PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder?



Raenir Salazar
2010-03-12, 11:53 PM
Anything wrong with it? Tvtropes implies its an alright alternative to 4e but seems to not have many fans on the Gitp forums, is this the case?

Graymayre
2010-03-12, 11:57 PM
The main gripe I've heard is that it isn't different enough, which confuses me considering that all its trying to do is be D&D 3.75.

I've read it over and was pretty interested. The main thing that sticks out about it is that it helps remedy a lot of bugs and inconsistencies from 3.5 while not adding anything over the top.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-12, 11:58 PM
You could have gone a page or two back and found the other thread on the same topic.


Fact: People's opinions over the various editions and potential fixes are heavily divided.


Opinion: I'm not paying $50 for a book of house rules from a company whose employees have had a history of ignoring legitimate criticism and actual proof of what is and what isn't broken when they ask for that exact information.

Devils_Advocate
2010-03-13, 01:48 AM
I get the impression that Pathfinder makes a bunch of relatively small changes that don't really fix the major problems with the system. If you know 3.5 already, truly switching over would likely involve going through a lot of material with a fine-toothed comb looking for changes. Having played a lot of 3.5 might actually make it harder to switch to Pathfinder, since you have to actively unlearn the things that Pathfinder does slightly differently.

Basically, what 3.5 was to 3.0. Great if you want the feeling of change (because you're bored with the familiar stuff you already know inside and out) without actual especially meaningful change (because new, fundamentally different things are scary).

Alternately, you could treat it as Unearthed Arcana: as list of suggested changes, each of which you can take or leave. (I'd recommend treating everything in every rulebook for any RPG as a suggestion that you can take or leave, personally.)

arguskos
2010-03-13, 01:51 AM
Alternately, you could treat it as Unearthed Arcana: as list of suggested changes, each of which you can take or leave. (I'd recommend treating everything in every rulebook for any RPG as a suggestion that you can take or leave, personally.)
Agreed, and agreed. I've found that you can just use the Pathfinder classes whole-cloth and not ever want the 3.5 ones back. Ever.

PF does NOT fix the balance issues of 3.5, though it does remedy a few specific ones. It's fun, but more as a guidebook of houserules that happen to be pretty decent at times than as a full game on its own.

Shpadoinkle
2010-03-13, 02:17 AM
They tried to "fix" problems with 3.5. That's admirable, but nothing I've read about Pathfinder indicates that they have anything close to a solid idea of what the problems are in the first place.

Taelas
2010-03-13, 02:29 AM
There's nothing wrong with the Pathfinder RPG as a system, at least compared to 3.5. The core is more balanced than the core 3.5 books are, but they aren't really compatible with the rest of 3.5. You can still use it, but it will be slightly out of balance with the Pathfinder books, so you have to make a bunch of small adjustments to practically everything. Monsters force the most changes, as there are some fundamental differences in how Pathfinder does what it calls "combat maneuvers" -- trip, disarm, bull rish, etc. -- which you need to account for.

Basically, I agree with what Saph says in the 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890): If you want to stick to one book, go with Pathfinder. If not, stick with 3.5.

Fishy
2010-03-13, 02:32 AM
Pathfinder monks can't take Improved Natural attack, because it would be 'broken.' No one actually did the math to find out what an average of +1 damage does to the game, because that would require work. It just felt broken.

So, yeah.

PinkysBrain
2010-03-13, 04:39 AM
Anything wrong with it? Tvtropes implies its an alright alternative to 4e but seems to not have many fans on the Gitp forums, is this the case?
Problems with Pathfinder :

- Split up feats wipe out the extra feats for melee characters
- CMD goes off the RNG sometimes (and it takes tumble DCs off with it, and breaks suspense of disbelief while doing it by making large creatures harder to tumble around)
- Spells only half heartedly fixed, (AoE) SoD/SoS wizards still own
- Magic items untouched (ie. in mid/high game the casters are immensely more effective with their swift actions, metamagic quicken spell and rod thereof, than non casters)
- Vital Strike is weak (unless you use weapon size shenanigans, which is hard in Pathfinder and will of course require either a gish or a caster to buff you first ... of course large monsters have no such problem).

mikej
2010-03-13, 04:57 AM
I don't like what they did with Wildshape at all. I they went a little too far in my opinion. Also I was under the belief that Pathfinder was going to be like 3.75 and be able to work in other previous 3.5 stuff. How could you make a Pathfinder Druid with Master of Many Forms? I think they catered to much to the people who complained that in 3.5 the Druid was the better Fighter than the actuall Fighter. Which is silly since the Pathfinder Fighter is still lacking in my opinion

Nerf in Power Attack was totally not called for. Worse off is that they didn't do very well with the Fighter to warrant even remotely touching that feat.

Not allowing Improved Natural Attack to work with Monks, what the heck? What would that make Monks uber or what? Since they were underpowered in basic 3.5, I'd imagine they try to make them really good. After all they guted Wildshape.

The new Summoner base class was awesome before they re-edited it for some reason. I'm not sure why. It's...why? ... like with Improved Natural Attack.

If I'm to DM again I'll leave Pathfinder content to be just open like another splatbook. Since I do like what they did with the basic races. Human is still the strongest in my view but now there is insentive to play a Half-Orc.

PinkysBrain
2010-03-13, 05:08 AM
Nerf in Power Attack was totally not called for. Worse off is that they didn't do very well with the Fighter to warrant even remotely touching that feat.
It's not really a big nerf in practice ... in 3.5 power attack was a very situational feat to start with. Unless you were optimizing the hell out of your character or had a very low AC opponent you simply didn't use it. It's more of a dumb down than a nerf.

My biggest complaint is no more power attacking for full while trying to break objects.

porpentine
2010-03-13, 07:35 AM
You'll hear a lot of grumbling about Pathfinder. Grumbling from those who didn't want their 3.5 updated, grumbling from those who feel they could have updated 3.5 better, grumbling from those who saw Pathfinder as the Great Hope in the edition wars, grumbling from those who would rather there had never been a schism in the game.

What's significant is that, despite all the grumbling, Pathfinder is doing very well. Against the odds, and many predictions to the contrary, it is a success story.

I've played a few sessions now, and this is what I'd say. Things I don't like:

(1) At higher levels, the 'Christmas tree effect' is still going to be an issue. PCs are still going to be toting a panoply of items with all the various bonus types. Nothing was done to address this. On the other hand, many people love magic items, and item access is easy to restrict or expand in a given campaign.

(2) While class balance has been improved on the whole, Wizards continue to be powerful, and since clerics and druids have been reined in, they're kind of the stand-alone top-tier class. Some spells have been nerfed - the polymorph line has been corrected, for example - and spellcasting in combat is harder, but on the whole, after 9th level or so, a Wizard will still rule the roost, with the other full casters not far behind (reining-ins notwithstanding)

(3) Barbarians are a bit of a missed opportunity. There are a load of rage powers, but many of them are subpar, and the class is a bit unattractive now that fighters, paladins and rangers are all better.

Things I like:

(1) Class balance: on the whole there is a significant improvement here. In play, Fighters are awesome: their class abilities make them armour- and weapon-masters par excellance, and there are multiple potent higher-level feat one-offs and combos. Paladins are on a par with Fighters (on paper they look much better; in practice they play at an equal level). Rangers are marginally better. Meanwhile, clerics and druids have been reined in without having all their teeth pulled: wildshape, the animal companion, channeling and divine domains are all still desirable things (flight and earthglide at 6th level? I think that still qualifies the druid as rather good...to say the least)

(2) Class features: every class has something new, and - with the notable exception of the Barbarian - all of them get interesting and versatile whistles and bells. My personal favourites are the rogue talents and the sorcerer bloodlines, but the monk's ki abilities are also good in play, and the fighter's masteries may seem like dull old numbers, but make a big difference in play.

(3) Feats: I'd ignore the naysayers unless they have play experience. The expanded feat list works to the considerable advantage of Fighters, who with a feat every level can take full advantage of it. There are also class-specific feat options for all the other classes. Power Attack has been streamlined and works very well in play (no more is the powerful attack expressed at the table as a drawn-out metagaming calculation of attack-versus-potential-armour-class; this is a good thing).

(4) Skills: some consolidation, and a better ranks-per-level and class-skill system. All to the good.

(5) Combat Maneuevers: CMB/CMD is simple, elegant and plays well - again, don't listen to naysayers unless they've played. On paper, there look to be rather a lot of qualifications to both the attack and defense statistics. In play, the new system is fast, effective, and a vast improvement over the mire of 3.5 grapple/bullrush/disarm etc mechanics.

Summary: Pathfinder is good news. You don't have to spend $50 to play, either: the whole of the core rules (including xp tables etc) is online for free (google the paizo psrd for the best and most accurate copy). Paizo have done well, and deserve plaudits. Against the odds, they've produced a worthwhile d&d 3.75.

Yora
2010-03-13, 08:14 AM
I don't like what they did with Wildshape at all. I they went a little too far in my opinion. Also I was under the belief that Pathfinder was going to be like 3.75 and be able to work in other previous 3.5 stuff.

Now, wild shape is one of the very few things I REALLY like about PF. But that's possibly because I don't use any splatbooks ever.

BobVosh
2010-03-13, 08:23 AM
Anything wrong with it? Tvtropes implies its an alright alternative to 4e but seems to not have many fans on the Gitp forums, is this the case?

It is more of an alternative to 3.5 Unless you meant a D&D game that is currently support alternative to 4ed, which would be curiously specific.

How did this make it all the way down to me (prepares for sudden strike from a ninja)

Yora
2010-03-13, 08:48 AM
The only reason why PF would be the alternative to 4E would be, that you can't get your hands on the 3.5e core rulebooks. Though the DMG and the MM really have nothing that you wouldn't find in the SRD (except for three or four creatures). The PHB is still useful, as it explains all the rules and mechanics, which the SRD does not. If none of the people in a group know the 3.5e rules, not having a PHB at hand might be a problem. But if at least one has a basic grasp of the system, you don't need anything but the SRD, which is online and for free.

subject42
2010-03-13, 09:32 AM
Problems with Pathfinder :

- Split up feats wipe out the extra feats for melee characters
- CMD goes off the RNG sometimes (and it takes tumble DCs off with it, and breaks suspense of disbelief while doing it by making large creatures harder to tumble around)
- Spells only half heartedly fixed, (AoE) SoD/SoS wizards still own
- Magic items untouched (ie. in mid/high game the casters are immensely more effective with their swift actions, metamagic quicken spell and rod thereof, than non casters)
- Vital Strike is weak (unless you use weapon size shenanigans, which is hard in Pathfinder and will of course require either a gish or a caster to buff you first ... of course large monsters have no such problem).

Things that mitigate these problems:

-While they did split up feats, you get more feats now. A character that doesn't get bonus feats went from getting 7 feats at level 20 to ten feats at level 20 in Pathfinder.

-I'm not entirely certain when you say that CMD goes off the RNG, but I can speak to the other part. 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. Even if the sizing stuff did break verisimilitude, having one system for maneuvers is worth it.

-Save or Dies have been a problem in D&D since second edition. PF did nerf down some of the really bad offenders, though, so it's not like it's actively worse.

-Magic items still have the same problems they had in 3.5. I'll definitely agree with you there.

-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.

alisbin
2010-03-13, 09:57 AM
i think that pathfinder is more balanced in groups that aren't that concerned about super optimization, the really badass classes (wizard, sorcerer, druid, cleric really) are fairly well balanced if the player's goal isn't "break the universe", while retaining their flavor and coolness. the weaker classes (can't speak to barbarian, i've never played one in any edition, don't enjoy them) on the other hand, are significantly more playable with that same level of optimization.
yes, if you want to break pathfinder its not really any different then breaking 3.5, because it wasn't intended to be new system, its an update on the old so people who enjoy 3.5 can have a supported RPG that keeps the basic ideals of 3.5. as far as i'm concerned, pathfinder is a welcome improvement, its not perfect, but it exists because paizo really wanted to keep their favorite system going.

Roland St. Jude
2010-03-13, 09:59 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: One thread per topic, or as near to that as we can manage. There are already a couple general "whaddya think of PF?" threads and several specific questions about PF threads.