PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder vs. Vanilla DnD



Ryumaru
2010-03-02, 09:17 PM
I've been searching for a decent game for a while now, and found someone who might possibly like to DM - my only problem is, deciding on a system.

She gave me Iron Heroes, but I found the writing and setting generally rather non-emulating of -any- fantasy I've seen, multiple balance issues, and had the pet peeve of the whole 'Well, we don't have magic items, so we're better! Nyah!'

So, out of everything, I'm trying to decide on either Pathfinder, or standard DnD.

I'm no good with figuring out balance most of the time, and found that while a lot of Pathfinder is nicely balanced and streamlined, things like my favourite usual class (Cleric) seem to be relegated much more now to the 'stand there and heal' camp, with the inability to improve your buffing speed, or improve your BAB through Righteous Might, or whatever.

How well is Pathfinder balanced? Is melee and non-casters still horribly outclassed compared to casters? Which do you guys prefer, and why?

Knaight
2010-03-02, 09:26 PM
Melee remains head and shoulders above ranged most of the times, and spell casters are still clinging to their top spot with minimal difficulty. If you want balance, break with d20 entirely. There is GURPS Fantasy, various Fudge builds, Savage Worlds, Cortex, etc.

Akal Saris
2010-03-02, 09:34 PM
I prefer Pathfinder to core-only D&D 3.5, personally, since it integrates mechanics better (everyone has swift actions instead of just spellcasters), makes the skills list more streamlined, raises the overall power level of non-casters vs. casters, and eliminated several of the stupid little fiddly rules from 3.5 such as multiclass penalties, favored class restrictions by race, death at -10, etc.

If you're using non-core 3.5, then it depends on how willing you and your group is to do some work with backwards compatibility. It hasn't been a big issue with my PCs, but everyone's game is different.

With regards to clerics, they still "win" D&D, the nerfs were relatively minor and the new domains have some cool stuff too. If 3.5's Complete Divine and Spell Compendium are allowed, then they are almost identical to 3.5, actually.

As for casters vs. non-casters, I think D&D 3.5 starts to break down at around 7th level, while PF has nerfed a lot of low and mid-level staples and given non-casters some nice toys. I'd guess that things are even until around 11th or so, since even nerfed 6th level spells are quite a bit more impressive than what non-casters get at that level.

Asbestos
2010-03-02, 09:37 PM
Melee remains head and shoulders above ranged most of the times, and spell casters are still clinging to their top spot with minimal difficulty. If you want balance, break with d20 entirely. There is GURPS Fantasy, various Fudge builds, Savage Worlds, Cortex, etc.
There is also 4e.



What does the OP mean by 'Standard D&D'? Like... which edition?

Ryumaru
2010-03-02, 09:39 PM
I meant to imply, at least with Pathfinder, 'vanilla' as in 3.5 DnD compared to Pathfinders changes.

It'd be a solo game too, and from everything I've seen, while I love 4e, it doesn't really seem to do solo all that well.

tyckspoon
2010-03-02, 09:41 PM
Casters are still much more powerful than non-casters. The fundamental imbalances of the game remain, the particular points on the spectrum were just moved. As ^ said, if you really care about that kind of balance you're not going to find it in a D&D 3.5-derivative. Some of the total-mod style games get closer; Pathfinder is not one of them.

I would say that if you're going to be working primarily with the core book(s) and then building out from there that Pathfinder is worth picking up. It's in active support unlike D&D 3, it's a little bit better balanced (melee classes do get nice things, just not enough of them, and sorcs and wizards have class features to help entice them not to PrC out at first convenience), and if you have any new players they won't have to unlearn D&D 3 habits- Pathfinder is pretty weird if you've finally gotten a grasp on how grappling and flight maneuvering work in 3rd Ed, for example.

If you/the group you will be playing with already has a large 3.5 library, on the other hand, run with that. There are more than enough options in the existing range of splats to do anything Pathfinder added to the core book.


I'm no good with figuring out balance most of the time, and found that while a lot of Pathfinder is nicely balanced and streamlined, things like my favourite usual class (Cleric) seem to be relegated much more now to the 'stand there and heal' camp, with the inability to improve your buffing speed, or improve your BAB through Righteous Might, or whatever.

I.. don't follow. Divine Power and Righteous Might are still there, they're just weaker, and arguably *should* be weaker, so I don't mind that (Divine Power is still a pretty awesome buff. I'm not sure I would bother with the new Righteous Might if I could just get a basic Enlarge Person, tho.) Quicken Spell and metamagic rods of Quicken are still around, allowing you to double-cast when you want; if you're talking about the lack of Divine Metamagic, this is one of those single-Pathfinder-book versus all-of-3.5 issues. Clerics still get the BAB+armor+decent HD setup that makes them a decent gishing chassis in the first place. I just don't see how Pathfinder encourages a stand-there-and-heal approach any more than 3.5 did; you can still buff up and beat face. You just can't do it as well as you could in 3.5 without actually investing a bit in your combat stats, which is part of the balancing they actually did do.

subject42
2010-03-02, 09:46 PM
You might want to give Iron Heroes another look if the DM likes it; it's always good to have a happy DM. It's good for Conan-style games.

Raum
2010-03-02, 09:48 PM
I've been searching for a decent game for a while now, and found someone who might possibly like to DM - my only problem is, deciding on a system.There are several good systems available, what do you want from a system? What type / style of play, what genres, what actions, how detailed, etc...


So, out of everything, I'm trying to decide on either Pathfinder, or standard DnD.By "standard DnD" do you me 4E or 3.x? I'd recommend Pathfinder over 3.x simply because it's supported. But comparing 4E to Pathfinder will depend more on what you want from a system.

ericgrau
2010-03-02, 09:52 PM
How well is Pathfinder balanced? Is melee and non-casters still horribly outclassed compared to casters? Which do you guys prefer, and why?
I do not find an improvement in balance. The alpha used to be horribly unbalanced, now they toned it down a bit and it's merely similar to vanilla D&D. I don't like pathfinder myself and if you don't like its style then you should likewise stick to vanilla D&D. If you like the variations, then give it a shot.

Greenish
2010-03-02, 10:37 PM
It's good for Conan-style games.What, getting drunk and punching out camels?

Hurlbut
2010-03-02, 10:44 PM
What, getting drunk and punching out camels?Sword and Sorcery style :smalltongue:

Ryumaru
2010-03-02, 10:52 PM
You might want to give Iron Heroes another look if the DM likes it; it's always good to have a happy DM. It's good for Conan-style games.

Eh, I don't really agree there; as far as the book read to me, any character going up against anything will get beaten flat outside their tiny niche. Whereas Conan is regularly punching demons in the face and winning. =P

It also had the huge problems of major imbalances everywhere, I hated the idea of a lot of the traits (So, I have to be born Brave? I guess my Will counts for nothing, then), and while the characters are supposed to be awesome, a lot seemed to counter that in the actual rules ('Yeah, you can be awesome. At one tiny niche. Have fun sinking everyone into one or two feats to stay any good.')

And I missed my magic items. =P About all I -did- like was the skill challenges and stunts.


By "standard DnD" do you me 4E or 3.x? I'd recommend Pathfinder over 3.x simply because it's supported. But comparing 4E to Pathfinder will depend more on what you want from a system.

Mentioned a couple of posts back; love 4e, but from my reading, and my DM's opinion, it doesn't work for solo. It'd also be a bit silly of me comparing 3.5 varient rules, to 4e DnD. =P When I say vanilla, I mean the original of the varient I'm talking about, so, Pathfinder vs. 3.5 DnD.

Hurlbut
2010-03-02, 11:07 PM
And Ryumaru, I wouldn't dismiss IH so easily, if you're looking for a solo game, it's pretty fun and you do not have to worry about getting magic items. It's the big action movie out of the RPGs mentioned here.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-02, 11:07 PM
Eh, I don't really agree there; as far as the book read to me, any character going up against anything will get beaten flat outside their tiny niche. Whereas Conan is regularly punching demons in the face and winning. =P

It also had the huge problems of major imbalances everywhere, I hated the idea of a lot of the traits (So, I have to be born Brave? I guess my Will counts for nothing, then), and while the characters are supposed to be awesome, a lot seemed to counter that in the actual rules ('Yeah, you can be awesome. At one tiny niche. Have fun sinking everyone into one or two feats to stay any good.')

And I missed my magic items. =P About all I -did- like was the skill challenges and stunts.



Mentioned a couple of posts back; love 4e, but from my reading, and my DM's opinion, it doesn't work for solo. It'd also be a bit silly of me comparing 3.5 varient rules, to 4e DnD. =P When I say vanilla, I mean the original of the varient I'm talking about, so, Pathfinder vs. 3.5 DnD.

I don't follow, how are iron heroes chars more specialized than d&d ones? (other than casters)

Also, I plan to play it soon, what imbalances should I look out for?

Asbestos
2010-03-02, 11:33 PM
It'd be a solo game too, and from everything I've seen, while I love 4e, it doesn't really seem to do solo all that well.

Wait, if its for a solo game then why does balance matter so much?

And you're right about 4e not being great for a solo experience, it is definitely meant for groups.

PinkysBrain
2010-03-02, 11:37 PM
The reduction of size modifiers in grappling/tripping/etc were nice, the splitting up of combat feats was stupid, some of the spell changes were nice (but they failed to fix way too many spells), the extreme book keeping and duration limitations for bards/barbarians were stupid (barbarians not raging while unconscious is just grand too). Pathfinder is such a mixed bag and it only screws around in the margins.

It's biggest failing is that it pretends to be a self contained fix to D&D, when it isn't ... it didn't really attack the fundamental problems. It's not a book which should be used in isolation, you still need a subset of splat and houserules to make it into something decent.

For instance, everyone now has shiny swift actions ... the problem in core is, nothing useful to do with them unless you are a caster ... the way Pathfinder solves that? Minor class abilities and the same old magic items as in old core (designed before the existence of swift actions). Better fix : MiC (though you want to change the belt of battle to give a standard action attack rather than a standard action and ban the circlet of rapid casting, casters don't need cheaper quickening).

Associated problem, non casters don't have options in core because of the lousy magic item selection and the lack of Save or Suck effects, mobility effects and battlefield control options inherent in the class abilities themselves (whereas casters generally get all that as well as straight damage potential). Pathfinder fixes this not at all ... better fix : MiC and ToB (RKV is too damn good though, on the other hand no one ever wants to play the cleric so it balances out).

Pathfinder has been clearly designed with blinders on ... in the latter days of 3e the remaining writers finally started to understand the game (full casters are too powerful AND almost everything else is way too weak). The Pathfinder writers still have a long road to travel before they come to the same understanding it seems (which is unfortunate, because they already laid the fundamentals down).

Pluto
2010-03-02, 11:38 PM
OSRIC (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/)!

You'll never worry about balance again!

Ryumaru
2010-03-03, 12:21 AM
And Ryumaru, I wouldn't dismiss IH so easily, if you're looking for a solo game, it's pretty fun and you do not have to worry about getting magic items. It's the big action movie out of the RPGs mentioned here.

But I love getting magic items, that's the issue ;D I know of no genres I've ever seen where magic is 'always bad, all the time for heroes'. Iron Heroes, to me, comes off as being Warhammer, but taken way too far to the other extreme.


I don't follow, how are iron heroes chars more specialized than d&d ones? (other than casters)

Also, I plan to play it soon, what imbalances should I look out for?

No magic items, mixed with pretty similar stats; you get one or two more feats than normal, but feats are now expanded into ten ranks each. So, example characters will, for their entire career, just be 'Power Attack 1, Power Attack 2, Power Attack 3'. Characters, from what I've seen, tend to plateau after about level 10, and without specialization out the wazoo, won't keep up. Some of the Masteries, to me, seem to a bit weird (like Whirlwind Attack; you go from the cruddy DnD version, and the rare class which gets Power 10 Mastery, suddenly jumps to five full attacks on all things around them.). Classes are also equally forced. While a Fighter can mix and match, the Armiger is only and will only ever be about taking damage. The only customizable class, Man-at-Arms, gets about five feats more than average characters, and nothing else.

To me, it comes off as being 4e, without the awesome.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-03, 12:42 AM
But I love getting magic items, that's the issue ;D I know of no genres I've ever seen where magic is 'always bad, all the time for heroes'. Iron Heroes, to me, comes off as being Warhammer, but taken way too far to the other extreme.



No magic items, mixed with pretty similar stats; you get one or two more feats than normal, but feats are now expanded into ten ranks each. So, example characters will, for their entire career, just be 'Power Attack 1, Power Attack 2, Power Attack 3'. Characters, from what I've seen, tend to plateau after about level 10, and without specialization out the wazoo, won't keep up. Some of the Masteries, to me, seem to a bit weird (like Whirlwind Attack; you go from the cruddy DnD version, and the rare class which gets Power 10 Mastery, suddenly jumps to five full attacks on all things around them.). Classes are also equally forced. While a Fighter can mix and match, the Armiger is only and will only ever be about taking damage. The only customizable class, Man-at-Arms, gets about five feats more than average characters, and nothing else.

To me, it comes off as being 4e, without the awesome.

Uh, I think you are misreading the feats. You don't have to spend a feat to get a new mastery level. The feats you got earlier will scale on their while you are free to pick other stuff.

True about the classes, but it was the same before. A knight can mix and match, but he will always be challenging people and tanking. A barb can mix and match, but he will always be about dealing damage while raging. A rogue can mix and match, but his main damage dealer will be sneak attacking... you get the idea.

Hurlbut
2010-03-03, 01:34 AM
But I love getting magic items, that's the issue ;D I know of no genres I've ever seen where magic is 'always bad, all the time for heroes'. Iron Heroes, to me, comes off as being Warhammer, but taken way too far to the other extreme.



No magic items, mixed with pretty similar stats; you get one or two more feats than normal, but feats are now expanded into ten ranks each. So, example characters will, for their entire career, just be 'Power Attack 1, Power Attack 2, Power Attack 3'. Characters, from what I've seen, tend to plateau after about level 10, and without specialization out the wazoo, won't keep up. Some of the Masteries, to me, seem to a bit weird (like Whirlwind Attack; you go from the cruddy DnD version, and the rare class which gets Power 10 Mastery, suddenly jumps to five full attacks on all things around them.). Classes are also equally forced. While a Fighter can mix and match, the Armiger is only and will only ever be about taking damage. The only customizable class, Man-at-Arms, gets about five feats more than average characters, and nothing else.

To me, it comes off as being 4e, without the awesome.First of all, magical items can be used in the IH ruleset, but they needed to be adjusted (Re: Mastering Iron Heroes) in that you have risks along with benefits. You would also have to ease up on boosting items to stats other than the attribute ones. But hey, I say the risks make it fun and more Sword & Sorcery.

Second, you do need to read up on the feats some more; Power Attack 2 perform differently than Power Attack 1 and such.

Sir Homeslice
2010-03-03, 03:12 AM
There is also 4e.

There is also Fantasy Craft.

Corey
2010-03-03, 03:26 AM
You can do pretty much anything in GURPS. :smallbiggrin:

Nero24200
2010-03-03, 04:23 AM
First of all, magical items can be used in the IH ruleset, but they needed to be adjusted (Re: Mastering Iron Heroes) in that you have risks along with benefits. You would also have to ease up on boosting items to stats other than the attribute ones. But hey, I say the risks make it fun and more Sword & Sorcery.

Second, you do need to read up on the feats some more; Power Attack 2 perform differently than Power Attack 1 and such.

Pretty much. It should also be noted that Magic Items do exist in Iron Heroes, it's just not mandatory. If a high level character manages to find an adamantine sword or a flamming bow, it'll actually be something unique as opposed to something the character will need just to function at that level.

Back to Topic: If you're starting out, PF might be better, since it does patch up some loose ends. But if you're familier with 3.5, you'd honestly be better off just using 3.5 and your own house rules.

Alot of the problems within PF remain since they wanted to keep it as backwards compatable as possible. This means certain elements are still the same (Sorcerer's having a lagging spell progression, Monks having meduim BAB etc). Hence why house-rules tend to be better.

onthetown
2010-03-03, 06:05 AM
Our campaign uses both 3.5 and Pathfinder together, and it works really well. Since we were playing 3.5 for years before PF came out, we had an idea of what rules we already liked and which we didn't; we were able to replace most of the ones we didn't like with PF's rules, though as far as I know they haven't changed much. I haven't noticed the transition in the least.

Basically, the DM uses his PF books and I use my 3.5 books, except for character creation... then I use the classes from PF and everything else is mixed as I like it. It's not as confusing as it sounds because I find them to be practically the same (just with a bit of a shinier taste to PF) and I'm already familiar with 3.5.

If I had to choose, I'd take PF completely. I like the school powers for wizards, which is mostly the characters that I play. :smallbiggrin:

Ryumaru
2010-03-03, 07:42 AM
Pretty much. It should also be noted that Magic Items do exist in Iron Heroes, it's just not mandatory. If a high level character manages to find an adamantine sword or a flamming bow, it'll actually be something unique as opposed to something the character will need just to function at that level.

I know you didn't -need- to take all the feats within a certain expanded mastery, but next to every character always seems to; see the Demon Knight, where the entire shtick was Power Attack, over and over. And two instances of Shield Mastery.

And the general oncensus when I asked on the Iron Heroes messages boards was that no, if I'm looking for magic items, Iron Heroes isn't for me; they're supposed to be used as McGuffins (which I found strange, for a game saying I should be jumping on demons and punching them in the face, that I should be using magic items just to one-shot the dragon without going toe-to-toe). Either that, or even simple, and usually not worth it effects are -horridly- out of whack with their disadvantanges. Killed someone and got as simple question answered by spirits? Roll Will DC30 or become a murdering psychopath who spends all his money appeasing an evil spirit!

EDIT: Even then, I found it overly boring that past level 2, money is now useless and just there to do unheroic things like bribing yourself out of being found guilty of minor crimes.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-03, 08:15 AM
Our campaign uses both 3.5 and Pathfinder together, and it works really well. Since we were playing 3.5 for years before PF came out, we had an idea of what rules we already liked and which we didn't; we were able to replace most of the ones we didn't like with PF's rules, though as far as I know they haven't changed much. I haven't noticed the transition in the least.

Basically, the DM uses his PF books and I use my 3.5 books, except for character creation... then I use the classes from PF and everything else is mixed as I like it. It's not as confusing as it sounds because I find them to be practically the same (just with a bit of a shinier taste to PF) and I'm already familiar with 3.5.

If I had to choose, I'd take PF completely. I like the school powers for wizards, which is mostly the characters that I play. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, what possessed Paizo to make wizards stronger? Also, how do you deal with feats being different?

Yora
2010-03-03, 08:19 AM
That's the main propblem for me. They improved the martial classes a bit, but improved the full casters even more.

I usually stick to 3.5e, but use the chapter "combat rules" from PF instead.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-03, 08:23 AM
I know you didn't -need- to take all the feats within a certain expanded mastery, but next to every character always seems to; see the Demon Knight, where the entire shtick was Power Attack, over and over. And two instances of Shield Mastery.

And the general oncensus when I asked on the Iron Heroes messages boards was that no, if I'm looking for magic items, Iron Heroes isn't for me; they're supposed to be used as McGuffins (which I found strange, for a game saying I should be jumping on demons and punching them in the face, that I should be using magic items just to one-shot the dragon without going toe-to-toe). Either that, or even simple, and usually not worth it effects are -horridly- out of whack with their disadvantanges. Killed someone and got as simple question answered by spirits? Roll Will DC30 or become a murdering psychopath who spends all his money appeasing an evil spirit!

EDIT: Even then, I found it overly boring that past level 2, money is now useless and just there to do unheroic things like bribing yourself out of being found guilty of minor crimes.

Uh, actually, the book suggests having magic items be rare and something encountered in dragon's hordes, just not readily available. It says if you WANT to have disadvantages for magic items you can, but they are supposed to be a controlled form of magic.

Personally I will be playing w/ 1/10 WBL and have consumables (potions, wands, scrolls) with negative side effects, as opposed to armor which binds with your skin.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-03-03, 08:25 AM
And the general oncensus when I asked on the Iron Heroes messages boards...

Generally, I really wouldn't trust things you see on internet message boards, especially if they're bad. This is a rare island of civility, more or less, but it's sort of an exception.

Serenity
2010-03-03, 09:42 AM
They were possessed with a desire to give everyone actual class features, which can only be applauded. Nor are the features in the final product (as opposed to alpha or beta) particularly overpowering. The wizard is better, yes, but only just, and several of the best spells were reduced in power. There's only so much that can be done while maintaining some level of backwards compatability.

As for the feats--I don't agree with splitting them up, either, but keep in mind that in Pathfinder, feats come every other level, and a Fighter gets a feat at every level.

Like anything else, Pathfinder requires house ruling, and since it took backwards compatability as a goal, it's not an instant patch for balance. That said, it's got a lot of good rules, including its skill system, a vastly simplified means of Grappling/Tripping/etc., and a revamped Paladin that's gone from sub-par, MAD-ridden warrior to a true champion of the Gods. It's worth having a copy of it, at least.

Person_Man
2010-03-03, 09:58 AM
If you're looking for balance play 4E, Heroclix, or a video game.

But having played many different games over many years, I've come to the conclusion that perfect balance is unattainable in any sufficiently complex game. More importantly, having balance doesn't really add to the fun of the game unless players are competing against each other. If players are working together as a party, then all they really need is niche protection and something interesting to do. That can be worked out during character creation. And then the DM can just adjust the difficulty and tactics of each encounter to challenge the party appropriately.

Tyndmyr
2010-03-03, 10:04 AM
Pathfinder vs core 3.5....really a matter of preference. Pick either ruleset, or grab one and mix in the rules from the other you like. Not honestly all that different play wise.

PF vs non core 3.5, 3.5 wins hands down. Tons more material, and no conversion work. This may change eventually if Pazio prints enough, but the volume of material availabe right now is no contest, and conversion is possible but annoying.

Settings: 3.5 has a lot more. I'm playing a campaign in the PF setting at the moment, and frankly...Im a little bored with it. It just doesn't seem like they really tried hard, and there's a relative lack of creativity. I mean, I guess they need a relatively standard setting, but even compared to 3.5s standard setting/greyhawk, it feels weak.

Volkov
2010-03-03, 10:08 AM
There is also 4e.



What does the OP mean by 'Standard D&D'? Like... which edition?

Do not mention that pile of heresy or you shall be executed...heretic.

Ryumaru
2010-03-03, 10:09 AM
Uh, actually, the book suggests having magic items be rare and something encountered in dragon's hordes, just not readily available. It says if you WANT to have disadvantages for magic items you can, but they are supposed to be a controlled form of magic.

From what I recall, it mentioned that all items are supposed to have disadantages; evil weapons going dull in the hands of heroes, armour is required to have heavier disadntages to stop other heroes outclassing the Armiger by just having simple + armour, and the fact even a +1 weapon cuts through next to everything (which is actually something I like; does make magic feel magic)

Then see the items given which give you simple things, like, I'm not exaggerating; you get Commune With Spirits (or whatever the DnD spell is) if you put the banner into a corpse slain by violence. Alright. But guess what? Beginning with a 25DC Will save, which is you fail, turns you into an unrepenting murderer who gives tithes to an evil god. Even as a one use item, DC25... I don't know many people able to do that, even with all good saves, high Wisdom...

PinkysBrain
2010-03-03, 10:10 AM
Oh hey, never realised they got rid of rage points in final ... at least some sanity prevailed.

Although something like "Renewed Vigor" only being once per day just shows they still suffer from good old non casters can't have nice things syndrome. By right the once per day abilities should be once per rage, and the once per rage abilities should be at will.

Nero24200
2010-03-03, 10:15 AM
Then see the items given which give you simple things, like, I'm not exaggerating; you get Commune With Spirits (or whatever the DnD spell is) if you put the banner into a corpse slain by violence. Alright. But guess what? Beginning with a 25DC Will save, which is you fail, turns you into an unrepenting murderer who gives tithes to an evil god. Even as a one use item, DC25... I don't know many people able to do that, even with all good saves, high Wisdom...

You may have to take wht I say with a pinch of salt, since I do not have Mastering Iron Heroes, I only have the main book. But what is to stop you just using 3.5's magic item system? With weapon enhancments and wonderous items? It should be compatable - in fact, near the end of the book it has guidlines and surgestions for converting the Iron Heroes classes to standard 3.5.

Person_Man
2010-03-03, 10:21 AM
Then see the items given which give you simple things, like, I'm not exaggerating; you get Commune With Spirits (or whatever the DnD spell is) if you put the banner into a corpse slain by violence. Alright. But guess what? Beginning with a 25DC Will save, which is you fail, turns you into an unrepenting murderer who gives tithes to an evil god. Even as a one use item, DC25... I don't know many people able to do that, even with all good saves, high Wisdom...

Wait, I thought every PC was an unrepenting murderer who gives tithes to an evil god (the DM, mostly in the form of pizza and beer)? How would this be a change?

Ryumaru
2010-03-03, 10:27 AM
You may have to take wht I say with a pinch of salt, since I do not have Mastering Iron Heroes, I only have the main book. But what is to stop you just using 3.5's magic item system? With weapon enhancments and wonderous items? It should be compatable - in fact, near the end of the book it has guidlines and surgestions for converting the Iron Heroes classes to standard 3.5.

It is the same magic item system, except with some special items; but now, every item is required to have some kind of downside. Armour is made to be the worst, with demon skin attaching to you and turning you evil for wearing it. Magic items are told they're either supposed to not work for heroes, as even a +1 weapon ignores ALL DR from non-magic items. Some of the items I kind of like (such as, there's a lantern you fill with human blood to 'shine light' on incorporeals and fight them like anything else), but attracts them or ends up turning you ghostlike or something the longer you use it.

Ryumaru
2010-03-03, 10:33 AM
Wait, I thought every PC was an unrepenting murderer who gives tithes to an evil god (the DM, mostly in the form of pizza and beer)? How would this be a change?

Difference being, that's the players, not the PC. ;D

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-03, 10:34 AM
From what I recall, it mentioned that all items are supposed to have disadantages; evil weapons going dull in the hands of heroes, armour is required to have heavier disadntages to stop other heroes outclassing the Armiger by just having simple + armour, and the fact even a +1 weapon cuts through next to everything (which is actually something I like; does make magic feel magic)

Then see the items given which give you simple things, like, I'm not exaggerating; you get Commune With Spirits (or whatever the DnD spell is) if you put the banner into a corpse slain by violence. Alright. But guess what? Beginning with a 25DC Will save, which is you fail, turns you into an unrepenting murderer who gives tithes to an evil god. Even as a one use item, DC25... I don't know many people able to do that, even with all good saves, high Wisdom...

I looked back through the core book, and you are right, no one in their right mind would take it. I think it is supposed to be a evil NPC story item. I agree with the fact that magic armor could outclass the armiger, but I would rather make it only usable for the armiger, or give it other properties. The whole low magic thing is just part of the setting. Its not perfect, but I think it provides a very nice base. I also use a custom magic system for it for example (not mine, find it here (http://soulmagesihfixes.pbworks.com/))

Also, magic armor isn't negated by magic weapons.

Ryumaru
2010-03-03, 10:40 AM
I looked back through the core book, and you are right, no one in their right mind would take it. I think it is supposed to be a evil NPC story item. I agree with the fact that magic armor could outclass the armiger, but I would rather make it only usable for the armiger, or give it other properties. The whole low magic thing is just part of the setting. Its not perfect, but I think it provides a very nice base. I also use a custom magic system for it for example (not mine, find it here

Low magic I don't m ind, which isn't what Iron Heroes is to me; you're supposed to be larger than life heroes, but you're still stuck with a small selection of feats, and even more stuck into certain builds (Power Attack and Shield Mastery for one characters, maybe Precise Shot and Point-Blank Shot if you're an archer; nothing else), the same improvement to abilities as standard DnD characters, and no magic - which gets weird considering you can't have magic items, but with core, there -is- a heroic magic using class. The expansion adds another.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-03, 10:49 AM
Low magic I don't m ind, which isn't what Iron Heroes is to me; you're supposed to be larger than life heroes, but you're still stuck with a small selection of feats, and even more stuck into certain builds (Power Attack and Shield Mastery for one characters, maybe Precise Shot and Point-Blank Shot if you're an archer; nothing else), the same improvement to abilities as standard DnD characters, and no magic - which gets weird considering you can't have magic items, but with core, there -is- a heroic magic using class. The expansion adds another.

So don't play low magic if you don't like it. I Personally disagree about the feats thing. You gain feats every even level, and you can skip mastery levels. Also most feats actually enable you to do different feats as you level up.

Greenish
2010-03-03, 10:49 AM
That said, it's got a lot of good rules, including its skill system, a vastly simplified means of Grappling/Tripping/etc., and a revamped Paladin that's gone from sub-par, MAD-ridden warrior to a true champion of the Gods. It's worth having a copy of it, at least.PF paladin is great indeed, but one should be able to make do with the OGL stuff (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/index.html).

Apropos
2010-03-03, 10:55 AM
Pathfinder might be a little bit more balanced, simply because you have much less material to work with. But then again, you could just use 3.5 material if you want anyway. I'm partial to normal 3.5 because Pathfinder seemed like a waste of time to learn and after looking at the classes and races, not much has changed. It seems to be simply aiming at a higher amount of fantasy.

onthetown
2010-03-03, 11:24 AM
Seriously, what possessed Paizo to make wizards stronger? Also, how do you deal with feats being different?

No idea what possessed them, but it's delicious.

My DM's PF books are the official say. If there's a feat in my 3.5 book that has a similar PF feat, we go with the PF one... But I have so many bloody 3.5 books that I rarely take one that PF mimicks :smallamused:

Sir Homeslice
2010-03-03, 02:09 PM
Do not mention that pile of heresy or you shall be executed...heretic.

Who pissed in your cheerios?

Hurlbut
2010-03-03, 03:26 PM
EDIT: Even then, I found it overly boring that past level 2, money is now useless and just there to do unheroic things like bribing yourself out of being found guilty of minor crimes.You can do 2 things;
Borrow a rule from Conan RPG where you already waste most of your wealth on things like booze, women, and so on at start of each new adventure for your character.
Or
Instead of having your treasures be about wealth, let it be about fame and famous treasures like "Lo' there! That be the berserker who found the Lost Ancient Gem of the Dreaming God!" (worth 200,000 gp, whatever)
That one is in 'Mastering Iron Heroes' also beside having 'wealth feats'.

I should note that the wealth feat concept isn't ONLY about bribing your way out. With wealth feats, you can also have an army of servants or faithful cohorts, own land with a Manor on it or even invest in a castle (need to be a bit creative with the building rules inside the wealth feat section).

pres_man
2010-03-13, 10:31 AM
:smallcool: bump :smallcool:

Since the other thread got locked instead of merged.

PinkysBrain
2010-03-13, 10:37 AM
-I'm not entirely certain when you say that CMD goes off the RNG
Look at some of the larger elementals or the Balor for instance ... their CMD outpaces their CMB by ~20.

As someone who has been in the rodeo, it's a lot harder to dodge an angry bull than it is to dodge an angry goat.
You are not trying to dodge it, you are trying to tumble past while it's distracted ... which can turn faster on it's axis?

I have a PC in my game who is using vital strike right now in conjunction with spring attack and wind stance. While the character isn't an ubercharger in terms of power, the fact that a mobile dex-based melee character is even viable in PF is actually kind of nice to see.
Lets do the math shall we?

Lets say level 6 fighter with weapon specialization, strength 16, dex 20, Elven Curve Blade +1 wielded two handed vs. AC 20 enemy ... attack bonus is 14. On his spring attack vital strike he does ~16 damage, of which ~4 comes from vital strike, on a full attack he does ~20 damage ... if he has haste however (which should be the go to buff for any cooperative wizard in the party, if not boots of speed should be very high on his to-buy list) his damage on a full attack rockets up to ~35, around double the vital strike damage. At higher levels this difference just gets further out of hand, it's still all about the full attacks ... vital strike only made a tiny difference.

As for spring attack ... it was broken underpowered in 3.5, it's still the same in PF. Tell him to just get a bow, he'll do much more damage.

Caphi
2010-03-13, 01:29 PM
They were possessed with a desire to give everyone actual class features, which can only be applauded.

I can say my reasons for liking Pathfinder no better than this.

Hurlbut
2010-03-13, 02:01 PM
Look at some of the larger elementals or the Balor for instance ... their CMD outpaces their CMB by ~20.
That would be because CMD combine Strength and Dexterity modifier along with their BAB and their special size modifiers (never try a maneuver against a bigger creature unless you're confident you can beat his CMD).

PinkysBrain
2010-03-13, 04:06 PM
I know why it happens, but it's still pretty funny that a balor can't grapple a balor ... though the CMD on critters like this is less funny for the rogue trying to tumble.

Sophismata
2010-03-13, 09:07 PM
Actually, I should check the sourcebook before commenting.

So, edited.

krossbow
2010-03-14, 08:42 PM
One thing i like about iron heroes is that its a valid strategy to throw on two shields and run around beating people to death with them :smallbiggrin:

thats one of my dream characters (just you have to get a crap ton of splat books or houserule feats to make it work effectively)