell list, for that round he's a sucker. Casting Summon Monster is the cleric's job, and druids do it better anyway. Verdict: Meh.
Acid Dart (Sp): As a standard action you can unleash an acid dart targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. The acid dart deals 1d6 points of acid damage + 1 for every two wizard levels you possess. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier. This attack ignores spell resistance.
Eh, it beats shooting a crossbow. Verdict: Good.
Dimensional Steps (Sp): At 8th level, you can use this ability to teleport up to 30 feet per wizard level per day as a standard action. This teleportation must be used in 5-foot increments and such movement does not provoke an attack of opportunity. You can bring other willing creatures with you, but you must expend an equal amount of distance for each additional creature brought with you.
Pretty nice. I'm sure you can think of some good uses for this. The ability to divide it up as you wish makes it much more useful. Verdict: Good.
Overall Verdict: Some solid features. The fact that conjuration is probably the strongest school in the game anyway makes the Conjurer one of the best choices.
Diviner
Forewarned (Su): You can always act in the surprise round even if you fail to make a Perception roll to notice a foe, but you are still considered flat-footed until you take an action. In addition, you receive a bonus on initiative checks equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum +1). At 20th level, anytime you roll initiative, assume the roll resulted in a natural 20.
Being able to act in the surprise round is nice, though situational. The initiative bonus is awesome at high levels, but most games are played in the 1st-10th level range, which makes this less attractive. At 12th-level it's a +6, but at 2nd-level it's only a +1. Still, not bad. Verdict: Meh at level 1 (unless you get surprised REALLY often), Good at level 10, and only gets better from there.
Diviner's Fortune (Sp): When you activate this school power, you can touch any creature as a standard action to give it an insight bonus on all of its attack rolls, skill checks, ability checks, and saving throws equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum +1) for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
Again, an ability that's useful at higher levels and sucky at lower ones. Verdict: Meh or Good, as above.
Scrying Adept (Su): At 8th level, you are always aware when you are being observed via magic, as if you had a permanent detect scrying. In addition, whenever you scry on a subject, treat the subject as one step more familiar to you. Very familiar subjects get a –10 penalty on their save to avoid your scrying attempts.
If spying and intelligence gathering are a big part of your games, this is excellent. Otherwise, it's pretty much useless. Verdict: Situational, depends heavily on the DM's style of game.
Overall Verdict: Diviners are hard to rate. Their information-gathering abilities can be utterly awesome, or totally useless, depending on how the DM runs campaigns. There's also the issue that divination is probably the weakest school to pick your bonus spell slots from. The only thing that can be said for sure is that diviners are much, MUCH better at high levels than at low ones.
Enchanter
Enchanting Smile (Su): You gain a +2 enhancement bonus on Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate skill checks. This bonus increases by +1 for every five wizard levels you possess, up to a maximum of +6 at 20th level. At 20th level, whenever you succeed at a saving throw against a spell of the enchantment school, that spell is reflected back at its caster, as per spell turning.
Bonuses to three cross-class skills based on Wizards' second most popular dump stat. You're not the party face. As for the 20th-level ability . . . yeah, as if anyone's going to cast an enchantment spell that allows a save against a 20th-level enchanter. Verdict: Meh.
Dazing Touch (Sp): You can cause a living creature to become dazed for 1 round as a melee touch attack. Creatures with more Hit Dice than your wizard level are unaffected. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
So let me get this straight. You go into melee, make a touch attack using your lousy Strength and lousy BAB, and in exchange you get to . . . daze a creature for 1 round if it doesn't have more Hit Dice. Except that if the creature's threatening enough to need dazing, it probably DOES have more Hit Dice. Verdict: Lame.
Aura of Despair (Su): At 8th level, you can emit a 30-foot aura of despair for a number of rounds per day equal to your wizard level. Enemies within this aura take a –2 penalty on ability checks, attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and skill checks. These rounds do not need to be consecutive.
There seems to be a major split of opinion on this one. Lots of people see the -2 to everything and think it’s great. Personally, I think it’s average at best. The big problem is that it's a (Su) ability that doesn't say what kind of action it takes, and by default, that makes it a standard action (check the Pathfinder SRD). Actions in combat are the currency of D&D, and a standard action for a minor debuff is not a great deal. An additional problem is that to get all the enemies within its radius, you have to stand RIGHT in the middle of them, effectively painting a huge target on yourself.
In short, YMMV. If your arcane casters are regularly involved in long battles where you spend a lot of the time within 30’ of lots of enemies, you’ll find Aura of Despair very useful. However, my personal verdict is Meh.
Overall Verdict: Enchanters kinda got the shaft in Pathfinder. Specialising in enchantment isn't a great deal anyway, and the poor abilities just make things worse. The only reason enchanters aren't right on the bottom of the heap is because, bad as their abilities are, they're still better than the universalist.
Evoker
Intense Spells (Su): Whenever you cast an evocation spell that deals hit point damage, add 1/2 your wizard level to the damage (minimum +1). This bonus only applies once to a spell, not once per missile or ray, and cannot be split between multiple missiles or rays. This damage is of the same type as the spell. At 20th level, whenever you cast an evocation spell you can roll twice to penetrate a creature's spell resistance and take the better result.
It's not a huge increase, but hey, free damage. Verdict: Good.
Force Missile (Sp): As a standard action you can unleash a force missile that automatically strikes a foe, as magic missile. The force missile deals 1d4 points of damage plus the damage from your intense spells evocation power. This is a force effect. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
Anything that auto-hits is worth using. It gets a decent rating because it beats using a crossbow or spamming cantrips, but like the conjurer's Acid Dart, you'll use this less and less as you level up. Verdict: Good.
Elemental Wall (Sp): At 8th level, you can create a wall of energy that lasts for a number of rounds per day equal to your wizard level. These rounds do not need to be consecutive. This wall deals acid, cold, electricity, or fire damage, determined when you create it. The elemental wall otherwise functions like wall of fire.
It's a wall of fire. Good as far as it goes. Verdict: Good.
Overall Verdict: Generally decent stuff for evokers. Nothing all that exciting, but they make you a better blaster, and let's face it, if you're playing an evoker that's what you're going to be doing.
Illusionist
Extended Illusions (Su): Any illusion spell you cast with a duration of “concentration” lasts a number of additional rounds equal to 1/2 your wizard level after you stop maintaining concentration (minimum +1 round). At 20th level, you can make one illusion spell with a duration of “concentration” become permanent. You can have no more than one illusion made permanent in this way at one time. If you designate another illusion as permanent, the previous permanent illusion ends.
The image spells are some of the most versatile in the game, and this lets you bypass the concentration duration. If you know your stuff, this is very handy. Verdict: Good.
Blinding Ray (Sp): As a standard action you can fire a shimmering ray at any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. The ray causes creatures to be blinded for 1 round. Creatures with more Hit Dice than your wizard level are dazzled for 1 round instead. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
Ugh, another power that only works on creatures who don't have more Hit Dice. Still, at least you can do this one at range, so you aren't totally screwed if it doesn’t work. Verdict: Meh.
Invisibility Field (Sp): At 8th level, you can make yourself invisible as a swift action for a number of rounds per day equal to your wizard level. These rounds do not need to be consecutive. This otherwise functions as greater invisibility.
Now this is more like it. Greater invisibility is the kind you want to have, and being able to put it up as a swift action is the kind of speed you want to do it at. This can and will save your life if you get jumped in melee. Verdict: Excellent!
Overall Verdict: Illusionists got a good deal out of Pathfinder, with abilities that actually make them better at what they're supposed to be good at (invisibility and illusions). Recommended.
Necromancer
Power over Undead (Su): You receive Command Undead or Turn Undead as a bonus feat. You can channel energy a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier, but only to use the selected feat. You can take other feats to add to this ability, such as Extra Channel and Improved Channel, but not feats that alter this ability, such as Elemental Channel and Alignment Channel. The DC to save against these feats is equal to 10 + 1/2 your wizard level + your Charisma modifier. At 20th level, undead cannot add their channel resistance to the save against this ability.
If you're playing a necromancer, odds are good you want undead minions, and this gives them to you. The only problem is that the saves are based off Cha, but still. Verdict: Good.
Grave Touch (Sp): As a standard action, you can make a melee touch attack that causes a living creature to become shaken for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum 1). If you touch a shaken creature with this ability, it becomes frightened for 1 round if it has fewer Hit Dice than your wizard level. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
Gah! What is it with melee attacks that only work properly on creatures with equal or fewer HD? To add insult to injury, you have to touch a minion twice to send it running. No thanks. Verdict: Lame.
Life Sight (Su): At 8th level, you gain blindsight to a range of 10 feet for a number of rounds per day equal to your wizard level. This ability only allows you to detect living creatures and undead creatures. This sight also tells you whether a creature is living or undead. Constructs and other creatures that are neither living nor undead cannot be seen with this ability. The range of this ability increases by 10 feet at 12th level, and by an additional 10 feet for every four levels beyond 12th.
Crappy duration, crappy range, and again requires a standard action to activate. It only avoids a 'lame' rating because even with all those limitations, blindsight is still decent. Verdict: Meh.
Overall Verdict: The necromancer's abilities are very flavourful, but poorly implemented. Could be worse, I suppose.
Transmuter
Physical Enhancement (Su): You gain a +1 enhancement bonus to one physical ability score (Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution). This bonus increases by +1 for every five wizard levels you possess to a maximum of +5 at 20th level. You can change this bonus to a new ability score when you prepare spells. At 20th level, this bonus applies to two physical ability scores of your choice.
Basically saves you 4,000 gp or so on an Amulet of Health or whatever. Eh, free stat boosts are nice, if not that exciting. Verdict: Good.
Telekinetic Fist (Sp): As a standard action you can strike with a telekinetic fist, targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. The telekinetic fist deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage + 1 for every two wizard levels you possess. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
Like the Conjurer's acid dart, and the Evoker's force missile, but worse. Verdict: Meh.
Change Shape (Sp): At 8th level, you can change your shape for a number of rounds per day equal to your wizard level. These rounds do not need to be consecutive. This ability otherwise functions like beast shape II or elemental body I. At 12th level, this ability functions like beast shape III or elemental body II.
Beast Shape and Elemental Body are a pale shadow of Polymorph, but spontaneous shapeshifting is still handy. Verdict: Good.
Overall Verdict: Solid bonuses, if nothing very exciting. Like Conjurers, Transmuters benefit from the fact that they're already picking from one of the power schools.
Universalist
Hand of the Apprentice (Su): You cause your melee weapon to fly from your grasp and strike a foe before instantly returning to you. As a standard action, you can make a single attack using a melee weapon at a range of 30 feet. This attack is treated as a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, except that you add your Intelligence modifier on the attack roll instead of your Dexterity modifier (damage still relies on Strength). This ability cannot be used to perform a combat maneuver. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
Awful. Using your Int on the attack modifier would be good, except for the fact that the damage is still based on Strength. This is the worst of the specialist attacks by far. Verdict: Lame.
Metamagic Mastery (Su): At 8th level, you can apply any one metamagic feat that you know to a spell you are about to cast. This does not alter the level of the spell or the casting time. You can use this ability once per day at 8th level and one additional time per day for every two wizard levels you possess beyond 8th. Any time you use this ability to apply a metamagic feat that increases the spell level by more than 1, you must use an additional daily usage for each level above 1 that the feat adds to the spell. Even though this ability does not modify the spell's actual level, you cannot use this ability to cast a spell whose modified spell level would be above the level of the highest-level spell that you are capable of casting.
So wait, at level 8, I can use one level of metamagic once per day? But only if I've got the feat already? If you want free metamagic, get a metamagic rod. Normally I'd give this some credit for being free, but it's so bad it's embarassing. Verdict: Lame.
Overall Verdict: Universalist wizards in Pathfinder suck horribly. There is literally no reason to play one, with all the benefits specialists get. If you want to play a generalist, either use the Paizo Beta, or stick with 3.5.
7. Class Power Rankings
So, you want to know which classes are the most powerful in Pathfinder, right? You want the definite, final answer as to which class is the strongest and which is the weakest, right?
Okay. Check the spoiler box below for the answer to the question “which class is the strongest?”
There is no answer. It’s a stupid question. If you didn’t see that one coming, smack yourself in the head for being so gullible.
Character power depends on the skill of the player, the build they’re using, the level of the party, and the environment and setting the DM is running the game in. Asking “which class is the strongest?” is like asking “how long is a piece of string?” (If you're wondering, the answer is “twice half it’s length”)
Now that’s out of the way, we can go on to something more useful.
Since this is a 3.5/Pathfinder handbook, what I’m interested in measuring is how the classes have changed. So with no further ado, here’s the table of whether the Pathfinder classes have gone up or down in relative power from how they were in 3.5. Note once again that this measures relative change.
Major Buffs - These classes are significantly stronger in Pathfinder than they were in 3.5.
Paladin
Rogue
Sorcerer
Minor Buffs - These classes are better than they were in 3.5, but not hugely so.
Fighter
Monk
Ranger
Wizard
Mixed Bag - These classes have picked up a bunch of buffs and a bunch of nerfs. Figuring out whether they’re better or worse is going to come down to opinion.
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Nerfed - The only class which has unarguably gotten worse. Yeah, you saw this coming.
Druid
8. Conclusion
Whew. Finally there.
Remember the two questions I listed at the beginning? If you’ve read all the way through, you now have a good handle on the answer to question 1. That only leaves question 2. And the answer to that is: It depends.
If you hate 3.5, then obviously Pathfinder isn't for you. It's still very recognisably D&D 3rd-ed, and for every one thing that's changed, there are ten things that have been kept the same.
Where Pathfinder is good is if you like 3.5, but would like to have everything in one book instead of twenty. Core-only Pathfinder is much better than core-only 3.5 - the classes are far more interesting.
If you already make a habit of using the scores of 3.5 splatbooks, then it’s not so easy. The Pathfinder changes improve many things, but they come at the expense of reverse compatibility. If you try to include 3.5 material, you’re going to have to make adjustments, and the more material you try to include, the more adjustments you’re going to have to make. Honestly, I just don’t think it’s worth it.
So my recommendation for now would be:
Want to play 3.5 with one book? Use Pathfinder.
Want to play 3.5 with twenty books? Stick with 3.5.
So there you have it. Hope it was useful.
9. FAQ
This section will expand as and when I have time for it.
Q. Does Pathfinder fix the problems of 3.5?
A. No. Pathfinder improves a few things, but it's still basically the same game. Characters are still mooks at 1st-level and gods at 20th, you still have Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards). The thing is, the problems with 3.5 are so integral to the system that you can’t fix them without effectively turning it into a different game - and in the process, throwing out most of the things that make people want to stick with 3.5 in the first place.
Notes
1/1/10 - Posted handbook.
Draz74
2010-01-01, 03:13 PM
Nice work.
Question: Do the new Class Skills rules ever lead to skillmonkey characters dipping levels in other classes just so they can pick up more skills as class skills? Would a Rogue ever dip one level in Ranger just so he can put 1 skill rank in all of the nature-y skills and get a +4 bonus on each of them?
Not an orc
2010-01-01, 03:19 PM
This is very nice work, Saph. This must have taken a lot of effort, so thanks for doing the work. A place to point people who ask about Pathfinder and concentrate arguments about it will be useful. Unfortunately, I'm not in a game right now, but the DMs in my area like Pathfinder, so it helps to know about it.
ErrantX
2010-01-01, 03:27 PM
You rock Saph, great handbook.
-X
Nice work.
Question: Do the new Class Skills rules ever lead to skillmonkey characters dipping levels in other classes just so they can pick up more skills as class skills? Would a Rogue ever dip one level in Ranger just so he can put 1 skill rank in all of the nature-y skills and get a +4 bonus on each of them?
I haven't seen it done so far. I think it would be a swings and roundabouts thing - you'd gain a few extra skills, but you'd lose out on your class features. Might be worth it for fighter/skillmonkey types.
Saintjebus
2010-01-01, 04:14 PM
Very interesting read. I hadn't been able to get any kind of comprehensive understanding of the Pathfinder changes, and this was very helpful. Good comparison-fu. Thank you, Saph.
pres_man
2010-01-01, 08:18 PM
It would be nice to see some discussion from a holistic viewpoint. For example, I didn't see any discussion of stealth nerfs (maybe I missed them). Like for example, how several spells (e.g. blink and grease) that made it easier for a rogue to sneak attack, no longer do so.
EDIT: I did notice that grease was mentioned, but it should have been discussed in the rogue section as well.
Roderick_BR
2010-01-01, 09:42 PM
Thank you for the reviews, Saph. I got a book myself, but didn't read it yet. I actually like most of the changes they did. In fact, many of what they did is very similar to some things I've been working on, so I guess I will start using Pathfinder more now.
I did notice you disliked most of the wizard changes, finding them too weak. Is it weak compared to what others classes get? Because it's still more than 3.5. Actually, it feels like they got the core wizard and added the ACFs from UA, something I was thinking about doing too.
Flickerdart
2010-01-01, 10:01 PM
Saph, you will do one on d20r when that gets finished, yes? Yes. You will. I shouldn't have phrased that in the form of a question. It makes it look like you are given a choice.
Also, why Comic Sans? Get rid of that.
Tiktakkat
2010-01-01, 10:13 PM
It would be nice to see some discussion from a holistic viewpoint.
Well, how about this for Combat Maneuvers:
Translating Pathfinder RPG Combat Maneuvers
This entire section is atrociously overwritten, taking way too many words to say some very simple things.
First, a CMB roll is a standard attack roll, with the size modifier reversed.. Really. That's what the three paragraphs of text boil down to.
Seriously, it is BAB + Str (or Dex with the appropriate feat) + your size modifier inverted + all other modifiers that normally apply to an attack roll + any special modifiers for that specific maneuver.
Also:
"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver."
Unless there are some really obscure modifiers that for some reason apply to an attack but do not apply to an attack (anybody?), the end result is a standard attack roll, just with the size modifier inverted.
Oh, there is a special bonus of +4 is the target is stunned, and it is an auto-crit if the target is helpless, which is also different.
Second, CMD is your touch AC with size modifier inverted + Str modifier - (alchemical bonus + competence modifier + luck modifier + racial bonus).
Pretty simple, huh?
Oh, and that assumes there are any extant modifiers of those types that apply to AC in PFRPG. (I can find a few luck bonuses, which makes me wonder if it was an oversight, and none of the others.)
The operative sentence for this is:
"A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD."
Other than the four modifiers I note above, are ability (already added), resistance (only applies to saves), enhancement (only makes other bonuses better), armor, shield, and natural armor (which are already excluded from Touch AC).
So really, it is your Touch AC with the size modifier inverted + Str modifier.
So compressing over a column of text we get:
To perform a special combat maneuver, make a standard attack roll with your size modifier inverted against the target's Touch AC with his size modifier inverted + his Str modifier - his Luck modifier to AC (if any). Consult the entries below for specific results. If the target is helpless, your attack is an automatic critical hit. If the target is stunned, you get a special +4 bonus to your attack roll.
Everything else in that column of text is utterly superfluous.
Now that that is out of the way, a comparison becomes a lot easier.
Before you had to attack Touch AC, then make an opposed check, which was generally based on Strength, and which quadrupled the normal size modifiers.
Now you make a single attack against Touch AC, with everyone's size modifiers inverted, and with the target getting to add his Strength modifier to his defense.
Without doing a massive amount of number crunching, it should be relatively easy to see how this will affect things.
First and foremost, one roll means only one chance to critically fail, giving a benefit to the attacker.
Second, with the maneuver feats being split in two, it will generally be harder to "specialize" in these attacks, giving a benefit to the defender.
Third, removing the special size modifier means big creatures are weaker across the board, both as attackers and defenders. Small creatures are theoretically stronger, except as defenders, where a lot Strength will usually make them weaker.
Fourth, tagging the Strength modifier into the initial Touch AC attack means most everyone else will be harder to affect.
Overall, except where large creatures are involved as with the example of the ogre, the combat maneuvers are going to generally be more difficult to execute, particularly for players who always looked at enlarge person as a way to supercharge the maneuvers. Instead of getting a net +1 on the touch attack and +5 on the opposed roll, you will now just get a net +1 to the single attack made.
Eldrys
2010-01-01, 10:18 PM
You say that Druid got significantly nerfed, but is it now equal to all the other classes, and same for the paladin getting stronger?
Also, has anyone developed a tier system for PF yet?
tyckspoon
2010-01-01, 10:54 PM
You say that Druid got significantly nerfed, but is it now equal to all the other classes, and same for the paladin getting stronger?
Wildshape got nerfed pretty hard; the spellcasting is still there in all its glory and the animal companion is more or less intact. You can still be a spellcasting tiger charging into combat alongside your pet tiger. You just need decent base physical stats to pull it off now.. but if you decide to do it, you can still regularly be larger and use monster special attacks (pounce, grab, bonus trip attacks, poisons, rake, rend..) that no other martial class can easily access.
The paladin did get a lot of nice stuff, but none of it really changed his basic problems (IMO). He's better at what he does, but what he does is still not a very powerful role, and he's still stuck with MAD and is pretty weak when he can't Smite something.
So.. essentially the huge whacking gulf between casters and everybody else is still there. The differences just aren't quite as extreme in the ranks of everybody else.
Grommen
2010-01-01, 11:19 PM
Nice work.
Question: Do the new Class Skills rules ever lead to skillmonkey characters dipping levels in other classes just so they can pick up more skills as class skills? Would a Rogue ever dip one level in Ranger just so he can put 1 skill rank in all of the nature-y skills and get a +4 bonus on each of them?
From what I've seen the incentive to branch out into other classes for skllmonkeying is less. their are no cross class skills and the max ranks is your level, so basically the only bonus a class skill grants is +3. A lot of skills are together so your skills points go a long way, and because of that their are a lot more skills that have become class skills for each class. This really helps when you want to create city guards. Even though a fighter does not get perception as a class skill, they can still have one rank per level in it, makeing it a little bit harder for players to sneak past. I've converted some of my characters from 3.5 to pathfinder and they almost always come out ahead in total skills with the pathfinder rules, even though they have a lower number of skill points.
Epinephrine
2010-01-01, 11:47 PM
Some bard points:
Might be worth mentioning that bardic music progression is earlier/better.
Inspire Courage, for example, was +2 at 8th, +3 at 14th, and +4 at 20th in 3.5; it's at 5th, 11th, and 17th now, so you get them a bit earlier. It's noticeable, though it doesn't boost the end power level.
Inspire Competence bonuses scale now, up to +6. Not shabby.
A big buff to bards is that their song bonuses (I'm looking at the perennial favourite here: Inspire Courage) are competence bonuses now - this means that they stack with spells that add morale bonuses - and the bard list has several of those (heroism, good hope, and greater heroism come to mind).
I'll point out that I DM a Pathfinder group, and the bard's opening move of a swift action spell (like Inspirational Boost if you allow the SpC), a move action bardic music (Inspire Courage), and a standard action spell (Haste or Good Hope, both are solid options) is pretty solid. Good Hope stacking with Inspire courage is a nice extra +2/+2 for the attackers. Obviously, if you are jacking your IC through the roof with items/feats from diverse sourcebooks it's less of a deal, but it's a nice boost to the vanilla bard.
Inspire Greatness is interesting, because you can continue bardic music as a free action - and thus, one can stop bardic music by simply not taking that action. Because bardic music doesn't persist after stopping, you can start a new one up the same round that you stopped (even as a swift action, eventually). A bard starting and stopping inspire greatness up every round doesn't use any more uses of bardic music (since it's measured in rounds, now) but is continually re-granting the 2d10+2*Con temporary hitpoints that Inspire Greatness grants, which can certainly help soak up incidental damage if that's what is needed; given that this can be done in lieu of swift or move actions you can still be doing other things while restoring everyone's ablative shields.
Grommen
2010-01-01, 11:57 PM
The funny thing about the power attack in Pathfinder is that at least for my characters it is more useful. I don't often take two handed sword swingers so the -1 to attack and the +2 to damage works out better for me. In 3.5 you only get that with a 2-hander. Pathfinder you get -1 to attack and +3 to damage with a 2-hander so that's not too shabby.
Making it a flat penalty and bonus with every +4 to your base attack seems unnecessary, thought I do like it capped(in my games I have a harder time with the fighters running amock, not the casters). I think we have house ruled that to allow you to pick your penalty and add that amount back to your damage bonus. We still are using the cap (The -1 for every +4 BAB)....For now anyway, I've heard some squawking on that from some players. Worked out well for me the other night. I tore up a fighter PC with a NPC using the new power attack.
Really the complaint is from Combat Expert. It only adds a +1 dodge bonus for every +4 BAB. Seems like a spell caster nerf to me. In 3.5 with combat expert you could shove your entire BAB into AC, and why not? Your casting a spell anyway, so you don't need it for attacking (ya unless your doing a touch spell I know). This will slow down that abuse.
Cleave is better. Instead of getting another attack when you kill a foe. You get another attack at your full BAB if you hit your first target, then you can target someone adjacent and attack. So at low level it's a nice two-fer if your fighting multiple baddies.
And I really like the Combat Maneuvers even though they are generally harder to get off in combat. One mechanic, one roll. It's way faster. And the improved feats now give a bonus to attacking and defending against the maneuver. Epically failing a combat maneuver can be a bad thing. They include grappling in with the Combat Maneuvers as well so that rocks.
So far everything, with some tweaking, has been compatible with my 3.5 stuff. Some things are not needed anymore, and you will have to make some on they fly decisions about what skills are class skills for the old 3.5 prestige classes and stuff like that. When new books from the Pathfinder people come out I bet they address some of the more popular 3.5 prestige classes and add them into their game. I'm running a 3.5 adventure, but useing the pathfinder rules, and so far no hitches. I converted some of the major NPC's in the adventure, and they turned out a little bit better but nothing major. I'll be doing some higher level ones in the future.
Mongoose87
2010-01-02, 01:18 AM
Really the complaint is from Combat Expert. It only adds a +1 dodge bonus for every +4 BAB. Seems like a spell caster nerf to me. In 3.5 with combat expert you could shove your entire BAB into AC, and why not? Your casting a spell anyway, so you don't need it for attacking (ya unless your doing a touch spell I know). This will slow down that abuse.
Combat Expertise doesn't work that way. You have to make an attack action.
I did notice you disliked most of the wizard changes, finding them too weak. Is it weak compared to what others classes get? Because it's still more than 3.5. Actually, it feels like they got the core wizard and added the ACFs from UA, something I was thinking about doing too.
Oh, I don't really think they're too weak. Wizards didn't get all that much, but then they didn't really need all that much, and the buffs they did get help them out in the early game, when they need it most. Wizards are still a very good class - I'm playing one now, in fact. And the school powers are a fun way to set the school specialisations apart a bit.
You say that Druid got significantly nerfed, but is it now equal to all the other classes, and same for the paladin getting stronger?
The Druid player in our campaign's only just joined, so I haven't had a good chance to look at it, but my suspicion would be that Druid is still a top-tier class. 3.5 Druids are so ridiculously strong that they can afford to have one of their primary class features nerfed and still be very powerful.
Paladins are probably the strongest martial class now - I'd rank them above Fighters and Barbs.
The paladin did get a lot of nice stuff, but none of it really changed his basic problems (IMO). He's better at what he does, but what he does is still not a very powerful role, and he's still stuck with MAD and is pretty weak when he can't Smite something.
Actually, Paladin MAD has been reduced by their good Will save and basing their spellcasting off Cha. This means they can now afford to dump Wisdom. So a Pathfinder pally only needs high Cha, high Str, decent Con.
I'll point out that I DM a Pathfinder group, and the bard's opening move of a swift action spell (like Inspirational Boost if you allow the SpC), a move action bardic music (Inspire Courage), and a standard action spell (Haste or Good Hope, both are solid options) is pretty solid. Good Hope stacking with Inspire courage is a nice extra +2/+2 for the attackers. Obviously, if you are jacking your IC through the roof with items/feats from diverse sourcebooks it's less of a deal, but it's a nice boost to the vanilla bard.
Hmm, could be. Bards are the only class I haven't seen, which makes it hard to judge. Do you think they're actually better than their 3.5 equivalents, though?
Also, why Comic Sans? Get rid of that.
I would have picked Chancery, but the forum doesn't have it. :smalltongue:
Longcat
2010-01-02, 08:10 AM
Saph, what do you think of the changes they made to the Prestige classes? Are Arcane Archers actually (god forbid) playable now? Which ones were hit with a nerf stick, and which ones got buffed?
maijstral
2010-01-02, 09:00 AM
This is probably the biggest buff for wizards. Now being a specialist doesn't cut you off from schools! While adventuring, you probably still won't make a habit of using opposition schools; the opportunity cost of losing two spell slots is too high. But the ability to use something like, say, Contingency during days off is great. Verdict: Excellent!
Saph, you didn't mention something that makes Specialist wizards even better. They are no longer prohibited from using wands and scrolls of their opposition schools. Hell, they can even craft those items, although at a -4 penalty. And if your party has two wizards with different opposition schools that's even better.
Grommen
2010-01-02, 11:53 AM
Combat Expertise doesn't work that way. You have to make an attack action.
Well then I don't know what the deal is....*shrug*
Grommen
2010-01-02, 11:55 AM
Saph, you didn't mention something that makes Specialist wizards even better. They are no longer prohibited from using wands and scrolls of their opposition schools. Hell, they can even craft those items, although at a -4 penalty. And if your party has two wizards with different opposition schools that's even better.
Ya I don't like that they can use prohibited items. I refrain from that with specialized wizards personally, but in a pinch at least you have the option.
Starbuck_II
2010-01-02, 05:44 PM
Under Pathfinder Rules: Bob has Strength 18, a MW weapon, and +2 BAB (humans in Pathfinder get +2 to one stat, ie Strength for a Fighter). He makes one roll with his Combat Maneuver Bonus of +8 (+4 for Strength, +2 BAB, +2 Improved Trip) against the Ogre's CMD of 17 (10 + 3 BAB + 5 Str -1 Dex +1 Size). 60% chance of success, and you aren't counter-tripped unless you fail by 10 or more (which is impossible in this case). So the odds are more favourable, but the payoff is lower (since Improved Trip doesn’t grant a free follow-up attack anymore).
I'm pretty sure +8 vs 17 is 55% chance.
Because if you needed a 10 on a 1d20 that would be about 50% chance, but you need a 9 thus 55% chance.
Why the extra 5% (60-55 =5)?
But good handbook either way.
Saph, what do you think of the changes they made to the Prestige classes? Are Arcane Archers actually (god forbid) playable now? Which ones were hit with a nerf stick, and which ones got buffed?
Arcane Archers are much better. They now get 7/10 caster level progression, a better Hit Die, and instead of free enhancement bonuses on their arrows they get free special enchantments instead - flaming/frost/shock at 3rd-level, distance at 5th-level, burst at 7th-level, and holy (or whatever) at 9th-level. You can see for yourself here (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/prestigeClasses/arcaneArcher.html#arcane-archer).
However, it's worth noting that PrCs in general are relatively weaker than in 3.5. It's not that PrCs have been made worse, it's that most classes now have enough class features that PrCing out is no longer an automatic choice. Also, you don't get the favoured class +1 hp/+1 skill point with a prestige class.
Mike_G
2010-01-03, 12:39 PM
I'm pretty sure +8 vs 17 is 55% chance.
Because if you needed a 10 on a 1d20 that would be about 50% chance, but you need a 9 thus 55% chance.
Why the extra 5% (60-55 =5)?
But good handbook either way.
Needing a 10 or higher is 55%
1-9 is a miss (9 possible rolls x 5% =45%)
10-20 is a success (11 possible rolls x5% =55%)
Needing an 11 would be 50/50 (1-10 fail, 11-20 success)
Sharkman1231
2010-01-04, 06:34 PM
I've started playing Pathfinder, and I do like some of the changes that were made. How do the playgrounders feel about it?
Mongoose87
2010-01-04, 06:37 PM
The word I would choose is "polarized."
joela
2010-01-04, 07:01 PM
I've started playing Pathfinder, and I do like some of the changes that were made. How do the playgrounders feel about it?
I've run PfRPG. Same with D&D 4th edition and its discontinued version. Any specific questions?
Ravens_cry
2010-01-04, 07:42 PM
I like it. I have never played 3.5. Well, once, in a pick up game that went nowhere, but otherwise no. I have played multiple sessions of 4.0, and I prefer Pathfinder.
I am playing a Paladin, so my views may be biased.
I played a 3.5 Ranger before we switched our game over to Pathfinder, and liked the PF changes - especially how I could add in his desert background as a mechanical benefit as well as a flavor choice! Pathfinder is a lot less restrictive with character concepts, and the base classes are much more versatile.
Akal Saris
2010-01-13, 05:42 PM
I've enjoyed it so far. A lot of the outrage tends to be over how Paizo didn't fix enough of the game's problems, which is true - but if you're angry about balance problems, why are you even playing 3.5?
Anyhow, the overall trend was that most classes got slightly buffed and more interesting to play, the skills system was improved, and a lot of the annoying/arbitrary rules were done away with or condensed. It reminds me of the switch from 3.0 to 3.5 - not a huge leap, and easy enough to learn the new rules, but overall more enjoyable for most classes.
Besides game balance, the other factors that influenced me to play it were that I like the art style more than 4E, I enjoy the adventure paths that Paizo puts out, I'm generally ambivalent about the campaign setting, and there is a local PF group nearby, whereas there aren't any 3.5 games running in the area. I also get to look forward to new books every few months, whereas WoTC will never print another 3.5 book.
I don't plan on switching any of the older 3.5 games that I currently run to PF, but new games that I've started up have all been using the PF rules, which my PCs have enjoyed so far (one of them is WAY more into PF than I am, actually).
Anyhow, Saph's guide to PF is very well done and about as objective and informed an opinion as you're likely to find on these forums.
Oh, and here's a shot at a PF tier system along JaronK's lines:
Tier 1 - if optimized can be the most important influence on most situations that the party faces in the game past 11th level, competently does 1-3 roles in party from 1-20
Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Oracle, Sorcerer
Tier 2 - "breaks" the game after 11th or so, with some difficulty due to lack of flexibility, competently does 1-3 roles in party from 1-20. Any class with high ranks in UMD and enough money could fit here as well once you hit high levels.
Summoner
Tier 3 - almost never breaks the game, yet competently does 1-3 roles in party from 1-20
Paladin, Rogue, Ranger, Barbarian, Inquisitor, Bard
Tier 4 - never breaks the game, competently does a single role or does a mediocre job at 1-3 different roles
Monk, fighter, alchemist, cavalier
Tier 5 - does maybe a mediocre job at 1 role
Expert, warrior, aristocrat, adept
Tier 6 - utterly useless
Peasant
Starbuck_II
2010-01-13, 05:53 PM
Yeah, the Alchemist lacks brew potion (even though it fits them). Also they have 3/4th BAB but their warrior potion grants Str (in exchange for Cha damage). Really had to much caution in creation.
They seem to lack a definive role. Bard at least can buff.
So I can see Tier 4 easily.
Why Cavalier?
Akal Saris
2010-01-22, 09:04 AM
Cavalier gets stuck down there mostly because they can't handle very many roles well, especially compared with the paladin.
PF Paladin: Competent tank (especially good saves), competent damage vs. evil foes (a large number of what most parties face), mediocre damage otherwise, competent party face due to high charisma focus and the right skills, surprisingly competent healer (wands for out of combat, lay on hands for in combat and status effects), and has good mobility with a mount.
Cavalier: Competent tank (but generally not as good as a paladin), competent damage vs. 1 foe/combat (with less damage than a paladin would do against an evil foe, but no alignment issues), mediocre damage otherwise, a mediocre party face compared with a paladin since they have much less utility from a high charisma, unable to heal, and good mobility with a mount.
A charging-focused cavalier build probably hits T3 since that brings damage up significantly and several of the cavalier's class features involve charging, but otherwise there are very few other combat builds for a cavalier to pursue, and there isn't much need for a cavalier when a paladin does everything it can do, only better. And as a personal peeve, the cavalier is also unnecessarily fiddly, revolving around 2-3 sets of scaling minor bonuses from oaths and orders. It's not a horrible class, but it could have been much better designed.
Gnaeus
2010-01-22, 09:30 AM
Oh, and here's a shot at a PF tier system along JaronK's lines:
Tier 1 - if optimized can be the most important influence on most situations that the party faces in the game past 11th level, competently does 1-3 roles in party from 1-20
Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Oracle, Sorcerer
Tier 2 - "breaks" the game after 11th or so, with some difficulty due to lack of flexibility, competently does 1-3 roles in party from 1-20. Any class with high ranks in UMD and enough money could fit here as well once you hit high levels.
Summoner
Tier 3 - almost never breaks the game, yet competently does 1-3 roles in party from 1-20
Paladin, Rogue, Ranger, Barbarian, Inquisitor, Bard
Tier 4 - never breaks the game, competently does a single role or does a mediocre job at 1-3 different roles
Monk, fighter, alchemist, cavalier
Tier 5 - does maybe a mediocre job at 1 role
Expert, warrior, aristocrat, adept
Tier 6 - utterly useless
Peasant
I disagree with most of these. The only classes that actually go up a tier are Paladin and Rogue, and Paladin only goes up 1. (Edit, I don't think that the rogue actually goes up a full tier, especially with the "stealth nerfs" to blinking etc. But rogue was at the top of tier 4 before, and they didn't need much help to enter tier 3).
Sorcerer is still limited by his spells known. His class abilities are nice, but nowhere near the flexibility of a tier 1 caster.
Paladin still is pretty much a 1 trick pony, he has just become actually effective at his trick. That puts him in tier 4.
Ranger isn't significantly improved. He only reaches tier 3 if WS ranger is an option, and even then I'm not sure given the nerfs to WS. With barbarian it is arguable if they improved at all. They are certainly still a 1 trick pony. Tier 4.
Monks and fighters are arguably more effective, but the core problems of their classes aren't actually addressed. Monks still don't have an effective role in combat that they fill well. They don't have full BaB. Their class features don't synergize well, etc. Fighters gain some static bonuses, but they are still the same 1 trick ponies they are in 3.5. Worse, there are as many nerfs to fighter stuff as bonuses, so much so that many fighter builds are actually worse. The fact that all classes get more feats gives the fighter less of a distinctive role versus the other melee. Both still tier 5.
I don't have the new classes, so no opinion on them.
Gnaeus
2010-01-22, 09:35 AM
Arcane Archers are much better. They now get 7/10 caster level progression, a better Hit Die, and instead of free enhancement bonuses on their arrows they get free special enchantments instead - flaming/frost/shock at 3rd-level, distance at 5th-level, burst at 7th-level, and holy (or whatever) at 9th-level. You can see for yourself here (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/prestigeClasses/arcaneArcher.html#arcane-archer).
However, it's worth noting that PrCs in general are relatively weaker than in 3.5. It's not that PrCs have been made worse, it's that most classes now have enough class features that PrCing out is no longer an automatic choice. Also, you don't get the favoured class +1 hp/+1 skill point with a prestige class.
Dragon Disciple is so much better that it is playable now. 7/10 spellcasting + advances your sorcerer draconic bloodline. I see Paladin/Sorcerer/DD as maybe the most improved build in the game.
Assassin lost its spellcasting, which in my mind is a huge nerf.
Person_Man
2010-01-22, 12:08 PM
Buffs for non-Pathfinder classes that you might convert to Pathfinder:
Incarnate: Most soulmelds provide a Skill bonus of some type. Now that Skills have been consolidated, many soulmelds effectively become twice as powerful. More importantly, the ability to by non-class Skills on a one-for-one basis means that the Incarnate no longer has to dip into another class or have ridiculous Int in order to be an effective Skill Monkey.
Totemist: Same deal as Incarnate, though less so. Totemist soulmelds cover fewer Skills, and Totemists have fewer essentia points to throw around. Still handy though.
Marshal: A one level dip for your Cha bonus to Str checks is a lot more potent given the CMD rules.
Factotum: Although he has to wait until 3rd level to get it, Int to Str checks is a lot Str checks is a lot more potent given the CMD rules. And as an Int based class with and with 8 Skill Points per level and all Skills as class Skills, it wouldn't be unrealistic for a Human (now with +2 to any stat AND bonus Skill Points!) Factotum to be able to max out more then a 12ish different Skills which would cover 20ish different Skills in 3.5.
Swashbuckler: Daring Outlaw (19/20 BAB and full Sneak Attack) is suddenly a lot more attractive given the changes to Rogue.
Spirit Shaman: Nerfing the Druid makes him a more attractive alternative for someone who wants to play a caster focused nature class.
Unfortunately, a LOT of other classes now seem even less powerful then they did before in comparison to the buffed up Pathfinder classes. Scout, Ninja, Hexblade, Soulknife, Knight, Samurai (should we create a Tier 7?).
Matthew
2010-01-22, 07:16 PM
Interesting stuff; nice work, Saph!
AustontheGreat1
2010-01-31, 01:12 PM
I've heard a lot about pathfinder and until recently I didnt really explore it, but I've read a little about it and I'm interested. I've found a pathfinder core rulebook on sale in town and I'm pretty sure I'm gonna buy it. My main question is, is it very similar to the DnD system or would I be learning a whole new system?
And, of course I'm interested in hearing any comments or pieces of advice on the subject.
Viletta Vadim
2010-01-31, 01:20 PM
Pathfinder is essentially a book of houserules for 3.5. It's almost identical, which can kinda make it harder to learn in a way because you have the illusion that you already know things that were actually changed.
Hurlbut
2010-01-31, 01:36 PM
Pathfinder is essentially a book of houserules for 3.5. It's almost identical, which can kinda make it harder to learn in a way because you have the illusion that you already know things that were actually changed.Basically 3.5 core ruleset that have been tweaked, it is fun in some ways. But it is not for everyone.
randomhero00
2010-01-31, 01:55 PM
Very similar. But many small things have changed. Which means you still need to read through almost nearly the entire thing... expect it to take awhile to get caught up on that huge book. If you like 3rd and not 4th its a nice change. But if you like 3rd and already have 3.xe books...well there's not really a huge reason to change. You can update 3.xe books to pathfinder but its annoying. Summary: overall probably an improvement, but its not worth the cost to many.
sonofzeal
2010-01-31, 02:01 PM
GOOD: It boosts most base classes, definitely boosts all base races, nerfs a few spells, and simplifies trip/grapple/disarm. Staying in a single class is now more optimal.
BAD: Non-core classes now kind of suffer in comparison, non-core races definitely suffer in comparison, it doesn't fix many of the worst loopholes, and the trip/grapple/disarm fix is contentious at best. It also has some really random nerfs, like (I believe) Monks can't take "Improved Natural Attacks" any more and don't really have their core problems fixed.
NEW: A lot of spells have been changed, trip/grapple/disarm works totally differently now, and the official cosmology has changed. Every class/race has been altered, and a lot of little rules have changed. For example, Rogues now get d8 HD, a bunch more class features, and Sneak Attack isn't blocked by critical immunity (though the target still needs a "discernable anatomy").
CONCLUSION: It works well as a cohesive set of houserules to core-only 3.5 D&D. It's possible to use non-core, but changes enough that integrating things becomes awkward, though not impossible. If you routinely use Swashbuckers and Wu Jen and Warlocks and Knights and Factota, you may want to give PF a pass. If you have you own set of fixes already, you may want to give PF a pass. If you routinely stick to the official rules and the core books, it could be a good improvement to your game... and there's plenty of supplimental classes/feats/whatever that they've added through Adventure Paths, so it's not like you can't branch out (or houserule non-core stuff to fit).
Frosty
2010-01-31, 02:09 PM
CONCLUSION: It works well as a cohesive set of houserules to core-only 3.5 D&D. It's possible to use non-core, but changes enough that integrating things becomes awkward, though not impossible. If you routinely use Swashbuckers and Wu Jen and Warlocks and Knights and Factota, you may want to give PF a pass. If you have you own set of fixes already, you may want to give PF a pass. If you routinely stick to the official rules and the core books, it could be a good improvement to your game... and there's plenty of supplimental classes/feats/whatever that they've added through Adventure Paths, so it's not like you can't branch out (or houserule non-core stuff to fit).
That's not to say it can't be done though. In the campaign I'm about to run, a fair portion of my houserules are either PF-inspired or directly taken from PF itself. If you already have a good sense of what's balanced and what's not, feel free to incorporate parts of PF into your game.
KiwiImperator
2010-01-31, 07:46 PM
It's some pretty solid work, insofar as I've seen. My group and I have switched over to Pathfinder, since we're all pretty big fans of Paizo's adventure paths. They did a pretty good job of making all of the classes viable gameplay options, and sanded off a lot of the rougher corners of ol' 3.X. There are still a few holes, mostly to do with the CMB stuff, but I'll say this: They poured a TON of work into making all of the core classes interesting. Fighter actually has a lot of depth now, and you can end up with a Shuggoth-blooded sorcerer punching people from 15 feet away with his freaking mutant arms, all that good stuff.
AustontheGreat1
2010-02-01, 10:04 AM
thanks for all the input. Im still pretty much set on buying, even though I heard mixed things, cost of the book isnt really an issue as I still have some of those useless (Though much appreciated, I'm not in ungrateful.)) gift cards I can blow on it.
Though unfortunately, the place I'm buying it only has the Core Rulebook which from my understanding is basically an amalgam of the Players Handbook and the DMG. I can always use the Pathfinder SRD, for the monsters.
But, does anyone know of any supplements that I should make sure and check out? or is the supplemental options for the pathfinder set extremely limited in that respect?
Viletta Vadim
2010-02-01, 10:07 AM
Supplements are currently scarce. The current big ones are the Bestiary (which is pretty much essential unless you want to draw all monsters off the PRD), their campaign setting (if you have any interest in campaign settings), and... I think that's all for now. The Advanced Player's Guide is a work in progress, and you can download the beta classes from Paizo's site.
Susano-wo
2010-02-01, 03:12 PM
"Factota"
props on proper pluralization of a latin-based name :P
I haven't played any pathfinder yet, but I just got it and am just gushing over it. I converted my Warblade/Sorc to it, and I am liking the cool new stuff that I am getting for my sorcerer side, and since ToB rocks so much ass, I am not dissapointed that it didn't get a coolness boost. The only thing that makes me sad is that I am prestiging currently in a homebrew ToB/Arcane class, so I won't be able to see a lot of the higher end Sorceror features. OH my god, though...I want to play a Paladin! >:]
IN short, Pathfinder definitely takes all the core classes and dashes some cool on them. The only things I can think of that *might* be nerfed are clerics/druids (and I'm sure that would break people's hearts :P), and if I recall, they made Specialists get specialist powers instead of extra spells per day.
Frosty
2010-02-01, 03:38 PM
"Factota"
props on proper pluralization of a latin-based name :P
I haven't played any pathfinder yet, but I just got it and am just gushing over it. I converted my Warblade/Sorc to it, and I am liking the cool new stuff that I am getting for my sorcerer side, and since ToB rocks so much ass, I am not dissapointed that it didn't get a coolness boost. The only thing that makes me sad is that I am prestiging currently in a homebrew ToB/Arcane class, so I won't be able to see a lot of the higher end Sorceror features. OH my god, though...I want to play a Paladin! >:]
IN short, Pathfinder definitely takes all the core classes and dashes some cool on them. The only things I can think of that *might* be nerfed are clerics/druids (and I'm sure that would break people's hearts :P), and if I recall, they made Specialists get specialist powers instead of extra spells per day.
Druids got nerfed slightly. Wizards and Sorcerers got stronger. Yeah. Stronger.
pres_man
2010-02-01, 06:57 PM
If you are playing 3.5 and looking to purchase all new core books (not really feasible to use a PF handbook in the same game with a 3.5 PHB) and ultimately toss out most of your supplements (since converting each thing will ultimately prove not to be worth it), then it is a good choice.
Viletta Vadim
2010-02-01, 08:12 PM
Why do folks assume you have to convert everything if you want to use anything? If you have one or fifty or a thousand supplements, you still only have to convert the things people actually want to use, which is a much smaller number of things than 'all of it.' And a lot of the conversions amount to 'go ahead.'
Hawriel
2010-02-01, 09:24 PM
Supplements are currently scarce. The current big ones are the Bestiary (which is pretty much essential unless you want to draw all monsters off the PRD), their campaign setting (if you have any interest in campaign settings), and... I think that's all for now. The Advanced Player's Guide is a work in progress, and you can download the beta classes from Paizo's site.
This in not true. Pathfinder is currently publishing their 3rd and 4th adventure arks. Each ark is a six book campain that usualy run from 1st to 15th level. There are also map packs available, and a companion. These usualy are $10-20. Compainions for an adventure are have detailed information of the city or region that the adventure takes place in. A very nice thing to have for both players and GMs. And there is more.
Pathfinder is putting out companions for races, countries, and organizations. They are released monthly. The dwarf book came out just under two weeks ago.
Pathfinder is also organizing a Pathfinder Society. Its pritty much their version of living Greyhawk. About 50 stand alone adventures have been written so far. You can order them off of the web sight. In PDF or hard copy. These adventures are ment to be 4 hour one shot adventures. They want peaple to play them and give feedback.
D&D 3.5 is dead, and 4th ed is not going to last much longer. The cancelation of Star Wars SAGA looks to be forshadowing this. Almost every one that was invalved with D&D 3rd ed has jumped ship. They eather went on their own or work for Pathfinder. It's not 'just a bunch of house rules'. It's more like what 4th edition could have been.
IF the OP wants to get the book he should. At the very least sit down in the book store are read some of it. Maybe you will like it, maybe not. At the very least judge the book for what it is. Not what D&D 3.5 is or is not.
Stephen_E
2010-02-01, 09:41 PM
D&D 3.5 is dead,.
This is a silly statement.
3.5 isn't dead or about to die.
I look at the book stores and there's no horde of 2nd hand 3.5 stuff out there.
Hell, 2nd Ed isn't dead, and that's been out of print for ages.
Stephen E
KiwiImperator
2010-02-02, 12:56 AM
Druids got nerfed slightly. Wizards and Sorcerers got stronger. Yeah. Stronger.
I'm not sure about that. The classes themselves have gotten a lot more interesting, but their spell lists are far less impressive than they used to be. A lot of the good old fashioned YOU LOSE LOL spells got taken down a peg. It's a lot more viable to play non-casters in Pathfinder than it ever was in 3.5.
Mystic Muse
2010-02-02, 01:09 AM
D&D 3.5 is dead, and 4th ed is not going to last much longer. The cancellation of Star Wars SAGA looks to be foreshadowing this. Almost every one that was involved with D&D 3rd ed has jumped ship. They either went on their own or work for Pathfinder. It's not 'just a bunch of house rules'. It's more like what 4th edition could have been.
.
Just because a game is "dead" (a statement I don't agree with. A game isn't really dead until almost nobody plays it anymore.) doesn't mean the game isn't a totally viable option. It also doesn't mean Pathfinder is the best option.
I think 4th edition is going to last longer than you seem to think. It's a pretty good edition. It has flaws yes but so does 3.5
I'm not going to comment on Pathfinder other than to say if you think it looks good go for it.
Every other post I make is gushing about Pathfinder - I think Saph gives it a fair shake, though. You should check out that thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7607321#post7607321
Tyndmyr
2010-02-02, 01:16 AM
This is a silly statement.
3.5 isn't dead or about to die.
I look at the book stores and there's no horde of 2nd hand 3.5 stuff out there.
Hell, 2nd Ed isn't dead, and that's been out of print for ages.
Stephen E
I have a standing order at most local used book stores to immediately call me if any roleplaying books come in. It's surprisingly rare, tbh, and it's usually crap. The only time I've seen ANY 3.x books come in, it was a remarkably beat up 3.0 phb.
3.5 is definitely not dead.
Pathfinder is alright, and if you enjoy 3.5, you'll probably enjoy it too. It is 90% the same, after all. On the flip side, all the promises of improved balance turned out to be pretty much blatant lies.
Mystic Muse
2010-02-02, 01:18 AM
, all the promises of improved balance turned out to be pretty much blatant lies.
Along with the easy backwards compatibility
Innis Cabal
2010-02-02, 01:19 AM
D&D 3.5 is dead, and 4th ed is not going to last much longer. The cancelation of Star Wars SAGA looks to be forshadowing this. Almost every one that was invalved with D&D 3rd ed has jumped ship. They eather went on their own or work for Pathfinder. It's not 'just a bunch of house rules'. It's more like what 4th edition could have been.
Forshadowing what exactly? How does them canceling a not even close to flagship branch that costs them alot more money to run (due in part to additonal money being sent to Lucasarts) relate in any way, shape or form to them canceling one of their biggest income sources?
That sounds more like wishful thinking than anything else
Tyndmyr
2010-02-02, 01:20 AM
Along with the easy backwards compatibility
Well, yes. It's true that everything can be converted, and doing so is easier than converting to 4e, but that's not saying much.
For example, tripping, grappling, skills, etc all changed. This means that every single monster requires significant rework for this alone. Not terribly hard rework, sure, but awfully tedious.
KiwiImperator
2010-02-02, 01:26 AM
On the flip side, all the promises of improved balance turned out to be pretty much blatant lies.
That's a bit of a shame. I was under the impression they had done a lot for the game in that department. Give the spellcasters some pretty looking toys, but put a rubber tip on the real killers (save or lose spells) and call it a day.
For example, tripping, grappling, skills, etc all changed. This means that every single monster requires significant rework for this alone. Not terribly hard rework, sure, but awfully tedious.
All you really have to do is calculate their CMB and CMD - and for Medium creatures, the CMB is going to be the same as the Grapple modifier from 3.5. 9 times out of 10, the CMD is just Touch AC + CMB. Not really tedious, unless you go through your monster books and convert all of them at once.
Tyndmyr
2010-02-02, 01:30 AM
That's a bit of a shame. I was under the impression they had done a lot for the game in that department. Give the spellcasters some pretty looking toys, but put a rubber tip on the real killers (save or lose spells) and call it a day.
Grease is min/level now, instead of rounds/level, making it rather amusing in long fights.
Casters have d6 hp base, and it's easy to stack another hp a level on top of that via the new favored class mechanism. Thus, while melee do have a few more damage dealing options, it's essentially entirely canceled out by increased hit points, and casters have lost their main flaw...being weak at low levels. Infinite cantrips, more hp, special abilities, being able to caster from your barred schools, and core item familiars all combine to make casters better from even the earliest levels.
Tyndmyr
2010-02-02, 01:33 AM
All you really have to do is calculate their CMB and CMD - and for Medium creatures, the CMB is going to be the same as the Grapple modifier from 3.5. 9 times out of 10, the CMD is just Touch AC + CMB. Not really tedious, unless you go through your monster books and convert all of them at once.
I use a fair number of non-medium monsters. It's also not unusual for me to use several types of monsters in a single night...sometimes in a single fight. So, if Im going through half a dozen monsters before every night, that's a significant amount of added prep work. As you said, it's not usually hard to figure out what they should be, but it is annoying.
And that still leaves the issue of skills, which have to be converted to the new system as well. This is particularly fun when converting over monsters with class levels, such as dragons.
I'm playing a Pathfinder game at the moment. The link in my sig's the result.
Generally I'd say core Pathfinder is an improvement on core 3.5. The classes are more interesting, skills work better, and some of the more obviously annoying things like Polymorph got fixed.
Where things get more difficult is if you're comparing it to all-books 3.5. Then it's more of a judgement call.
Mystic Muse
2010-02-02, 01:40 AM
I'll admit that Pathfinder does have some nice new things that I like. However they also messed up on a lot of things as well.
I'm just going to stick with 3.5 and 4th edition while occasionally using a class from Pathfinder to replace a 3.5 class. (like Paladin)
Also, you apparently can't be a goblin.:smallfrown:
I'll admit that Pathfinder does have some nice new things that I like. However they also messed up on a lot of things as well.
I'm just going to stick with 3.5 and 4th edition while occasionally using a class from Pathfinder to replace a 3.5 class. (like Paladin)
Also, you apparently can't be a goblin.:smallfrown:
What? You can totally be a Goblin! They're in the Bestiary with rules on playing them and everything!
And Pathfinder Goblins are awesome.
BobVosh
2010-02-02, 01:58 AM
The wizards/sorcs being buffed thing kinda annoys me. Almost all the main powerhouse spells got nerfed. Yes they got some more (mostly pointless) class features, but the thing that made them so good is not nearly as strong.
As for tweaked classes I like the new paladin and ranger a lot. Fighter still feels bleh, although it is decent. The number bump is ok. Barbarian feels odd to play. It is nice that the rages temporary hit points are free hit points and you don't die when rage drops.
Monk still sucks, rogues have a few neat new tricks, and druid got nerfed fairly strongly.
Mystic Muse
2010-02-02, 02:11 AM
What? You can totally be a Goblin! They're in the Bestiary with rules on playing them and everything!
And Pathfinder Goblins are awesome.
:smallmad: The DM I was going to play a game in lied to me then.
he also said that as a Paladin I'm not allowed to lie or I fall.:smallyuk: (honestly, the way the oath is worded that's sort of what it sounds like)
olentu
2010-02-02, 02:25 AM
The wizards/sorcs being buffed thing kinda annoys me. Almost all the main powerhouse spells got nerfed. Yes they got some more (mostly pointless) class features, but the thing that made them so good is not nearly as strong.
As for tweaked classes I like the new paladin and ranger a lot. Fighter still feels bleh, although it is decent. The number bump is ok. Barbarian feels odd to play. It is nice that the rages temporary hit points are free hit points and you don't die when rage drops.
Monk still sucks, rogues have a few neat new tricks, and druid got nerfed fairly strongly.
While some spells were nerfed there seems to remain many good options and to a degree with the removal of some relatively absolute protections the applicable spells have become better choices.
Direct damage on the other hand seems to have been nerfed due to the increase in HP.
Direct damage on the other hand seems to have been nerfed due to the increase in HP.
Monster HP hasn't increased that I can see. I've found direct damage reasonably effective so far.
Depends on the person. I'm happy that my Favorite class now has a option to take a domain from the core class rather than having to ACF/Variant/Houserule it.
Still stuck with that lump called wild shape though.
Likewise I've never had any issue (or has anyone that I've played with) with monks - PF just gives you some different options to play with.
The addition to Sorcerers is very nice, while spells may be good so is having actual class features
KiwiImperator
2010-02-02, 02:35 AM
On a Semi-Related note, we had a Summoner in the campaign the other day. My skull kind of imploded from the sheer alarm of how powerful the Eidelon (or whatever it's called) was.
I will lend my support to skepticism regarding spellcaster HP, I think that was kind of a bad call rooted in Paizo trying to give everyone new toys. If I could change one thing, it'd be to move spellcaster HP down to its original. That just felt frivolous.
olentu
2010-02-02, 02:40 AM
Monster HP hasn't increased that I can see. I've found direct damage reasonably effective so far.
I agree that I have not noticed an increase in basic monster HP overall, however things with class levels would seem to have higher HP overall. This would be a small change but it would be a change. Though not having taken an average for HP by CR I suppose monster HP could have gone down to balance this out.
potatocubed
2010-02-02, 02:46 AM
As a general rule I find that going from 3.5 to Pathfinder is the same as going from 3.0 to 3.5 - a lot of little changes that, overall, make the game more enjoyable for me. If the original design goals were to fix the caster/melee balance issues in 3.5 then they failed, but I think that's just something you have to live with given the underlying assumptions of the game.
EDIT: And yes, summoners are currently broken as all hell.
Tiktakkat
2010-02-02, 02:55 AM
I use a fair number of non-medium monsters. It's also not unusual for me to use several types of monsters in a single night...sometimes in a single fight. So, if Im going through half a dozen monsters before every night, that's a significant amount of added prep work. As you said, it's not usually hard to figure out what they should be, but it is annoying.
And that still leaves the issue of skills, which have to be converted to the new system as well. This is particularly fun when converting over monsters with class levels, such as dragons.
And then there are feats, if the creature has more than 3 HD.
And then there more subtle changes.
Constructs in PFRPG have full BAB, not 3/4.
Primary and secondary attack distinctions have changed. Because of that, multiattack has disappeared from some monsters, like troglodytes. While the first change makes them theoretically stronger, the second change makes them functionally weaker with many write ups where they have a one handed weapon and back it up with a bite and claw.
Orcs with ferocity I mentioned once before.
Altogether, it seems there are dozens of little traps like that spread throughout the rules make compatability barely above marginal, and pretty much means a near full rewrite of anything non-standard, or not in the SRD.
pres_man
2010-02-02, 07:55 PM
Why do folks assume you have to convert everything if you want to use anything? If you have one or fifty or a thousand supplements, you still only have to convert the things people actually want to use, which is a much smaller number of things than 'all of it.' And a lot of the conversions amount to 'go ahead.'
Sorry if my post wasn't as clear as it could have been. I was not trying to imply that one would convert everything. Instead I meant that each thing that was converted (and used) would make the effort not worth it in the long run.
Tyndmyr
2010-02-03, 09:28 AM
Constructs in PFRPG have full BAB, not 3/4.
Good point, I hadn't even realized this was a change. I know most of the other ones, but yeah...it's all the annoying little details.
It doesn't require the kind of subjectivity that say, changing something from 3 to 4 would, but it still eats a lot of time in tracking down minor changes.
My biggest beef with PF is that it mainly is a lot of minor changes. It would have been better published as an Unearthed Arcana style book, with variant rules of play, making it easier for people to pick and choose which they like. After all, some of the changes are nifty...but when 90% of stuff is the same, it's often annoyingly hard to find the changes.
Gnaeus
2010-02-03, 10:11 AM
I disagree Tyndmyr. I will admit that for US an unearthed arcana style book might be better. But the biggest benefit of Pathfinder is that it allows new players to enter what is essentially the 3.5 market, since actual 3.5 books aren't being published or promoted. It keeps games in what is predominantly a 3.5 format in cons and gaming stores. It keeps D&D alive. (I personally do not regard 4.0 as D&D, or groups playing it as sharing my hobby).
For that, despite its many problems, I have to be a PF fan.
pres_man
2010-02-03, 11:11 AM
I disagree Tyndmyr. I will admit that for US an unearthed arcana style book might be better. But the biggest benefit of Pathfinder is that it allows new players to enter what is essentially the 3.5 market, since actual 3.5 books aren't being published or promoted. It keeps games in what is predominantly a 3.5 format in cons and gaming stores. It keeps D&D alive. (I personally do not regard 4.0 as D&D, or groups playing it as sharing my hobby).
For that, despite its many problems, I have to be a PF fan.
Except a PF core book is not playable within a 3.5 game, thus it is not keeping 3.5 format alive. It is further splitting the 3.5 player base. If PF had just done a strict reprint plus all the added details that weren't open content (xp, wealth by level, character creation rules, etc), then I would have been a PF fan since I could have dropped a PF core book in my 3.5 game with little more than a ripple. As it is, not so much.
EDIT: As a comparison. Would anyone rationally claim that 3.5 helped keep 3e going strong? Or would most people agree that 3.5 was the last nail for 3e?
Thrawn183
2010-02-03, 12:08 PM
Honestly? It just isn't worth the money. I like a lot of the things they've done, but if you're looking to change some stuff in your own campaign, just import the rules from the pathfinder srd and be done with it.
I'll try and stay away from my play experiences with pathfinder because they've all been quite negative as a result of who I've been playing with. To give you an example, the guy I know who always wants to play pathfinder? Of course he's playing a summoner with an Eidelon. My poor, poor sword and board fighter.
Anyways, I figure I'd have just as much fun playing pathfinder with any specific group as I would playing 3.5 with that group. I just can't recommend anyone actually spend the money on it.
Tyndmyr
2010-02-03, 12:18 PM
EDIT: As a comparison. Would anyone rationally claim that 3.5 helped keep 3e going strong? Or would most people agree that 3.5 was the last nail for 3e?
3.5 mostly replaced 3.0. Very few games claim to be 3.0 now, though plenty of 3.5 games make use of 3.0 material to some extent.
The 3.5 -> pf conversion is more involved than 3.0, so that may change things.
Still...PF is better than 4th.
pres_man
2010-02-03, 01:56 PM
I just can't recommend anyone actually spend the money on it.
I can. If some group is coming in totally fresh, looked at 4e and decided it wasn't for them, I would suggest they pick up PF. Now I wouldn't recommend anyone playing 3.5 "upgrade" to it, but for someone that hasn't started playing 3.5 (has no investment in 3.5), sure go for PF.
Starbuck_II
2010-02-03, 02:00 PM
:smallmad: The DM I was going to play a game in lied to me then.
he also said that as a Paladin I'm not allowed to lie or I fall.:smallyuk: (honestly, the way the oath is worded that's sort of what it sounds like)
Technically, he is right.
3.5: Gross violations = fall.
Pathfinder: Any violation = fall.
Gnaeus
2010-02-03, 02:12 PM
EDIT: As a comparison. Would anyone rationally claim that 3.5 helped keep 3e going strong? Or would most people agree that 3.5 was the last nail for 3e?
I would say that they are fundamentally the same system, and that the same is true with PF. True, there isn't 100% compatibility. Maybe only 80%. But as someone who has played most of his AD&D adventures converted to 3.5 I would say the conversions really aren't that much. I mean, Construct BaB changes? If the DM remembers the rule it takes 5 seconds to change. If the DM fails to remember the rule, who is even going to notice?
More to the point, the systems are close enough that there is a high degree of player compatibility. Most people who play PF would play and enjoy 3.5, and vice versa. If no one can publish 3.5, and no one cares enough to promote games of 3.5, at least we can carry on with something 3.5 like.
UglyPanda
2010-02-03, 02:39 PM
More to the point, the systems are close enough that there is a high degree of player compatibility. Most people who play PF would play and enjoy 3.5, and vice versa. If no one can publish 3.5, and no one cares enough to promote games of 3.5, at least we can carry on with something 3.5 like.I wouldn't say most. I'd say some, but not most. We have no way of knowing exactly how much of the demographic for either game matches up with the other. And a decent sized chunk of both demographics hate the other game.
And there are a lot of games people continue to play despite not being updated (2nd ed. D&D, OWoD, etc.).
Gnaeus
2010-02-03, 02:59 PM
I wouldn't say most. I'd say some, but not most. We have no way of knowing exactly how much of the demographic for either game matches up with the other. And a decent sized chunk of both demographics hate the other game.
I would say most. I think we get a disproportionate amount of PF hate on boards by their nature.
This is because, in my experience, most of the people who hate PF do so for one of 2 reasons.
1. "Those jerks at paizo don't know their @$$ from a hole in the ground and when I tried to explain how 3.5/their beta was broken they flamed me!"
or
2. "PF made (my favorite class/race/thing) too weak/strong and I hate the change."
#1 is true enough, and does involve a reasonable # of the most active forum posters, but not a large % of the overall gaming public
#2 is an opinion and as such is fair. But again, I think few people who otherwise enjoy 3.5 would be unable to have fun in a game using Paizo rules. It really isn't much different from any other set of 3.5 houserules. I mean, if I sat down at a game of 3.5 and they told me that all the druids use the shapeshift variant, I would frown, make a mental note, and play something that wasn't a druid and have fun. Paizo's changes are minor enough that you have to really loathe one of them to not like a game because of it if you are a 3.5 player. Most of the PF games I have played in could have been 3.5 games with rebound books and it wouldn't have altered play at all.
And there are a lot of games people continue to play despite not being updated (2nd ed. D&D, OWoD, etc.).
True, but fewer every year. Books are lost and can't be replaced. Players find new hobbies and few new players decide on their own they want to play OWoD or 2nd ed. Few games at cons use out of print systems, and less every year. Good games don't die, but they fade away.
Tiktakkat
2010-02-03, 03:02 PM
I mean, Construct BaB changes? If the DM remembers the rule it takes 5 seconds to change. If the DM fails to remember the rule, who is even going to notice?
Yes, if the DM remembers the rule.
How many BAB progressions for monster types do you have memorized?
As for 5 seconds, I am good with stat blocks. Really good. From comments by others, I have to say I am quite "fast" at doing up stat blocks.
Changing BAB changes:
BAB entry
CMB entry
CMD entry
every separate attack entry
For extended stat blocks, it also changes every spell entry requiring an attack roll.
Fast as I will say I am, it takes me a bit more than 5 seconds to change that many entries.
Compound that through every other change with every other creature, and it becomes a significant chore to convert an adventure using anything but SRD creatures. (For which you just look up the new version.)
Frosty
2010-02-03, 03:02 PM
Just use the bits from PF you like and ditch what you don't like. It's that simple. Consider if Unearthed Arcana mark 2. It's a great supplement/splat book with lots of alternative class features for the base classes, effectively.
Renegade Paladin
2010-02-03, 03:02 PM
For example, Rogues now get d8 HD, a bunch more class features, and Sneak Attack isn't blocked by critical immunity (though the target still needs a "discernable anatomy").
That's because they standardized hit dice and tied it to base attack bonus; classes with 1/2 BAB get d6, classes with 3/4 BAB get d8, and classes with full BAB get d10. The only exception is barbarian, with d12.
UglyPanda
2010-02-03, 03:09 PM
I would say most.But you have no idea how many players there are, how many people continue to play, or how many do indeed hate each other. You can't say most because you haven't spoken to most. There is an outspoken minority who hates, a quiet minority who likes, and an overwhelming amount of "Just doesn't give a damn". By saying most, you're giving an opinion, not a fact. By saying some, you're at least correct for the 99.99% of the time that the proportion isn't 0% or 100%*.
*Note: UglyPanda's opinions may or may not be grounded in the basis of reality. Proceed with caution.
Renegade Paladin
2010-02-03, 03:12 PM
Druids got nerfed slightly. Wizards and Sorcerers got stronger. Yeah. Stronger.
A lot of spells were changed, though. What made wizards and sorcerers so powerful in 3e was the sor/wiz spell list, not their class features. It's the same way in Pathfinder; sure, they have class features now, but they live and die by their spells.
Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 03:27 PM
Technically, he is right.
3.5: Gross violations = fall.
Pathfinder: Any violation = fall.
...........
Yeah. I'm not playing then. They've pretty much screwed over my favorite class.
ryzouken
2010-02-03, 03:39 PM
But the good news is, it doesn't cost the Atonement cleric xp to return your class anymore (just lots of money) so if you do happen to breach, you can easily retrieve your abilities again (unless your party cleric is doing something funky).
The true limitation of the paladin class: forcing the rest of your party to build around keeping your high maintenance arse active.
Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 03:41 PM
The true limitation of the paladin class: forcing the rest of your party to build around keeping your high maintenance arse active.
yeah. Exactly.
Tyndmyr
2010-02-03, 03:44 PM
A lot of spells were changed, though. What made wizards and sorcerers so powerful in 3e was the sor/wiz spell list, not their class features. It's the same way in Pathfinder; sure, they have class features now, but they live and die by their spells.
What? Over 90% of the spells were completely unchanged at all. Those that were were not really fixed by any definition of the word.
Nope, no real power change here.
Familiars are quick and cheap to replace, though, so charging a touch spell on a toad and using him as a softball is now viable.
pres_man
2010-02-03, 04:05 PM
I would say most. I think we get a disproportionate amount of PF hate on boards by their nature.
This is because, in my experience, most of the people who hate PF do so for one of 2 reasons.
1. "Those jerks at paizo don't know their @$$ from a hole in the ground and when I tried to explain how 3.5/their beta was broken they flamed me!"
or
2. "PF made (my favorite class/race/thing) too weak/strong and I hate the change."
#1 is true enough, and does involve a reasonable # of the most active forum posters, but not a large % of the overall gaming public
#2 is an opinion and as such is fair. But again, I think few people who otherwise enjoy 3.5 would be unable to have fun in a game using Paizo rules. It really isn't much different from any other set of 3.5 houserules. I mean, if I sat down at a game of 3.5 and they told me that all the druids use the shapeshift variant, I would frown, make a mental note, and play something that wasn't a druid and have fun. Paizo's changes are minor enough that you have to really loathe one of them to not like a game because of it if you are a 3.5 player. Most of the PF games I have played in could have been 3.5 games with rebound books and it wouldn't have altered play at all.
And group #3, "When WotC asked me to retire my 3.5 books, I politely told them, No Thanks. When Paizo, asks me to do the same, I tell them exact same thing." If the entire game group all has to buy new player's handbooks in order to use the system, then it is too different for me. They can have my 3.5 PHB when they take it from my cold undead hands.
EDIT: Actually, I don't mean hate. More like, disappointed.
Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 04:06 PM
They can have my 3.5 PHB when they take it from my cold undead hands.
*takes*
*edits a few things that need editing and clears some stuff up*
*gives back*
:smalltongue:
JaronK
2010-02-03, 04:12 PM
I guess my problem with Pathfinder is that I can come up with nifty house rules myself, but what's hard to do is actually balance the classes. I would LOVE to see a 3.5 that was actually balanced, where casters didn't become gods around level 10 and could still play with melees and skillmonkeys at that level, and where any concept that a player might have can be played with any other concept without one of them being too strong and the other too weak.
But Pathfinder didn't actually rebalance in a good way. Sure, they hit Druids, but they needed to do a LOT more, and they needed to not nerf Fighters or buff Wizards. If they had actually gone through the entire spell list and rebalanced it, and had fixed up some of the weaker classes, I might have gone for it.
Plus, if that's all they'd done then preexisting campaigns would still work and it would actually be backwards compatable.
Instead, PF is full of little changes that are in some cases nifty, but have the overall effect of requiring more work for the DM to adapt things and don't tend to have a significant positive change on gameplay. In the end, I'd rather just play a bunch of more balanced non core classes in my party and use the standard 3.5 rules.
JaronK
Gnaeus
2010-02-03, 04:20 PM
Yes, if the DM remembers the rule.
How many BAB progressions for monster types do you have memorized?
As for 5 seconds, I am good with stat blocks. Really good. From comments by others, I have to say I am quite "fast" at doing up stat blocks.
Changing BAB changes:
BAB entry
CMB entry
CMD entry
every separate attack entry
For extended stat blocks, it also changes every spell entry requiring an attack roll.
Fast as I will say I am, it takes me a bit more than 5 seconds to change that many entries.
Compound that through every other change with every other creature, and it becomes a significant chore to convert an adventure using anything but SRD creatures. (For which you just look up the new version.)
Riiiiiight. I wouldn't bother converting stat blocks unless I was going to publish it. You either go "golems. Oh yeah. BAB adjustment +3" and apply a +whatever buff in combat. Or you forget AND NO ONE EVER NOTICES. It is really very simple. I cannot tell you how shocked I would be if my players were fighting a stone golem and someone watched me roll the dice and say what AC I hit and actually realized that I had forgotten to make the BAB change. If they did notice a discrepancy, they would probably just chalk it up to a DM modification to the monster.
Gnaeus
2010-02-03, 04:29 PM
But you have no idea how many players there are, how many people continue to play, or how many do indeed hate each other. You can't say most because you haven't spoken to most. There is an outspoken minority who hates, a quiet minority who likes, and an overwhelming amount of "Just doesn't give a damn". By saying most, you're giving an opinion, not a fact. By saying some, you're at least correct for the 99.99% of the time that the proportion isn't 0% or 100%*.
*Note: UglyPanda's opinions may or may not be grounded in the basis of reality. Proceed with caution.
I can say most, and I did say most, based on practical observation and logic. It IS an opinion, although it is a lot better than yours, because my point that "Most people who play PF would play and enjoy 3.5, and vice versa" is directly backed up by your comment that "an overwhelming amount of [players] "Just doesn't give a damn"". The casual majority of players would barely notice the rules changes, or only the most obvious ones like "Rogues get d8s now. Neat."
Frosty
2010-02-03, 04:30 PM
And group #3, "When WotC asked me to retire my 3.5 books, I politely told them, No Thanks. When Paizo, asks me to do the same, I tell them exact same thing." If the entire game group all has to buy new player's handbooks in order to use the system, then it is too different for me. They can have my 3.5 PHB when they take it from my cold undead hands.
The SRD is online and free you know. It's all that I've neede dto far so incorporate parts of it into my games.
Tyndmyr
2010-02-03, 04:33 PM
I guess my problem with Pathfinder is that I can come up with nifty house rules myself, but what's hard to do is actually balance the classes. I would LOVE to see a 3.5 that was actually balanced, where casters didn't become gods around level 10 and could still play with melees and skillmonkeys at that level, and where any concept that a player might have can be played with any other concept without one of them being too strong and the other too weak.
If someone actually wrote a well polished sourcebook on E6, etc, Id buy it in a heartbeat.
UglyPanda
2010-02-03, 05:22 PM
I can say most, and I did say most, based on practical observation and logic. It IS an opinion, although it is a lot better than yours, because my point that "Most people who play PF would play and enjoy 3.5, and vice versa" is directly backed up by your comment that "an overwhelming amount of [players] "Just doesn't give a damn"". The casual majority of players would barely notice the rules changes, or only the most obvious ones like "Rogues get d8s now. Neat."When I mean "Don't give a damn", I mean "Refuse to get involved when people argue over Pathfinder".
There are people who would say "Why should I bother learning new rules?" and "If it's barely noticeable, why should I play it?". Simply going by the people who show up in these threads and then saying that one side doesn't count is a very bad way to make an opinion.*
*Note: UglyPanda's opinions may involve full frontal lobotomies. Please consult your doctor before taking UglyPanda seriously.
Mongoose87
2010-02-03, 05:37 PM
If someone actually wrote a well polished sourcebook on E6, etc, Id buy it in a heartbeat.
I find E6 feels more like 2E. Take that as you will.
JaronK
2010-02-03, 05:39 PM
If someone actually wrote a well polished sourcebook on E6, etc, Id buy it in a heartbeat.
That's both the problem and the joy of E6. It's so simple that you don't need a sourcebook for it... but that's AWESOME.
JaronK
Susano-wo
2010-02-03, 05:41 PM
Ok, I am a bit mystified by the its too hard to change stuff. I can buy that monster's can be hard to change (though not the CMB: BA+STR+size. really? that's hard? Unless it has an ability that says it is different, or unless it has Monk levels, its the creature's grapple mod!), but most of the class stuff from other classes seems to be just a matter of spending your new, spiffy skill points on more things, and possibly spicing up some of the weaker classes that now seem bland by comparison.
Dunno, though, I'm coming from a player perspective, and from my primary GM using a lot more Character antagonists than Monster encounters, so maybe my thinking is biased. [edit: also from a theoretical perspective, since we haven't started playing under PF yet. Which is why I'm trying to keep an open mind to potential faults/challenges)
RE Paladin: Houserule: only egregious/consistent violations result in Paladin Fall
Tada! Enjoy your new, improved, Paladin, with cool abilities and an alternate for his mount. :P
...........
Yeah. I'm not playing then. They've pretty much screwed over my favorite class.
Not true. Just because the wording has changed on the Paladin falling rules doesn't mean that any violation is going to lead to your fall. Falling from paladinhood was mostly a DM thing to begin with, and there are 3.5 DMs that would make you fall for stupid reasons. No matter what the book says, whether you fall or not is going to be based on your DM's whims.
I don't see why people make such a big deal out of that change - I don't think it was even meant to be a change to begin with.
pres_man
2010-02-03, 05:47 PM
Ok, I am a bit mystified by the its too hard to change stuff.
I think you are missing the point. It wasn't that it was hard, it was that it is annoying.
Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 05:52 PM
RE Paladin: Houserule: only egregious/consistent violations result in Paladin Fall
Tada! Enjoy your new, improved, Paladin, with cool abilities and an alternate for his mount. :P
Just because you can houserule something to fix it doesn't mean there wasn't anything wrong with it in the first place.
Frosty
2010-02-03, 05:55 PM
Just because you can houserule something to fix it doesn't mean there wasn't anything wrong with it in the first place.
True, but the severity and magnitude of the houserules required to fix a problem does matter. For something as SIMPLE and as DM-dependent as this, it is virtually not an issue.
Just because you can houserule something to fix it doesn't mean there wasn't anything wrong with it in the first place.
There is a difference between houseruling and going by the spirit of the rules rather than the intention. If you go RAW, both 3.5 and Pathfinder are pretty much unplayable.
All I'm saying is if you're going to disregard the entire system because of one rule (or rather, an unfavorable interpretation of one rule) you don't like, I wonder how you're able to bring yourself to play 3.5 in the first place.
Ellington
2010-02-03, 06:25 PM
People that say wizards and sorcerers got stronger in Pathfinder haven't read the rules, simple as that. Yes, they did get a lot of class features that help them out, for example in the lower levels when spells are scarce and they needed help, and i that regard they've gotten stronger. But grossly overpowered spells on every level got nerfed and that was the biggest problem they had.
Arcane spellcasters aren't as good as they were, although they are still probably the strongest classes. Druids and clerics got knocked down a peg in some areas, you wont see CoDzilla any more. All the other classes got improvements, and most importantly to me, the ability to customize themselves without having to go through hundreds and hundreds of prestige classes. Every class is viable for the whole 20 levels.
Pathfinder didn't balance classes perfectly, but to do that you'd have to change the system in such a way that it wouldn't be recognizable as a 3.5 derivative any longer which is one of it's main selling points.
The turn to Pathfinder was a great one for me, since I don't like to go through a library of books every time I play the games. The core pathfinder rules are very solid and should keep you entertained for a long time, but if you want to bring stuff over from 3.5 you will probably have to houserule it a bit before implementing it. There is more stuff on the way, including the Advanced Player's Guide which will feature 6 new classes which you can check out on their homepage.
Did a little more research on the paladin problem. It does say that a Paladin falls if they ever willingly commit an evil act. It then goes on to loosely explain the paladin's code.
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Note the "Additionally" - the paladin code is separate from the indicator of what makes a paladin fall. And note - minor violations of your code of conduct? Lying for the greater good? Neutral acts, not evil ones. But that goes into an alignment debate that pretty much throws any pretense of objectivity out the window, so I won't explore it any more.
RAW, a paladin does not fall for violating his code. He falls if he ever willingly commits an evil act. (That is, willingly - if deceived into doing so or under compulsion to do so, he does not fall.) Only gross violations of his code can reasonably be considered evil acts.
Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 07:40 PM
All I'm saying is if you're going to disregard the entire system because of one rule (or rather, an unfavorable interpretation of one rule) you don't like, I wonder how you're able to bring yourself to play 3.5 in the first place.
I do have some other problems. They nerfed melee (power attack is gone for example and critical feats I don't really see the point of.) and I just don't feel like learning a whole new edition if the vast majority of 3.5 was unchanged. If they'd done something about the balance issue I'd consider playing the edition in spite of that. However, the only Class I feel like playing (Paladin) the DM said I was going to fall for any violation.
I'm not going to play in a game like that and no other ones are available. I'll just say that I have problems with the edition and leave it at that.
Frosty
2010-02-03, 07:48 PM
The problem is that some people walk into this expecting a miracle from Paizo. It's like going to see a mid-budget comedy flick at the movies expecting a Lord of the Ring epicness: you'll just be disappointed.
If you go in knowing that Pathfinder will fix a decent amount of smaller things and are willing to incorporate those things into your 3.5 games, then you'll be happy like I am.
I haven't been playing 3.5 in a while. I've been playing my own system which is very very similar to 3.5. The release of Pathfinder just means that my section of houserules got bigger and better.
Tiktakkat
2010-02-03, 10:28 PM
Riiiiiight. I wouldn't bother converting stat blocks unless I was going to publish it. You either go "golems. Oh yeah. BAB adjustment +3" and apply a +whatever buff in combat. Or you forget AND NO ONE EVER NOTICES. It is really very simple. I cannot tell you how shocked I would be if my players were fighting a stone golem and someone watched me roll the dice and say what AC I hit and actually realized that I had forgotten to make the BAB change. If they did notice a discrepancy, they would probably just chalk it up to a DM modification to the monster.
In which case you are not actually converting the product, you are just making up random numbers.
Which of course is up to each individual.
Of course it rather defeats the purpose of having an actual rules system, but as long as no one notices . . .
For people interested in actual compatibility and conversions, those issues remain.
pres_man
2010-02-03, 11:00 PM
To the paladin issue, comparing the two:
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.
The only real difference I see is the removal of "grossly". So, yeah, PF's paladin's rules are stricter than 3.5's. Technically a 3.5 paladin can violate his code, as long as it is not "grossly", while a PF paladin can never violate his code, even in the cases where two different aspects of his code conflict, without falling.
Also someone mentioned that a paladin only falls if they commit an evil act. Sorry, the text does not support that in either edition.
I do have some other problems. They nerfed melee (power attack is gone for example and critical feats I don't really see the point of.) and I just don't feel like learning a whole new edition if the vast majority of 3.5 was unchanged. If they'd done something about the balance issue I'd consider playing the edition in spite of that. However, the only Class I feel like playing (Paladin) the DM said I was going to fall for any violation.
I'm not going to play in a game like that and no other ones are available. I'll just say that I have problems with the edition and leave it at that.
Power attack isn't gone - it actually gives you bigger returns on your attack roll penalty now. (-1 to your roll gives +3 to damage, if you're using a two-hander) You just can't vary the amount you sacrifice.
It seems like most of your problems are with your DM, not the system. But if you're that set in your ways to not even give it a shot, it's probably not for you regardless - but parroting misinformation about it isn't necessary. You don't have to justify your decision if it's only a matter of taste.
Mystic Muse
2010-02-04, 01:00 AM
Power attack isn't gone - it actually gives you bigger returns on your attack roll penalty now. (-1 to your roll gives +3 to damage, if you're using a two-hander) You just can't vary the amount you sacrifice.
And now I'll just shut up because I seem to keep spouting incosistencies or things that I know aren't true. (should have remembered that power attack wasn't gone)
However, I am going to give the edition a chance if this one guy can get back on here.
Pharaoh's Fist
2010-02-04, 01:03 AM
The problem is that some people walk into this expecting a miracle from Paizo. It's like going to see a mid-budget comedy flick at the movies expecting a Lord of the Ring epicness: you'll just be disappointed.
Moreso if you believed the advertising for the movie and expected it to live up to the hype.
And now I'll just shut up because I seem to keep spouting incosistencies or things that I know aren't true. (should have remembered that power attack wasn't gone)
However, I am going to give the edition a chance if this one guy can get back on here.
It's okay! I don't blame you - a lot of people say a lot of things about Pathfinder that aren't true, and the only way you can really get a feel for it is by actually playing it.
I've played in a Pathfinder campaign since the beta and I could never go back to 3.5. It doesn't radically re-balance the game, but it streamlines it and makes it funner and easier to play. Plus, more customization options for every class - always nice!
JaronK
2010-02-04, 06:17 AM
Power attack isn't gone - it actually gives you bigger returns on your attack roll penalty now. (-1 to your roll gives +3 to damage, if you're using a two-hander) You just can't vary the amount you sacrifice.
In all fairness, that version of Power Attack is a massive difference from the original. What Power Attack was used for in 3.5 no longer exists in Pathfinder. You no longer have Shock Troopers doing instant kills, for example.
JaronK
What Power Attack was used for in 3.5 no longer exists in Pathfinder.
Sorry Jaron, this is wrong. Like I said, I'm in a Pathfinder campaign, and Power Attack is used for pretty much the same thing as it usually is used for in 3.5 games, ie "Take a small penalty to hit something harder." The only time it's an issue is if you only ever used Power Attack in Shock Trooper builds or similar, which most people don't do.
pres_man
2010-02-04, 08:21 AM
...and the only way you can really get a feel for it is by actually playing it.
Yup, and that is exactly what the 4vengers claimed as well. Sorry, I can look at the rules and decide they are not for me.
... but it streamlines it and makes it funner and easier to play.
Good to know that when I play 3.5, it is not very fun or easy. Yeah, heard the same type of comments from the 4e folks (anybody remember the "don't grapple the troll" video?), didn't buy it then, still don't buy it now.
PF: for those that are late to the 3.5 party or those that like jump on the newest stuff.
Humorously, I wonder how many PF fans were the ones complaining about power creep in 3.5 with the splat books, and yet PF punches it up several levels.
Gnaeus
2010-02-04, 09:02 AM
There are people who would say "Why should I bother learning new rules?" and "If it's barely noticeable, why should I play it?".
Why do people play most games? Because thats what the DM is running. If you sat down a PF player at a table and handed him a PHB, he could make a character. He would understand BAB and saving throws. He would know what all the classes are, and basically how feats work. You would have to spend a minute explaining the skill changes, but he would understand how the skill system works. He could function in a combat. He essentially has played the same game you are playing, and enjoyed it.
Simply going by the people who show up in these threads and then saying that one side doesn't count is a very bad way to make an opinion.*
I didn't say that anyone didn't count. I agree that many of their criticisms are entirely valid. What I said is that the attitudes of forum posters do not well reflect the gaming public at large.
Most of the PF changes are things that only a dedicated gamer would NOTICE, let alone care about. If I asked "What do grease and blink do, and if I weakened them who would it hurt?" most forum goers could tell me the specifics of those spells, and would know that nerfing them weakens rogues, who use them to sneak attack. The large majority of the casual D&D players I know (or, all of them without much experience playing wizards) would be able to tell you that they were wizard spells, maybe that they were low level, and give you an impression of the flavor of the spells, but wouldn't know the specifics without looking in the PHB. Most would think that nerfing them was a wizard nerf. To the average gamer, 3.5 and PF are the same system. Interchangeable. The differences between the 2, if noticeable at all, would be less important than practical considerations like "Who is DMing? Who is Playing? and What are the OOC factors (location, time, etc) around the game."
"You can have my PHB when you pry it from my cold dead hands" is fine and a valid opinion. It just isn't an opinion that in my experience represents the majority of gamers, who just want to sit down, drink Mountain Dew and cast fireball.
Humorously, I wonder how many PF fans were the ones complaining about power creep in 3.5 with the splat books, and yet PF punches it up several levels.
Actually, the one player I have met who played PF and refused to play 3.5 cited exactly that reason. *Shrugs*
Starbuck_II
2010-02-04, 09:07 AM
Good to know that when I play 3.5, it is not very fun or easy. Yeah, heard the same type of comments from the 4e folks (anybody remember the "don't grapple the troll" video?), didn't buy it then, still don't buy it now.
PF: for those that are late to the 3.5 party or those that like jump on the newest stuff.
Humorously, I wonder how many PF fans were the ones complaining about power creep in 3.5 with the splat books, and yet PF punches it up several levels.
To be fair, grapple took longer for a Player to use in 3.5 compared to Pathfinder (granted it is harder for the character to use in pathfinder compared to 3.5).
So 2 steps forward and 1 back.
incubus5075
2010-02-04, 11:22 AM
Hey everybody! (hey Dr. Nick!)
I'm a DM of three guys and we've been playing 4th ed for about a year. Things I like about 4th is the ease of which I can set up adventures, all the classes get cool abilities, and there are a lot of helpful tools from DnDI like the character builder, adventure tools, and new content on a daily basis.
things i dislike is the 80% focused on combat aspect, you almost HAVE to min/max from the get go, not enough fluff spell/monster/etc wise
How is Pathfinder? I hear it is a best of 3.5 and 4th kind of deal with all the classes being a bit more balanced, less feat heavy hundred books needed, and still allows choices.
opinions?
Satyr
2010-02-04, 11:41 AM
pathfinder is basically a large set of houserules for D&D 3.5. It is not a particularly bad one, but it is not the great revelation of RPGs, either. Some of the ideas are good, some are not, and the basic problems of D&D - basically quadratic wizards vs. linear fighters has not been touched at all.
There are a few really nice features in it, though - I particularly like the remodeled skill system- but it is neither bad nor good for everyone.
It has very little in common with 4e, as far as I can tell.
Tyndmyr
2010-02-04, 11:45 AM
The above is correct.
Pathfinder is neither awesome nor terrible, but a different flavor of 3.5. If you want to try something less game-combat focused than 4e, either system is a perfectly good option.
hamishspence
2010-02-04, 11:48 AM
I wonder how much work would be required to make Saga Edition into a D&D-like game? It seems more of a "halfway house" between 3.5 and 4E than pathfinder is, from the descriptions.
potatocubed
2010-02-04, 12:16 PM
Pretty much what Tyndmyr said.
I'm only posting because I thought I was the only person who subconsciously filled in 'Hi Dr. Nick!' after every time I say 'Hi everybody!'
The_Snark
2010-02-04, 12:24 PM
I wonder how much work would be required to make Saga Edition into a D&D-like game? It seems more of a "halfway house" between 3.5 and 4E than pathfinder is, from the descriptions.
Someone's already had a shot at it (http://www.gneech.com/swordandsorcery/index.html), actually. I've never tried it, and the author was aiming for Lankhmar and Conan the Barbarian more than D&D 3.5, but it looks interesting.
Hzurr
2010-02-04, 12:34 PM
I played a Pathfinder game for a couple of months, and I have to say that I was fairly disappointed. There are some things it does that I really like (Like Races and Sorcerous bloodlines), but the problems that I had in 3.5 I still had with Pathfinder. At that point, I had been GMing 4E for a few months, and I spent nearly every combat thinking "Geez, I wish that this was 4E). Out-of-combat, things went roughly the same as they do in 3.5E or 4E. (Actually, not quite that smoothly, since the group that I played with weren't necessarily the brightest bulbs).
MrGoodCat
2010-02-04, 12:59 PM
I have been running and playing in a Pathfinder Game and I will have to say I really like it. It has the familiarity of 3.5 with a few added elements to make it smoother. The thing I really don't understand is how people can rate how good a system is based on whether the fighter and the wizard are equally balanced. I may be the only one here but I don't want to play in a system where the guy that can swing a piece of metal really hard is on the same power level as the guy who can alter reality.
Satyr
2010-02-04, 01:20 PM
I may be the only one here but I don't want to play in a system where the guy that can swing a piece of metal really hard is on the same power level as the guy who can alter reality.
I don't thionk they should be of equal power. I just hate it that, dull, anti-heroic wizards overshadow the true heroes of any heroic saga. Wizards are usually way too powerful for my tastes in almost every Roleplaying games, and this is much worse in D&D.
SparkMandriller
2010-02-04, 01:26 PM
The thing I really don't understand is how people can rate how good a system is based on whether the fighter and the wizard are equally balanced. I may be the only one here but I don't want to play in a system where the guy that can swing a piece of metal really hard is on the same power level as the guy who can alter reality.
You can't understand how someone could care about something that you don't?
drengnikrafe
2010-02-04, 01:30 PM
I don't thionk they should be of equal power. I just hate it that, dull, anti-heroic wizards overshadow the true heroes of any heroic saga. Wizards are usually way too powerful for my tastes in almost every Roleplaying games, and this is much worse in D&D.
I find the only alternative is like Final Fantasy wizards. As far as I can see, anyway.
You have 3 abilities with several subsections. Blow it up for roughly equal damage as melee (frequently less). Create a mild buff for an ally. Restore health or good condition.
All 3 can be replicated by items, most of the time.
It's balanced, in sheer damage output, mostly, but it fails to adress the feebleness of wizards.
Zeta Kai
2010-02-04, 01:34 PM
You have 3 abilities with several subsections. Blow it up for roughly equal damage as melee (frequently less). Create a mild buff for an ally. Restore health or good condition.
All 3 can be replicated by items, most of the time.
It's balanced, in sheer damage output, mostly, but it fails to adress the feebleness of wizards.
Wait, what are you talking about here? Are you talking about Pathfinder or d20 at all? 'Cause I can't see how what you said relates to what was said above.
drengnikrafe
2010-02-04, 01:36 PM
Wait, what are you talking about here? Are you talking about Pathfinder or d20 at all? 'Cause I can't see how what you said relates to what was said above.
We are talking about pathfinder. We're talking about how it's impossible to balance magic with melee, or at least how pathfinder doesn't touch the issue. Something about balancing melee with magic came up. I suggested the only time I have ever seen magic on equal (or lesser) footing.
A way that isn't fun. That's why magic is overpowered, IMO. It's just blowing things up, otherwise. Rather than just saying that, I cited an example.
Tyndmyr
2010-02-04, 02:35 PM
I like balance, even between different classes. However, balance is not nearly as important as other traits, such as having interesting, very different options to choose from.
Pathfinder didn't really get any better on the balance issue, but it provides some fun options. Presumably as more is printed, it'll catch up with 3.5.
3.5 wins currently on most material and customizability available. Pretty much nothing can touch it.
On the bright side for Pf, it's new, and still supported.
Both have substantial player bases(with significant overlap).
pres_man
2010-02-05, 07:54 AM
To be fair, grapple took longer for a Player to use in 3.5 compared to Pathfinder (granted it is harder for the character to use in pathfinder compared to 3.5).
So 2 steps forward and 1 back.
In my view, more like 1 step forward, 2 steps back. I (once I put in a little time to learn the rule) don't find it all that time consuming in 3.5. If it is now used so little because the chance of failure is greater, then I guess you could argue that by never using it, it is then quicker to use (0 seconds of time will be less than any portion of a second of time).
Belobog
2010-02-05, 11:04 AM
The only real difference I see is the removal of "grossly". So, yeah, PF's paladin's rules are stricter than 3.5's. Technically a 3.5 paladin can violate his code, as long as it is not "grossly", while a PF paladin can never violate his code, even in the cases where two different aspects of his code conflict, without falling.
Also someone mentioned that a paladin only falls if they commit an evil act. Sorry, the text does not support that in either edition.
The biggest problem is that both versions still allow a DM to make a paladin fall for anything at anytime, anywhere, and the RAW would justify him in every case.
Really, the Paladin Code of Conduct is a Post-It Note someone threw into the book right before their lunch break. I wouldn't bother noticing any change in it, unless that change is 'it's gone'.
Ashiel
2010-02-05, 12:03 PM
It's notable that the whole point of the Pathfinder RPG was to tweak the 3.5 system but allow players to continue using their supplements from 3.x D&D. Now, basically this means that 3.x material is PF material, which essentially gives Pathfinder an out of the gate start with high amounts of supplementary material.
They even rebalanced the core classes (how well varies) to make them more in line with options provided in 3.5 splat-books, so that there are reasons to go into higher levels of base classes without prestige-classing out of them. Such adjustments were intended to make characters who didn't multi-class a lot, or those without a lot of prestige classes, just as viable. They also gave a face-lift to the existing OGL prestige classes (Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster, etc) which made them a bit nicer as well.
Really, the best advice would be to check it out and see what you think. If you're a fan of 3.x, then much of it will feel familiar and nice. If you're expecting it to be identical to 3.x, then you will be disappointed. If you're expecting it to be a completely different experience, then you will also be disappointed.
I found it pretty nice though, and currently am playing in a 3.x/Pathfinder hybrid with other options, and a few extra house-rules (I like tinkering with the system and consider myself something of a game-designer).
I'm particularly fond of PF's skill system which is simple and elegant. To sum it up quickly: You have a rank limit equal to your HD in any skill. If that skill is a class skill for one of your classes you receive a +3 bonus to that skill. This means at low levels a rogue could have a +4 bonus to stealth, while the fighter could have a +1. However, the fighter could eventually reach a +20 bonus at 20th level, where the +23 the rogue has isn't as large an advantage. I like this because it allows more diverse characters without the need to multi-class a lot, while it keeps skills associated with different classes.
Tyndmyr
2010-02-05, 12:14 PM
It's notable that the whole point of the Pathfinder RPG was to tweak the 3.5 system but allow players to continue using their supplements from 3.x D&D. Now, basically this means that 3.x material is PF material, which essentially gives Pathfinder an out of the gate start with high amounts of supplementary material.
They even rebalanced the core classes (how well varies) to make them more in line with options provided in 3.5 splat-books, so that there are reasons to go into higher levels of base classes without prestige-classing out of them. Such adjustments were intended to make characters who didn't multi-class a lot, or those without a lot of prestige classes, just as viable. They also gave a face-lift to the existing OGL prestige classes (Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster, etc) which made them a bit nicer as well.
This is what they advertise, yes, but it doesn't play out in practice. Updating a single monster statblock from 3.x to pathfinder requires, at a minimum, recalculating grapple/trip/etc to the new CMB/etc system, recalculating Bab depending on type, and recalculating skills using the new system. Due to combining skills and the new flight skill, some of this is inherently subjective, and has no automatic portability method. In addition, anything with class levels or feats will have much more widespread compatibility issues.
Converting from 3.5 to PF is less difficult than converting from 3.5 to 4e, but more difficult than converting from 3.0 to 3.5(which can often be used entirely as is).
The re-balancing of base classes would best be described as "changed the base classes some", as it mostly consists of throwing more power at everything. This includes classes like wizard, that were already at the top of the power curve, and now have access to all sorts of fun, ridiculously powerful things. Significant changes, yes. Significantly improved balance, not at all.
Most of the prestige classes received only minimal changes. Some, such as loremaster, received none.
Draz74
2010-02-05, 12:39 PM
Most of the prestige classes received only minimal changes. Some, such as loremaster, received none.
To their credit, Loremaster probably is the Core PrC that's best-balanced.
Starbuck_II
2010-02-05, 12:41 PM
The biggest problem is that both versions still allow a DM to make a paladin fall for anything at anytime, anywhere, and the RAW would justify him in every case.
No, Raw doesn't justify non-major breaks of conduct making you fall in 3.5. Well, we could go by 144 breaks meaning of grossly (actual definition), but I'm sure most DMs use gross to mean major (second deifinition).
DM can do it, but it isn't RAW.
JaronK
2010-02-05, 03:04 PM
Sorry Jaron, this is wrong. Like I said, I'm in a Pathfinder campaign, and Power Attack is used for pretty much the same thing as it usually is used for in 3.5 games, ie "Take a small penalty to hit something harder." The only time it's an issue is if you only ever used Power Attack in Shock Trooper builds or similar, which most people don't do.
Actually, I've almost never seen Power Attack used without Shock Trooper. Usually people want to actually hit things. So yeah, from what I've seen, 3.5 Power Attack is totally gone in Pathfinder, replaced by an oddball version of Weapon Specialization.
JaronK
Actually, I've almost never seen Power Attack used without Shock Trooper. Usually people want to actually hit things. So yeah, from what I've seen, 3.5 Power Attack is totally gone in Pathfinder, replaced by an oddball version of Weapon Specialization.
• 3.5 Power Attack = Take a variable penalty to attack roll to add damage in a 1:1 ratio, 2:1 if with a two-handed weapon.
• Pathfinder Power Attack = Take a fixed penalty to attack roll to add damage in a 2:1 ratio, 3:1 if with a two-handed weapon.
The standard word people generally use for this sort of thing is "changed", not "gone".
JaronK
2010-02-05, 03:17 PM
• 3.5 Power Attack = Take a variable penalty to attack roll to add damage in a 1:1 ratio, 2:1 if with a two-handed weapon.
• Pathfinder Power Attack = Take a fixed penalty to attack roll to add damage in a 2:1 ratio, 3:1 if with a two-handed weapon.
The standard word people generally use for this sort of thing is "changed", not "gone".
3.5 Power Attack: Take as large a penalty as you want (often to AC, to a maximum point) to add incredible amounts of damage to your attack, enough to one hit kill most enemies and thus making melees a threat at high levels).
Pathfinder Power Attack: Take a small penalty to hit for a slightly larger bonus to damage, roughly comperable to Weapon Specialization, a feat which was rarely worth taking in 3.5. Basically, from a mechanical standpoint, Pathfinder Power Attack is Monkey Grip (or close to it).
It's the same name, but it's a totally different thing. The point of Power Attack (allowing melees to do enough damage to be a threat at high levels) is gone.
JaronK
Starbuck_II
2010-02-05, 03:28 PM
• 3.5 Power Attack = Take a variable penalty to attack roll to add damage in a 1:1 ratio, 2:1 if with a two-handed weapon.
• Pathfinder Power Attack = Take a fixed penalty to attack roll to add damage in a 2:1 ratio, 3:1 if with a two-handed weapon.
The standard word people generally use for this sort of thing is "changed", not "gone".
True, but sometimes you can barely hit someone so you could in 3.5 PA for 1, but in Pathfinder you either use or don't.
This is a loss of versatility.
ryzouken
2010-02-05, 03:29 PM
Except that Shock Trooper isn't core (source=Complete War) so we're not making a clear and clean comparison here.
Core 3.5= Power Attack exchanges 1 point of to hit for 1-2 points of damage.
Core Pathfinder= Power Attack exchanges 1 point of to hit for 2-3 points of damage, but has a cap.
Essentially, for any amount of damage up to Pathfinder's cap, you have a better chance to hit in pathfinder than in 3.5. Assume I want to deal 10 extra damage with my one hander. Pathfinder has me taking a -5 to hit while 3.5 has me taking a -10. It's true I won't be able to do more than 10 extra damage in Pathfinder with my one handed weapon (wielded as a one handed weapon), but I also won't have as a bad a chance to hit.
In exchange for the better accuracy, you're not able to select how much you want to power attack for. I'd say that's pretty balanced. Now watch for the splat book that improves the damage trade or that accelerates the progression to 1/3 levels. They might even print Shock Trooper, though I doubt it.
3.5 Power Attack: Take as large a penalty as you want (often to AC, to a maximum point) to add incredible amounts of damage to your attack, enough to one hit kill most enemies and thus making melees a threat at high levels).
That's not how it usually gets used. Most players don't use Power Attack in ubercharger builds, they use it to take a penalty to hit harder, which is what Pathfinder Power Attack does.
The issue here is that you're looking at Power Attack's usefulness in regard to super-optimised builds designed to kill everything they can land a full attack on, instead of looking at how it gets used in casual play. The fighter in our Pathfinder party uses Power Attack in EXACTLY the same way as the fighter in our old 3.5 party.
True, but sometimes you can barely hit someone so you could in 3.5 PA for 1, but in Pathfinder you either use or don't.
This is a loss of versatility.
This is a fair point. I'm personally still not sure about whether core-wise, Pathfinder's Power Attack is a buff or a nerf. You gain in terms of rate of return, but lose out in versatility. Hard to say which is worth more.
Another reason it was likely changed was for speedy play - you could have your Power Attack damage and to-hit written beforehand on your character sheet without having to calculate it on the fly all the time. To make up for the lack of versatility, you get bigger returns. It's a little less flexible, but much more accessible. And at higher levels, that damage ratio increase starts to get crazy.
JaronK
2010-02-05, 03:54 PM
That's not how it usually gets used. Most players don't use Power Attack in ubercharger builds, they use it to take a penalty to hit harder, which is what Pathfinder Power Attack does.
The issue here is that you're looking at Power Attack's usefulness in regard to super-optimised builds designed to kill everything they can land a full attack on, instead of looking at how it gets used in casual play. The fighter in our Pathfinder party uses Power Attack in EXACTLY the same way as the fighter in our old 3.5 party.
You seem to be assuming "casual play" means a very specific thing. I see Shock Trooper in casual play all the time, usually because it means weaker classes like Monks can actually contribute at high levels. "Ubercharger" is the same as "has Shock Trooper and uses it."
Anyway, the point is that the feat is so different that it functionally is a different feat of the same name.
JaronK
Ellington
2010-02-05, 04:03 PM
A level 10 fighter in 3.5 with 18 Strength, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Power attack normally has 15 attack bonus
Power Attack on a 2 handed weapon:
1: 14 attack bonus, +10 damage
2: 13 attack bonus, +12 damage
3: 12 attack bonus, +14 damage
4: 11 attack bonus, +16 damage
5: 10 attack bonus, +18 damage
A level 10 fighter in Pathfinder with 18 Strength, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Weapon Training and Power Attack normally has 17 attack bonus.
Power Attack on a 2 handed weapon:
14 attack bonus, + 19 damage
I really don't see how the new power attack ruined anything for the fighter. He still trades off attack bonus for extra damage, the attack bonus loss/damage increase has improved and it scales with levels. He doesn't have the ability to choose how much power he wants to use, but he doesn't really need that either.
Sure you can go through the hundreds of books available in 3.5 to dig up some feats that can top these numbers, but this is just from the core rules in Pathfinder. The Advanced Player's Handbook is on its way and you can expect to see a lot of goodies in terms of damage increasing feats for the fighter there.
Kantolin
2010-02-05, 04:06 PM
Familiars are quick and cheap to replace, though, so charging a touch spell on a toad and using him as a softball is now viable.
That is a ridiculously awesome idea and I highly approve.
*Goes off to make a half-orc baseball wizard*
Anyway, the point is that the feat is so different that it functionally is a different feat of the same name.
It's the exact same mechanic. You take a penalty to attack in exchange for a bonus to damage. I've seen it used, repeatedly, in the exact same way. I really don't know what else I can tell you.
Starbuck_II
2010-02-05, 04:15 PM
By the way, why did Pathfinder remove Overhand chop?
I thought it was a great idea in Beta.
Ellington
2010-02-05, 04:18 PM
I'll just quote the mechanics here if there still seems to be some misunderstanding:
From the Pathfinder SRD
Power Attack (Combat)
You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
For early level fighters the damage output is slightly lower but it goes up in power at higher levels, where they needed the boost. It's pretty much an increase in damage no matter how you look at it.
By the way, why did Pathfinder remove Overhand chop?
I thought it was a great idea in Beta.
Was that the one which got turned into Vital Strike? I can't remember what it did.
Mystic Muse
2010-02-05, 04:22 PM
By the way, why did Pathfinder remove Overhand chop?
I thought it was a great idea in Beta.
Because. Melee don't get nice things.see also, Improved natural attack and Monks
Ellington
2010-02-05, 04:26 PM
The monk damage increase via improved natural attack was a very cheap way of increasing your damage by leaps and bounds for just one feat. The monk's damage output is actually pretty good in Pathfinder when using Flurry of Blows, just slightly below the fighter in fact, and the fighter is probably the highest melee dpr class in Pathfinder.
Starbuck_II
2010-02-05, 04:28 PM
Was that the one which got turned into Vital Strike? I can't remember what it did.
It doubled Str bonus similar to VS it was a standard action, but if you took further feats in the chain it became useable in a full attack (unlike Vital Strike).
Backhand Swing was 2nd feat in chain: 1st attack has double str or 3x Str bonus if +11 BAB.
Devastating Blow: This one was a standard action, but -5 to hit. If hit, auto Crit (no confirm roll, but doesn't activate things that rely on Crits like Vorpal or flaming burst).
I can see how DB might be not best as some people hate crit happening often, but Backhand swing was nice.
So you only add 6 to 12 Damage (assuming +6 str) to your attacks, but it has no hit penalty like power Attack so it was decent.
Vital Strike is always a standard action (no full attack). Since VS didn't multiple Str bonus, the don't interact (having both in the game wouldn't be Overpowered).
ryzouken
2010-02-05, 04:29 PM
I think that's more accurately: Monks don't get nice things.
pres_man
2010-02-05, 04:39 PM
It's the exact same mechanic. You take a penalty to attack in exchange for a bonus to damage. I've seen it used, repeatedly, in the exact same way. I really don't know what else I can tell you.
Take a penalty to attack and get extra damage is what defines it? I guess that makes Monkey Grip into Power Attack, since you take a penalty on your attack and you get bonus damage (higher damage dice).
Ellington
2010-02-05, 04:45 PM
Take a penalty to attack and get extra damage is what defines it? I guess that makes Monkey Grip into Power Attack, since you take a penalty on your attack and you get bonus damage (higher damage dice).
Oh come on.
It's the exact same mechanic except you can't choose how attack you want to sacrifice. The damage output is still higher no matter how you look at it, except at early levels.
JaronK
2010-02-05, 04:53 PM
From the Pathfinder SRD
Power Attack (Combat)
You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
For early level fighters the damage output is slightly lower but it goes up in power at higher levels, where they needed the boost. It's pretty much an increase in damage no matter how you look at it.
3.5 melee, using Shock Trooper (since that's what I said we were using), at level 6: -6 to AC, +12 to damage.
Pathfinder (we'll assume Shock Trooper is allowed, since that's fair), at level 6: -2 to AC, +6 to damage.
"An increase in damage no matter how you look at it" you say?
In fact, the Pathfinder version of Power Attack yields half or less damage at every level, because of the cap. So... which rediculous way were you looking at it that yielded superior damage? The one where the Power Attacker in 3.5 doesn't actually Power Attack for maximum, which he would pretty much always be doing with Shock Trooper, which is exactly what I said I was talking about?
JaronK
Ellington
2010-02-05, 05:00 PM
Fine, you'll deal more damage when using shock trooper, (you could bring that over to Pathfinder if you'd want to, the feat seems backwards compatible enough.)
When you're making a full attack, however, you'll be gaining a lot more damage from the Pathfinder version. Damage output isn't your damage alone (unless your enemies are wearing paper mache armor), it's also your chance to hit, which will be a lot better in Pathfinder.
So... which rediculous way were you looking at it that yielded superior damage?
Well, let's take a wild stab in the dark here . . . maybe the one that DOESN'T assume Shock Trooper? The discussion might be a bit more productive if you compared core Pathfinder to core 3.5, not core Pathfinder to Mr-I-Can-One-Hit-The-Tarrasque.
JaronK
2010-02-05, 05:29 PM
Fine, you'll deal more damage when using shock trooper, (you could bring that over to Pathfinder if you'd want to, the feat seems backwards compatible enough.)
I did say all along that I considered the main point to be when using Shock Trooper. And you also deal more damage when you can otherwise boost your Power Attack without too much danger, such as when using touch attacks (Wraithstrike) or against some enemies when using a Brilliant Energy weapon.
When you're making a full attack, however, you'll be gaining a lot more damage from the Pathfinder version. Damage output isn't your damage alone (unless your enemies are wearing paper mache armor), it's also your chance to hit, which will be a lot better in Pathfinder.
Unless your chance to hit doesn't matter because you can hit them anyway. The point is, Power Attack is adjusted to the situation, allowing you to take small penalties against hard to hit opponents and big penalties for massive damage when the opportunity arises. That's the whole point of 3.5 Power Attack. The Pathfinder feat, however, is static, which is a whole different thing. It's the same mechanic as Monkey Grip really. After all, a first level character with a Greataxe and Monkey Grip has -2 to hit for +4 to damage. Later on, if that guy gets big enough he can realize greater gains from his -2 to hit. Though the numbers are slightly different, the mechanic is the same. Pathfinder Power Attack is reflavored Monkey Grip.
And Shock Trooper != Ubercharger. One shotting the terrasque was not what I was talking about at all. Notice my example was a 12th level melee doing an extra 24 damage (instead of the 12 bonus damage a Pathfinder melee would do). Does that sound like an ubercharger to you? Or just someone using Shock Trooper because once in a while melees ought to have nice things (like Improved Trip and Power Attack!).
JaronK
But with Pathfinder power attack, you don't have to worry about all that variable bonus nonsense. It's streamlined and it gives you better returns.
I think the flavor behind Power Attack is that you're putting all your might into the swing, regardless of accuracy - a fighter precisely measuring exactly how much accuracy he wants to give up for damage is a little silly.
But I've pretty much spent my reasonable arguments in favor of Pathfinder's Power Attack. If I didn't convince you at least a little, I don't think it's going to happen.
Belobog
2010-02-05, 07:31 PM
No, Raw doesn't justify non-major breaks of conduct making you fall in 3.5. Well, we could go by 144 breaks meaning of grossly (actual definition), but I'm sure most DMs use gross to mean major (second deifinition).
DM can do it, but it isn't RAW.
I was talking about the notes for 'acting honorably', which lists several restrictions, and continues on, as if there are more and that these restrictions are part of a tacit understanding. What is considered honorable is judged by cultural and societal norms: what is honorable for one society might not be honorable in another. Thus, one could simply state an action is dishonorable, and be right every time.
As for Power Attack, it's essentially the video game version of the PnP feat. I'm confused as to why they chose to restrict it, but it works out okay, it just won't see any use if the choice between the 3.5 version and this is allowed.
Frosty
2010-02-05, 07:41 PM
But with Pathfinder power attack, you don't have to worry about all that variable bonus nonsense. It's streamlined and it gives you better returns.
I think the flavor behind Power Attack is that you're putting all your might into the swing, regardless of accuracy - a fighter precisely measuring exactly how much accuracy he wants to give up for damage is a little silly.
But I've pretty much spent my reasonable arguments in favor of Pathfinder's Power Attack. If I didn't convince you at least a little, I don't think it's going to happen.
Both versions ought to be feats. It's totally conceivable that a TRAINED warrior who doe snothing but fight can accurately predict how hard he can swing, affter a few test swings at the enemy in question. When I run enemies as a DM, the enemy only starts accurately power attacking for the optimal amount after it has figured out how hard the enemy is to hit.
Tyndmyr
2010-02-05, 10:18 PM
Well, let's take a wild stab in the dark here . . . maybe the one that DOESN'T assume Shock Trooper? The discussion might be a bit more productive if you compared core Pathfinder to core 3.5, not core Pathfinder to Mr-I-Can-One-Hit-The-Tarrasque.
PF power attack is superior to 3.5 power attack in a non-shock trooper environment, in a midlevel bracket. In very early levels, power attacking for 1 is more likely, and late game, when bab has outstripped ac, power attacking for more is likely.
So, it can be situationally better, but the lack of flexibility makes it worse overall, imo.
Ashiel
2010-02-05, 10:24 PM
This is what they advertise, yes, but it doesn't play out in practice. Updating a single monster statblock from 3.x to pathfinder requires, at a minimum, recalculating grapple/trip/etc to the new CMB/etc system, recalculating Bab depending on type, and recalculating skills using the new system. Due to combining skills and the new flight skill, some of this is inherently subjective, and has no automatic portability method. In addition, anything with class levels or feats will have much more widespread compatibility issues.
Converting from 3.5 to PF is less difficult than converting from 3.5 to 4e, but more difficult than converting from 3.0 to 3.5(which can often be used entirely as is).
The re-balancing of base classes would best be described as "changed the base classes some", as it mostly consists of throwing more power at everything. This includes classes like wizard, that were already at the top of the power curve, and now have access to all sorts of fun, ridiculously powerful things. Significant changes, yes. Significantly improved balance, not at all.
Most of the prestige classes received only minimal changes. Some, such as loremaster, received none.
I hadn't really had much trouble with material compatibility, but I would say it's definitely more work than going from 3.0 to 3.5 (you really can use most 3.0 stuff with little to no modifications).
It's worth noting that they did improve the power of the classes, except the druid who got nerfed IMO. That being said, I've noticed a lot of spell nerfs, which has an indirect but noticeable effect on the power of spell-casters.
That being said, yeah, I don't agree with everything they did with Pathfinder. My hat's off to them however for trying to keep the 3E styled system alive. Like I said before, I'd give 'em a try. If you don't like it, you don't have to play it. They have virtually all their important junk on their SRD (www.pfsrd.com).
In an attempt to not sound like a PF-salesman, I don't like the new flying rules, and I don't like some of the changes. Of course, I don't like all the 3.5 changes either (fighters were better in 3.0 due to feat stacking and effects like improved critical + keen stacking, and I found weapon rules to be far simpler. But who can please everyone all the time, right?).
imperialspectre
2010-02-06, 02:04 AM
Claiming that Pathfinder is backwards compatible with 3.5 contradicts Pathfinder advocates' claims regarding balance (which, at any rate, are disproved by the massive power creep in the Advanced Players' Guide). If Pathfinder just replaces 3.5 core, with the non-core material transferred as is, then nerfing a couple core spells is meaningless because there are better options anyway.
If you treat Pathfinder as its own system, and compare it to 3.5's core classes, then it's a decent system that's far less broken than core 3.5. I'd probably pick core 3.0 with some skill streamlining over either, but that's just my preference.
Eclipse
2010-03-09, 12:29 PM
A note on the paladin code: It now allows you to associate with evil characters in order to pursue a greater good. Sure, it says you should seek an atonement spell once in awhile when doing so, but by RAW you can do it now. I think this is a great improvement. Meanwhile, violating the code of conduct is still as subjective as ever, and will depend entirely on your GM, just like in 3.5. Yeah, they changed the wording, but most GMs are either heavy handed about it or they aren't, and that's what is really going to matter in practice. I'm honestly surprised no one has mentioned the ability to associate with evil characters for a greater good though.
Here's the relevant bit from the prd:
"Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."
Still incredibly subjective, but it allows by RAW what many DMs (myself included) allowed by fiat for the sake of a good story and letting everyone have fun. Also, I love the idea of a paladin going into his order to seek an atonement and justifying his actions to another member of the order. Makes for good political roleplaying. And if that's not your group's thing, just get the spell and run or skip it altogether.
As for game balance issues, I think Pathfinder comes out ahead on balance. The fighter finally has a real set of abilities that only it can get, just like every other core class does. Most spellcasters got better class features (with the druid a notable exception), but spells themselves have been nerfed. I win buttons are still there, but they're harder to dig up, and many allow multiple saves now or have weaker effects.
Take solid fog as one example: 3.5 dropped the movement of people inside to 5 ft. That made an amazing debuff for anyone that didn't have freedom of movement. In Pathfinder, it halves movement rate. Still a good spell, but not quite so broken.
The best save or die spells, such as finger of death, wail of the banshee, and implosion have been changed to do massive amounts of hp damage instead. Others have been changed to fit this mold as well. Phantasmal killer and weird remain instant death spells, but they allow two saves, and mind blank and similar effects completely nullify them, so I think that works out all right. Nerfs to glitterdust, alter self, and polymorph have already been mentioned.
There are, of course, other nerfs throughout, but it would be hard to talk about all of them. However, the point is that with so many spell nerfs to many favorites that are abused by those who know the rules well, I think it's fair to say that casters have been nerfed.
That said, there are some cases where spells did get better. Any spell with an xp cost no longer has it. It has instead been converted to a gp cost at the standard rate of 1 xp = 5 gp. I think these spells are much better now that xp doesn't need to be given up to cast them. However, a high gp cost will still keep them from being used too often. Still, the ability to use these spells with more impunity than before is still a buff. I think the nerfs to more commonly used spells still makes it an overall nerf for casters, but they are still the most powerful classes in the game.
However, you won't see a cleric outshining the fighter in melee in anymore. Fighters can wear the best armor in the game and get their dex to AC, they can use their feats to get way more options in combat than they could in 3.5, and if you go for a crit build, you'll be piling status effects on the enemies you face. You know, save or sucks. For the fighter. While he's still doing lots of damage. Other melee classes can go this route too, though not as well as the fighter can do it, since they have they're own class features.
I think monks are also an interesting case, in that improved unarmed strike has a new feat chain that allows status effects that build on the last one initiated. Scorpion style is a great speed debuff, gorgon's fist can stagger anyone who has been hit by a speed debuff (such as scorpion style or slow), and medusa's wrath then gives you extra attacks at your opponent when they are staggered (or affected by a slew of other effects) when you make a full attack with an unarmed strike. The fact that these feats build on each other makes them harder to use solo, but it can be done, and also gives the monk access to some nice debuffs. Not as good as the casters get, but still nice. Also extra damage when the monk finishes the chain. And they still have stunning fist. Still probably subpar, but the status effects help a bit, and the ki pool mentioned earlier to allow abilities to be used more often is also a nice power boost that is badly needed.
This isn't a complete overview, obviously, but I think I hit some highlights. In short, I still think full-casters are the best, but with some nerfs to the bread and butter spells they use and some new options for melee classes, the gap has closed a bit.
Edit: A note on backwards compatibility. When it comes to monsters, I wouldn't even bother converting them. If Pathfinder has an updated version, I'd use that. Otherwise, I'd just use the 3.5 version as is, and ad hoc any necessary changes. Necessary means things like picking the closest skill for those that don't exist anymore, not adjusting things like BAB or adding more feats. To compensate for the hit to effectiveness, maybe a -1 to CR for any creatures pulled from 3.5. Quick, dirty, and not perfect, but it gets the job done and gets you to playing with no fuss.
For splatbook classes, just modify the ones your players want to use that you approve for use. Only has to be done once, at character creation, and you're good to go.
So I don't see backwards compatibility as a problem at all. It's only an issue if you insist on going into meticulous detail about it.
nealpb
2010-12-10, 09:39 AM
Nerfed - The only class which has unarguably gotten worse. Yeah, you saw this coming.
Druid
i play pathfinder it batter then you thank much batter then 3.5. i also played Druids in 3.5 and i hated them i tryed playing one in pathfinder i love it. play one you will change your mind.
Popertop
2010-12-20, 05:21 AM
to be fair, druid did get A LOT of stuff.
like everything.
I like how wild shape is at will as the capstone though
Threeshades
2011-01-18, 06:30 PM
I like this handbook but I think it's worth mentioning in there that Pathfinder won't always stay the way it is right now and there have already been some additions to its library (most notably the Advanced Player's Guide bringing a bunch of new classes and prestige classes as well as an abundance of core class variants, alternative racial features and more feats). And generally it should be said that the books released by paizo are quality over quantity. Instead of having lot's of little books they take their time to make meaningful additions and showering players and gms with new goodies in every new book.
Nero24200
2011-01-18, 06:35 PM
i play pathfinder it batter then you thank much batter then 3.5. i also played Druids in 3.5 and i hated them i tryed playing one in pathfinder i love it. play one you will change your mind.
I don't think Saph was trying to imply that the druid being nerfed was a bad thing. On the contary, the nerf was badly needed. I recently played a druid, limited myself heavily on the wildshaping (to a fire elemental in a devil heavy campaign) and traded the animal companion for the (in my opinion) weaker domain option and the chaarcter was still very, very powerful.
The nerf was needed, and it's conicdently one of the few things I actually like about PF.
I like this handbook but I think it's worth mentioning in there that Pathfinder won't always stay the way it is right now and there have already been some additions to its library (most notably the Advanced Player's Guide bringing a bunch of new classes and prestige classes as well as an abundance of core class variants, alternative racial features and more feats).
Yep, there are quite a few new classes now. Unfortunately I haven't seen most of them in action yet so it's harder for me to give a verdict on them.
Still, there are a few things I could do to improve the handbook - in particular, I've gotten to know the PF feats pretty well by now. Just need to find the time!
Hiro Protagonest
2011-02-04, 10:45 PM
I haven't read all of this, but that part about fighters not having much variety is fixed in the Pathfinder advanced player's guide. There are class archetypes in it, each is geared to a theme, with alternate class features, as you've probably guessed, the fighters archetypes are geared towards weapon styles.
Absol197
2011-05-03, 12:18 AM
Obviously, everyone is going to have their own opinions, but I like Pathfinder, for a couple reasons:
First, a lot of the changes, including but not limited to the new Power Attack, and Combat Maneuvers, streamline the game and make combat quicker. Because my group is rather large (we typically have between 7 and 9 players), this helps IMMENSELY in keeping battle moving. When we made the switch, average battle time went down from an hour to about 30 minutes (depending on the battle's scale), because the Power Attack happy barbarian didn't have to do so much math in his head, and because the monk didn't have to make 2 or 3 or more rolls for every combat maneuver (which she liked using a lot).
Second, the variability of the base classes. This was something my players and I really took issue with in regular 3.5 (and especially 4e), which prompted us to search elsewhere for a spell: unless you were a fighter or an arcanist, all members of your class were pretty much the same. Now, with all the options available to every class, we can specialize our characters much more into what we think they should be like, and get mechanical bonuses from that. Our rogue who built as a trickster-type? He got some magical talents. Our ranger who specialized in jungle environments? Now is actually better at ranger-ing in a jungle.
This also means you don't need as many of the alternate base classes from splat-books. With all the customization, you can play a swashbuckler, a scout, or a typical rogue, all using the rogue class as is (and the Advanced Players Guide helped with this even more).
Third, I liked a lot of the minor system changes: skills, feats, infinite cantrips, changes to some spells, favored classes, improved races, and some others.
Also, many of the changes easily lend themselves to greater fluff, even if they're just mechanics. As an example, in the current game I'm running, there's a magocratic kingdom where the Arcane sorcerer bloodline is prominent. Only nobles have it (supposedly), and any other arcanists must be wizards that are registered.
As a side note, in the discussion of monks and fighters, I can't believe no one has metioned the Vital Strike feats yet. Essentially, you do double your damage dice (or triple, or quadruple, depending on how many feats in the chain you've taken) as a standard action. Which means you can move and still do a lot more damage. Because Strength isn't multiplied, perhaps its not as powerful as a full attack, but it's a significant damage increase on those turns in which you have to move anyway. Especially for a monk, who has high damage dice and amazing movement, this can be an incredible boon.
*Please note, opinions found inside, from a gaming group that considers roleplaying,story, and customization secondary to build optimization*
DrDeth
2011-06-02, 02:06 PM
This is a great thead, thanks Saph.
Anyone have any more ideas on the new classes- Inquisitor, etc?
MukkTB
2011-09-26, 06:41 PM
I feel funny being on the end left behind from 4th edition.
My personal problems with it were-
-Characters of a particular class were almost identical to any other who picked the same build (out of 2 options).
-Healing surges were odd. I didn't feel that a basic character should be able to heal without rest or magic.
"Did that guy just impale you with a sword?"
"I got better. All I needed to do was take a breather."
-Character classes felt similar, and there weren't enough legos to build distinct characters that I liked.
-Skillpoint simplification felt like a major blow to my ability to determine who my character was.
-Feats felt incidental. They also didn't help much with identity.
-The whole thing felt like a design document for an MMORPG.
But at the same time I felt stupid to let myself be left behind. I felt like some dude who just couldn't handle new stuff. Calling out 'They changed it now it sucks.'
Pathfinder feels like a vindication for me. 'Yeah a lot of other people agreed with you. They agreed so hard that they released a D&D 3.75 that was financially viable.' IDK when it comes down to it I like most of the pathfinder changes. I don't like the fighter loosing his charger build though. I guess it can be house-ruled away. Meh. For the most part the changes to the actual game or so minor that I'd be pretty happy with 3.5 or pathfinder either way.
navar100
2011-09-28, 10:21 AM
I don't find Channel Energy a nerf to clerics. At first, I did think it was, but now having experiencing it in play, I see it as a buff.
1) You can use it in any combat, always able to use a class feature. In 3E, if there's no undead in combat, you can't use a class feature.
2) You can use it out of combat for some extra healing that does not use up spell slots for Cure Wounds and allows for conservation of healing potions and wand charges.
3) You can heal multiple people at the same time at a range. That is more efficient than all healing spells except Mass Heal, potions, and wands. By the time you can cast the Mass Cure spells, your Channel Energy heals comparable damage, and you'd rather be casting other spells of those levels anyway.
4) Healing in combat is a little bit more effective. It does depend on the situation, of course, but its ability to heal more than one party member makes all the difference. Keeping two party member conscious for even one more round allows two rounds of actions combined your party can do.
5) Selective Channeling it worth the feat. You could consider this a feat tax, but perhaps it's necessary to prevent regular Channel Energy from being too good. Call this a matter of personal opinion.
6) Pathfinder Turn Undead feat is better than 3E's Turn Undead class feature. If you know the campaign will not have enough undead to warrant turning, there's no need to take the feat. If you do take the feat, it works on all undead, regardless of HD. There is a save, analogous to 3E's turning check, but the feat works on all undead, period. The more powerful undead with channeling resistance are harder to affect, as is appropriate, but they can still be affected. More significantly, the high HD undead mooks are no longer autoimmune whatever the cleric's level. They get turned just as relatively easy as regular HD undead.
7) Channeling Negative Energy with Selective Channeling feat isn't so bad for Neutral Clerics. It's not I Win The Combat, but it damages all enemies in the area, helping with damage attrition against the non-undead bad guys. It's a decent enough attack to conserve your spells and not need to be in melee as often. It's a good option if you're not wanting to concentrate on healing.
Psyren
2011-09-28, 03:31 PM
This is a great thead, thanks Saph.
Anyone have any more ideas on the new classes- Inquisitor, etc?
Most of these have handbooks out that cover their tier and capabilities. Mine, though lacking in updates, covers the psionic classes (as I await Psionics Expanded's completion for a larger overhaul.) Overall though, i'd say the Inquisitor works nicely as an updated "divine bard", Magus is great as a gish-in-a-can, and both Ninja and Gunslinger have questionable design choices.
Blisstake
2011-09-28, 03:50 PM
Let me just say something: Inquisitor is far different than a "divine bard."
Yes, they get 3/4 BAB and up to 6th level spells, but that's pretty much where the similarities end. While bards focusing on improving other party members and debilitating enemies, inquisitors focus on making themselves engines of pure destruction. The sheer amount of damage output they have when using their judgement and bane puts bards to shame and even gives fighters a run for their money. They also get plenty of other things (Monster Lore, Wisdom to initiative, discern lies, discern alignment, etc.) they can do which add up to a class very different than a divine flavored bard.
That being said, I don't like them. Their judgement growth is far too exponential for my tastes, and seem far too different (in terms of power) late game and early game.
Hiro Protagonest
2011-09-28, 03:56 PM
1) You can use it in any combat, always able to use a class feature. In 3E, if there's no undead in combat, you can't use a class feature.
Wait. People used Turn Undead to turn undead?
Starbuck_II
2011-09-28, 04:52 PM
Wait. People used Turn Undead to turn undead?
Neutral and evil Clerics did/can . Unlike Turning, rebuking always makes the undead either cower (do nothing while you beat them senseless) or be controlled.
Seriously, Turning makes the run away (this means you have to fight then again) or cower till hit. Unless they are weak undead and are destroyed.
Anarchy_Kanya
2011-09-28, 05:02 PM
Neutral and evil Clerics did/can . Unlike Turning, rebuking always makes the undead either cower (do nothing while you beat them senseless) or be controlled.
Seriously, Turning makes the run away (this means you have to fight then again) or cower till hit. Unless they are weak undead and are destroyed.
You failed your Sense Sarcasm check.
Lord.Sorasen
2011-09-28, 05:12 PM
You failed your Sense Sarcasm check.
No he didn't. The poster asks sarcastically "people use turn undead to turn undead?" in reference to the far more powerful divine feats.
Following post states that actually for evil clerics, turn undead was used for that purpose.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.