Pathfinder: Forgotten to the Forums? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Darth Stabber

2011-03-24, 01:31 PM

I really love the Pathfinder changes, but I am put off by the $50+ price tag on the core book (they do have a free SRD though), and I still run 3.5 since I already paid for entirely too many books, and I mostly hate 4e (I'll play it, but I won't run it, I'll play nearly anything, but if I am going to put a bunch of work into preparing a story arc, I darn well better like it). If there was a magic Paizo faerie who would convert all of my 3.5 books into PF books (including converting them, I would miss incarnum) for free, I would sign on in an instant. Until then I will run SWSE, D&D3.5, OWoD, L5R(3rd ed), MM, Spycraft, and QUAGS. Play PF, that I will do, even just off the SRD. Run PF I will not.

And I will disagree with several previous posters and say that I believe that pathfinder is an improvement, but with wizards keeping several systems as product identity, it will never fully replace 3.5 for me. For me to full replace 3.5 with PF I would need the Completes, the Races of Xs, the MoI, XPH, ToB, Binders (the rest of ToM can stuff it), HoH, HoB, a couple of forgotten realms books (namely underdark), and a couple Ebberon books (namely anything dealing with Warforged) converted. Since all that stuff is Wizards Product Identity, it will never happen. I seriously wish that Wizard's would throw Paizo a licensing bone on that, but it will never happen (competition and all).

Anyone want to help me with a MoI PF conversion?

Malevolence

2011-03-24, 01:48 PM

For the most part people consider Pathfinder to be inferior. The changes weren't for the good. Casters are still strictly superior, beatsticks got totally shafted. They made a bunch of ill-considered changes that didn't accomplish anything worthwhile.

This, and popular does not mean good. Fox News. 'Nuff said.

Yora

2011-03-24, 01:50 PM

I don't like the PF races, and I don't like the skills. I also don't like the classes since they cramped even more stuff in there and I prefer my games to rely only minimaly on builds.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about CMD since special attacks in 3.5e are not bad, just really badly explained. The spell changes are probably well done, but for that alone I don't put up with all the other stuff.

It's certainly an interesting change to the system, but a step into the opposite direction I'd want to go.

Doc Roc

2011-03-24, 01:58 PM

This, and popular does not mean good. Fox News. 'Nuff said.

Interesting thing. Popular also doesn't mean bad. A lot of popular things are absolutely fantastic, and I would bet you on the whole, that it's really less of dichotomy than you'd like to think.

I'm ambivalent about PF, I'll play it if it's playing, but I don't have a lot of time right now.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 02:13 PM

Paizo made 3.5 if 3.5 suffered from some sort of nostalgia sickness and a series of arbitrary rules but absurdly inflexible rules wielded by iron-fisted tyrants.

The game itself is at least par with 3.5, if not slightly better. It's the people in charge that are really going to be the problem with the game.

And I will disagree with several previous posters and say that I believe that pathfinder is an improvement, but with wizards keeping several systems as product identity, it will never fully replace 3.5 for me. For me to full replace 3.5 with PF I would need the Completes, the Races of Xs, the MoI, XPH, ToB, Binders (the rest of ToM can stuff it), HoH, HoB, a couple of forgotten realms books (namely underdark), and a couple Ebberon books (namely anything dealing with Warforged) converted. Since all that stuff is Wizards Product Identity, it will never happen. I seriously wish that Wizard's would throw Paizo a licensing bone on that, but it will never happen (competition and all).

All that is honestly a very silly position to hold.

Malevolence

2011-03-24, 02:15 PM

Interesting thing. Popular also doesn't mean bad. A lot of popular things are absolutely fantastic, and I would bet you on the whole, that it's really less of dichotomy than you'd like to think.

I'm ambivalent about PF, I'll play it if it's playing, but I don't have a lot of time right now.

I didn't say it was. I did however say that you shouldn't assume popular means good, as some people were implying, and I also strongly implied that it was not good, which is also true. The two facts are unrelated, but are still there.

Blisstake

2011-03-24, 02:20 PM

I absolutely love Pathfinder, as it fixed many (but not all) of the problems I had with 3.5, without going too far like (in my opinion) 4e. But I feel that most people wanting to discuss pathfinder can simply go to the pathfinder forums, as has been mentioned earlier.

So basically, I have nothing to add, but am shamelessly using this to display my opinions.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-03-24, 02:28 PM

From what I've played of PF the changes are better and more important in low-op games than in high-op games, for what it's worth. Also, I doubt it would be too hard to convert things from 3.5, unless you wanted to do it all at once for some reason. The real problem is if the group doesn't want to use 3.5 stuff; then you lose a lot of versatility that you had in 3.5. What I see here are 3.PF threads getting 3.5 replies, which may or may not be productive, driving off further 3.PF threads. For instance, if I were to ask for help building a core pathfinder fighter, shock trooper and ToB might be the first two things mentioned in replies.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 02:30 PM

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-03-24, 02:36 PM

Of course the versatility in 3.5 was also a prime source of imbalance and absurdity. See Shock Trooper, ToB, completes, etc.Core was the prime source of imbalance and absurdity in 3e. The rest was icing. And ToB is balanced.

Wait, no, what am I doing? Not this discussion again! But... must... hit... reply... (http://xkcd.com/386/)

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 02:42 PM

Core was the prime source of imbalance and absurdity in 3e. The rest was icing.
No, it wasn't. If core never existed, the game would still be imbalanced and have exceedingly imbalanced power levels.

And ToB is balanced.
Not in the proper context of the entire game looked at as a whole. Is ToB internally balanced? Yes. Is it balanced against casters? More or less. Is it balanced against non-ToB melee? No. Therein lies the rub. It puts all ToB classes and abilities above and beyond anything else in the game for the same party position; therefore, imbalanced.

nyarlathotep

2011-03-24, 02:55 PM

No, it wasn't. If core never existed, the game would still be imbalanced and have exceedingly imbalanced power levels.

It would still be imbalanced, but substantially less so. The only truly overpowered classes would be spirit shaman and wu jen, and you'd have truenamer and samurai as the only truely underpowered ones; everythign else settles into the middle.

Not in the proper context of the entire game looked at as a whole. Is ToB internally balanced? Yes. Is it balanced against casters? More or less. Is it balanced against non-ToB melee? No. Therein lies the rub. It puts all ToB classes and abilities above and beyond anything else in the game for the same party position; therefore, imbalanced.

ToB is balanced as close as DnD can be balanced which is in the tier 3 or 4 region. If you try to balance for things like fighter then you are unable to fight high level monsters period and if you balance high for things like wizard then you're playing a very different game than most people.

Doc Roc

2011-03-24, 03:01 PM

Core was the prime source of imbalance and absurdity in 3e. The rest was icing. And ToB is balanced.

Wait, no, what am I doing? Not this discussion again! But... must... hit... reply... (http://xkcd.com/386/)

God speed, man, god speed.

I didn't say it was. I did however say that you shouldn't assume popular means good, as some people were implying, and I also strongly implied that it was not good, which is also true. The two facts are unrelated, but are still there.

In games, I am unsure if good is relevant. We can take this discussion offline though, as I really don't think you're going to budge.

Endarire

2011-03-24, 03:01 PM

I view Pathfinder as an inspiration for house rules for my 3.5 game, namely the skills system and CMB/CMD but with 3.5's size mods.

Darth Stabber

2011-03-24, 03:02 PM

All that is honestly a very silly position to hold.

Why is that very silly? Pathfinder functions as a big patch for 3.5 (it changes things but not enough for it to truely be a different game). However the patch does not touch some of my favorite 3.5 content, and I will admit that I really only want 2-5 things out of most of those books (CWar for example, I want the feats, swashbuckler, and bear warrior, and I wouldn't miss most of the rest). But really it's mostly that I am still enamoured with incarnum and really want more of it. with one book and a couple random things online, that system didn't really get what it deserved. Psionics got two whole books, and bits and pieces in several other books, but Incarnum not so much.

I agree with or at least understand most of the changes made in PF, and if I had $50 to blow on a new RPG, it would be either this or dark heresy.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 03:07 PM

It would still be imbalanced, but substantially less so. The only truly overpowered classes would be spirit shaman and wu jen, and you'd have truenamer and samurai as the only truely underpowered ones; everythign else settles into the middle.
It is the prestige classes, feats, spells, and alternate abilities that produce the imbalance, not base classes.

ToB is balanced as close as DnD can be balanced which is in the tier 3 or 4 region. If you try to balance for things like fighter then you are unable to fight high level monsters period and if you balance high for things like wizard then you're playing a very different game than most people.
None of that addressed what I said.

Why is that very silly?
I only have to point to the fact you wanted setting specific stuff licensed to use with Pathfinder to prove why it is very silly.

Doc Roc

2011-03-24, 03:08 PM

It is the prestige classes, feats, spells, and alternate abilities that produce the imbalance, not base classes.

None of that addressed what I said.

I only have to point to the fact you wanted a setting specific book licensed to use with Pathfinder to prove why it is very silly.

Disagree deeply, sirrah. Feel free to expand what you mean with non-categorical examples.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 03:09 PM

Disagree deeply, sirrah. Feel free to expand what you mean with non-categorical examples.

What, pray tell, do you disagree with? Perhaps instead of looking down my nose you would bother to pick out one of the three separate threads of the quoted post to define which you disagree with.

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 03:13 PM

I didn't say it was. I did however say that you shouldn't assume popular means good, as some people were implying, and I also strongly implied that it was not good, which is also true. The two facts are unrelated, but are still there.

The entire thread is about what people think about Pathfinder, not about how good or bad it is. The fact that it's popular does imply pretty strongly that Aspenor's comments ("for the most part, people consider it inferior") are patent nonsense.

None of that addressed what I said.

Actually, he made it pretty clear why your "proper balance" is anything but.

Doc Roc

2011-03-24, 03:14 PM

What, pray tell, do you disagree with? Perhaps instead of looking down my nose you would bother to pick out one of the three separate threads of the quoted post to define which you disagree with.

If you think that I am being arrogant, you are wrong. I am simply uncaring. You are insistent, disdainful, and impolite to people I deeply respect. Have fun with that.

McSmack

2011-03-24, 03:14 PM

I've played a both PF and 3.X and I have to say I like the changes Pathfinder made. Compared to the 3.X core books casters became slightly less powerful IMO and melee significantly moreso, bringing them closer to balance.

The primary issue I've had with 3.5 was the lack of balance. Abilities/feats/spells/classes were either forgetable or ridonculously powerful. Wizards was issuing new material as fast as they could print it with seemingly little or no regard with how that material synergized with other published material. Within a few years we had several "magic" systems, dozens of races and classes and hundreds of feats and spells, many of which weren't that appealing. Which is probably why you see many builds that have one or two feats/abilities that make the entire build 'viable'.

Pathfinder has a much much smaller library of published material, and IMO at least their features mesh better than 3.5 ever did. So another reason you don't see as much Pathfinder discussion is there's simply less to talk about.

Many people complain about the price, which is a lot heftier than most 3.5 books. However looking at my Pathfinder Core Rulebook I find that it weighs in at 575 pages, while most of Wizards 3.5 companion books had trouble hitting 200 pages. Looking at a cost per page basis you'd get a better deal with Pathfinder.

RaginChangeling

2011-03-24, 03:14 PM

What, pray tell, do you disagree with? Perhaps instead of looking down my nose you would bother to pick out one of the three separate threads of the quoted post to define which you disagree with.

You could start with the idea that the base classes in core are not imbalanced.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 03:16 PM

If you think that I am being arrogant, you are wrong.

Then either I am incorrect in my original definition of sirrah, or you are.

And thus you are disagreeing to do it? Drive-by disagreements is it?

You could start with the idea that the base classes in core are not imbalanced.
I'm not sure how that relates to the previous argument.

nyarlathotep

2011-03-24, 03:20 PM

It is the prestige classes, feats, spells, and alternate abilities that produce the imbalance, not base classes.

Wait are you serious, as in not a plant by WotC trying to promote 4th edition. Name one prestige class no clearly intended for NPCs (Beholder Mage, BoVD stuff, and Illithid Savant) that is as broken as a core-only wizard. Feats only really help out melee users who are underpowered even with them so moving right along. I haven't found any alternate class feature besides wildshaping ranger that bumping up any class by any big amount, but rangers need the boost. Spells... well you have a point there, but most of the broken spells are in core despite non-core having over triple the number of spells that core does.

Most of the things you listed are what makes 3.5/Pathfinder fun and varied not what makes is imbalanced.

3.5 is imbalanced primarily because the developers assumed things that worked in AD&D would work in the new system. Pathfinder has done nothing to combat most of these artifacts, but is a fun system even so and as a plus is almost entirely OGL and thus available for free legally online.

Darth Stabber

2011-03-24, 03:25 PM

I only have to point to the fact you wanted setting specific stuff licensed to use with Pathfinder to prove why it is very silly.

It seems a little silly until you look at the small number of things I actually want out of those books (and use frequently as a GM or player)

What I want out of FR are 3 prestige classes (Drow Judicator, Illithid Bodytamer, and Shadowcraft Mage). 2 of those are race not setting specific, and shadowcraft mage is not really tied to the setting either, and all of them are in one book (Underdark). Strangely I get alot of use out of the first 2 as a GM, and the last as a player. Strongheart halfling loses it's lustre when you get 50% more feats.

What I want out of Eberon are Warforged feats (warforged and a couple feats are in the MM3 they don't have enough, namely unarmored body, and i wouldn't really want to have twighlight enchanted onto my body, or people might start calling me Cullenbot).

I don't really want anything else from those settings. I don't know why wanting conversions is so silly. If I ever do buy the book I may begin converting things over.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 03:30 PM

Wait are you serious, as in not a plant by WotC trying to promote 4th edition. Name one prestige class no clearly intended for NPCs (Beholder Mage, BoVD stuff, and Illithid Savant) that is as broken as a core-only wizard.
Sure, none are imbalanced if you are arbitrarily limiting what can be added to core to be PrCs only. But that's just silly.

Feats only really help out melee users who are underpowered even with them so moving right along.
I don't think the metamagic reducer feats help meleers too much.

Spells... well you have a point there, but most of the broken spells are in core despite non-core having over triple the number of spells that core does.
Spell Compendium.

3.5 is imbalanced primarily because the developers assumed things that worked in AD&D would work in the new system.
3.5 is imbalanced because WotC was churning out books, not a fully coherent system.

Pathfinder has done nothing to combat most of these artifacts, but is a fun system even so and as a plus is almost entirely OGL and thus available for free legally online.
Of course not, Pathfinder is wholly nostalgia based. Paizo applied bandaids to out and out ridiculous things, but that's it.
Though that is not even remotely why it is OGL. Technically, it isn't OGL at all. I think they have their own license.

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 03:30 PM

I'm not sure how that relates to the previous argument.

Your argument for Tome of Battle being unbalanced only works if fighters, paladins, and barbarians are no more or less powerful than they need to be, since they would never be suitable as a benchmark otherwise. The internet has spent the last eleven years comprehensively disproving that assumption.

Yora

2011-03-24, 03:32 PM

Pathfinder has a much much smaller library of published material, and IMO at least their features mesh better than 3.5 ever did. So another reason you don't see as much Pathfinder discussion is there's simply less to talk about.
This is in no way an attack against PF, but a defense of 3.5e. You can play it with just the three core books. Then it's even smaller than the whole PF library.

I don't consider that an advantage of PF.

McSmack

2011-03-24, 03:33 PM

Wait are you serious, as in not a plant by WotC trying to promote 4th edition. Name one prestige class no clearly intended for NPCs (Beholder Mage, BoVD stuff, and Illithid Savant) that is as broken as a core-only wizard.

It's not the wizard that's broken, it's the spells he casts that are broken. Wizards aren't exactly rolling in class abilities. There are plenty of Prc's that allow you to build casters that can still manage get the high end cookie spells like LPB and Wish while also gaining new and exciting abilities that a core wizard wouldn't get. Take a dip in this PrC or that and you'll end up with a flying invisible Tarrasque that can cast Wish and shoot flaming dire weasels out of his arse as a swift action.

New base classes and PrC's also increased the power level of low-level casters. Meaning that there wasn't really a point in the game when non-casters were on par with the spellslingers.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 03:33 PM

It seems a little silly until you look at the small number of things I actually want out of those books (and use frequently as a GM or player)

What I want out of FR are 3 prestige classes (Drow Judicator, Illithid Bodytamer, and Shadowcraft Mage).

2 of those are race not setting specific,
And both are entirely different in pathfinder because Pathfinder is fully built in and around Golarion fluff. It makes no sense to license setting specific books for bits and pieces that STILL don't fit with your custom setting.

I don't really want anything else from those settings. I don't know why wanting conversions is so silly.
There is no logical reason for a legal, license conversion. It doesn't fit Pathfinder's setting, plus would cost them money for licensing and then impede their development if Hasbro/WotC pulled the license.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 03:35 PM

Your argument for Tome of Battle being unbalanced only works if fighters, paladins, and barbarians are no more or less powerful than they need to be. The internet has spent the last eleven years comprehensively disproving that assumption.
1) You can't say they have the proper power levels when compared to classes released in the future. They may have an internal consistency, but that goes away once comparative classes were released.
2) If a ToB class is chosen over a core melee class because the former is markedly better in every way then ToB is imbalanced in context of the entire game.

Darth Stabber

2011-03-24, 03:36 PM

Wait are you serious, as in not a plant by WotC trying to promote 4th edition. Name one prestige class no clearly intended for NPCs (Beholder Mage, BoVD stuff, and Illithid Savant) that is as broken as a core-only wizard.

I can name several things that either A) up the rediculous power of opti-wizards or B) are on the same playing field. Ur-Priest (complete divine), Incantrix(some forgotten realms book), Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil(complete arcane), Abjurant Champion (complete mage?), Spell to Power Erudite psions(XPH+complete psionics), Ultimate Magus(complete mage), and Artificer. And I'm ostensibly on your side.

D&D 3.5's big problem: Every supplement had new spells, many had new metamagic feats and wizard friendly PRCs. If they had cut back on spellglut, and given more of that space to enabling mundane meleers to keep up, they may have ended up balanced.

Ranos

2011-03-24, 03:37 PM

Pathfinder switched the tiers a little bit around. Boosted the paladin a bit, nerfed the druid, left the rest comparatively pretty much the same.
In general, I prefer playing vanilla 3.5 simply because of the current lack of options in PF, and the fact that you can't really make a viable meleer anymore come mid-levels (yes, I know that's also the case with 3.5, but with all the combos around you could always find a way to keep up).
I like what they've done with the skills and how they've opened up crafting to the melee classes though.

RaginChangeling

2011-03-24, 03:38 PM

1) You can't say they have the proper power levels when compared to classes released in the future. They may have an internal consistency, but that goes away once comparative classes were released.
2) If a ToB class is chosen over a core melee class because the former is markedly better in every way then ToB is imbalanced in context of the entire game.

What about the fact none of the core melee are balanced against each other? Can you really claim a Barbarian and Monk are the same power level? I'd say the gap between them is wider than that between the Barbarian and the Swordsage.

Darth Stabber

2011-03-24, 03:39 PM

And both are entirely different in pathfinder because Pathfinder is fully built in and around Golarion fluff. It makes no sense to license setting specific books for bits and pieces that STILL don't fit with your custom setting.

There is no logical reason for a legal, license conversion. It doesn't fit Pathfinder's setting, plus would cost them money for licensing and then impede their development if Hasbro/WotC pulled the license.

I'm not saying that it would ever happen, quite the opposite, and that it is why it is unlikely for me to replace 3.5 with it. I could even forgive the setting specific stuff for Incarnum, Psionics and a list of feats to be compiled later.

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 03:40 PM

1) You can't say they have the proper power levels when compared to classes released in the future. They may have an internal consistency, but that goes away once comparative classes were released.

I'm not comparing them to any class, I'm noting that they are inadequate compared to what they actually need in order to be capable of fulfilling their role.

2) If a ToB class is chosen over a core melee class because the former is markedly better in every way then ToB is imbalanced in context of the entire game.

No, all that can be said is that ToB and core melee are not balanced against each other.

ToB allows a melee class to do everything it should be able to do. Core melee does not. Guess which one is balanced.

Amphetryon

2011-03-24, 03:43 PM

2) If a ToB class is chosen over a core melee class because the former is markedly better in every way then ToB is imbalanced in context of the entire gameThis implies that core melee classes would be regularly chosen in games where ToB did not exist or was unavailable. That's an interesting position that is flatly contradicted by my experiences in 3.5. Most folks I saw who wanted to melee in 3.5 before ToB were a Cleric or a Druid. Once the Completes and PH2 came out, some stretched their horizons to try outthe Knight, Hexblade or Duskblade, but those two are more prepackaged gishes than actual true melee classes. Swashbuckler rarely sees more than the predictable 3-level dip.

Your experiences may differ, but my experiences are, in large part, backed up by a majority of posters on a majority of the forums I know of where 3.5 edition D&D is or was discussed.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 03:43 PM

What about the fact none of the core melee are balanced against each other? Can you really claim a Barbarian and Monk are the same power level? I'd say the gap between them is wider than that between the Barbarian and the Swordsage.
The Monk is a terrible sacred cow. I don't even clearly know what it's supposed to do. If what Paizo has said about it is generally why it exists like it is, is because it's supposed to be a secondary combatant (at best) and it's a sacred cow.

nyarlathotep

2011-03-24, 03:45 PM

Sure, none are imbalanced if you are arbitrarily limiting what can be added to core to be PrCs only. But that's just silly.

Fine even with clearly NPC prestige classes. Without core tell me how any one of them is imbalanced, without the broken base of core casters to be built off of them all of them are at least in the same ballpark as eachother.

I don't think the metamagic reducer feats help meleers too much.

Okay my bad three feats.

Spell Compendium.

Which has the celerity line for broken spells and that's it. Compare that to core.

Polymorph line(Shapechange + alterself included)
Wish/Miracle
Planar Binding line
Divination
Contact Other Plane
Enervation
Shadow Evocation
Geas/Quest
Disjunction
Gate
Astral Projection
Time Stop
Rope Trick

3.5 is imbalanced because WotC was churning out books, not a fully coherent system.

That is incorrect. The system was incoherent from the beginning (hp damage and high BAB attacks scaling poor, stupid magic item pricing, failure to adjust spell casting times for the new initiative system) the churning out of higher quality books helped to pact several of the problems, but several of the base ideas they had to build off of were broken to begin with.

Of course not, Pathfinder is wholly nostalgia based. Paizo applied bandaids to out and out ridiculous things, but that's it.
Though that is not even remotely why it is OGL. Technically, it isn't OGL at all. I think they have their own license.

It's less nostalgia based than the flat out wrong idea that core is more balanced than non-core, or the idea that core is anything approaching balanced at all.

It had better be OGL or else using the old 3.5 classes would be highly illegal.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 03:45 PM

I'm not comparing them to any class, I'm comparing them to what they should be capable of doing.
And therefore if ToB classes are better at doing that then the core classes are, ToB classes are imbalanced.

The balance point for a character class is not dependent on any other character class. It's dependent on the capabilities of monsters and other hazards -- both the ones you're expected to be able to defeat, and the ones you're expected to rely on others to help defeat.
Classes don't exist in a vacuum. Yes, they have to be capable of overcoming the challenges they are designed to overcome, but if they are considerably more capable of overcoming that challenge than any other class designed to overcome it, then there is something wrong with that class.

nyarlathotep

2011-03-24, 03:49 PM

I can name several things that either A) up the rediculous power of opti-wizards or B) are on the same playing field. Ur-Priest (complete divine), Incantrix(some forgotten realms book), Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil(complete arcane), Abjurant Champion (complete mage?), Spell to Power Erudite psions(XPH+complete psionics), Ultimate Magus(complete mage), and Artificer. And I'm ostensibly on your side.

D&D 3.5's big problem: Every supplement had new spells, many had new metamagic feats and wizard friendly PRCs. If they had cut back on spellglut, and given more of that space to enabling mundane meleers to keep up, they may have ended up balanced.

All of those save Ur-priest are broken because they are building off of core arcane casting and the ur-priest is broken building off of core divine casting.

An incantrix built off of a warmage is not broken, an ultimate magus messing dread necromancer and beguiler isn't broken.

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 03:50 PM

And therefore if ToB classes are better at doing that then the core classes are, ToB classes are imbalanced.

Only follows if the core classes are actually capable of doing what they should be able to do -- i.e. if the core classes are balanced. They are not.

Classes don't exist in a vacuum. Yes, they have to be capable of overcoming the challenges they are designed to overcome, but if they are considerably more capable of overcoming that challenge than any other class designed to overcome it, then there is something wrong with that class.

Except that the entire point is that core melee classes are not capable of fulfilling any kind of party role. Pick a useful role. Core melee cannot fill it. ("sacrifices", "expendable meat", and similar things along those lines do not count, even though these are in fact useful).

Bagelz

2011-03-24, 03:50 PM

This is the first time I've heard pathfinder being considered worse than 3.5.
Most of the people I know who have played it refer to it as 3.75 or 3.P, and absolutely love it over 3.5 core.
A majority of those people use most of the 3.5 suppliments (the complete series) as supplements to pathfinder, and basically just use it to replace core.

Tyndmyr

2011-03-24, 03:51 PM

Well, Theurges got a bump in PF.

The Mystic Theurge capstone, anyhow, is pretty great. Combine with quicken, cast four times per round. Laugh manically as you break everything. If 3.PF, stop laughing just long enough to buy a belt of battle. Resume evil laughter.

Psyren

2011-03-24, 03:52 PM

For the most part people consider Pathfinder to be inferior. The changes weren't for the good. Casters are still strictly superior, beatsticks got totally shafted. They made a bunch of ill-considered changes that didn't accomplish anything worthwhile.

Could you please speak for yourself and not everyone else? Thanks?

Pathfinder is awesome. There aren't a lot of topics about it because not as many things need fixing.

Darth Stabber

2011-03-24, 03:56 PM

Classes don't exist in a vacuum. Yes, they have to be capable of overcoming the challenges they are designed to overcome, but if they are considerably more capable of overcoming that challenge than any other class designed to overcome it, then there is something wrong with that class.

Not neccessarily, it could be that something was wrong with the first class.

Example: Monk, a class that fails to achieve it's basic design goals. Unarmed Swordsage (Fistsage?), meets monk's design goals, and is rather fun to play. Even a fist focused fighter is better than a monk. So are you saying that fighter is broken because it is better at fist fighting than the monk who's concept is fist fighting? Or even an unarmed psywar, or swashbuckler, or rogue, or barbarian, or any other 3/4-1 bab class that takes Improved Unarmed strike? Just because you came first doesn't mean you do it right. Monk is the premier example of that.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 03:56 PM

Fine even with clearly NPC prestige classes. Without core tell me how any one of them is imbalanced, without the broken base of core casters to be built off of them all of them are at least in the same ballpark as eachother.
Apparently no one on this forum balances anything in the context of the game, I guess that's what to expect from an optimization forum.

Okay my bad three feats.
Apologize for being obtuse instead.

Which has the celerity line for broken spells and that's it. Compare that to core.

Polymorph line(Shapechange + alterself included)
Wish/Miracle
Planar Binding line
Divination
Contact Other Plane
Enervation
Shadow Evocation
Geas/Quest
Disjunction
Gate
Astral Projection
Time Stop
Rope Trick

Rope trick and astral projection? What? And Contact Other Plane and Divination? I'm sure there are a myriad similar Divination spells were I to look. The rest do what they do. If they didn't exist in core, they would have been created in splats.
What about Nerve Skitter? "I suddenly go first in initiative!"
The dragon focused books are full of ridiculous stuff too.

That is incorrect. The system was incoherent from the beginning (hp damage and high BAB attacks scaling poor, stupid magic item pricing, failure to adjust spell casting times for the new initiative system) the churning out of higher quality books helped to pact several of the problems, but several of the base ideas they had to build off of were broken to begin with.
Sure the system was broken, but that doesn't make what I said incorrect. The books were not trying to be coherent or in line with any other books written. They were created to make money. In doing so, they increased the game's power level exponentially.

In fact, all I really have to do to prove my point is put up a thread that says "optimize this character" and see how many suggestions are Core only.

It's less nostalgia based than the flat out wrong idea that core is more balanced than non-core, or the idea that core is anything approaching balanced at all.
The game pulls all the nostalgia from the early D&D and sticks it in the 3.5 system.

RaginChangeling

2011-03-24, 03:59 PM

In fact, all I really have to do to prove my point is put up a thread that says "optimize this character" and see how many suggestions are Core only.

Druid- Natural spell

Done.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:00 PM

Not neccessarily, it could be that something was wrong with the first class.

Example: Monk, a class that fails to achieve it's basic design goals. Unarmed Swordsage (Fistsage?), meets monk's design goals, and is rather fun to play. Even a fist focused fighter is better than a monk. So are you saying that fighter is broken because it is better at fist fighting than the monk who's concept is fist fighting? Or even an unarmed psywar, or swashbuckler, or rogue, or barbarian, or any other 3/4-1 bab class that takes Improved Unarmed strike? Just because you came first doesn't mean you do it right. Monk is the premier example of that.
The Monk is not a "fist fighter." Special unarmed combat is just part of its secondary combatant class abilities. None of those classes advance unarmed strike damage, so how are they better at it? Because they have better BAB and aren't MAD. That's doesn't make them better "Fist fighters" than the Monk, that makes them better front-liners.

The failure of the Monk is far more evident in Pathfinder where they kept the middling BAB and its middling HP die, but made all its special abilities use full BAB. It's moronic. The Monk exists in D&D to be a Monk. Nothing else.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:01 PM

Druid- Natural spell

Done.
Yeah, animals and elementals that shoot lightning are cool, until you realize that is what you are limited to in core. (And plants too, but I mean how many plants are worth turning into by the time you get it?)

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 04:02 PM

Apparently no one on this forum balances anything in the context of the game, I guess that's what to expect from an optimization forum.

That's because we balance things in the context of what the game should be.

Malevolence

2011-03-24, 04:03 PM

No, it wasn't. If core never existed, the game would still be imbalanced and have exceedingly imbalanced power levels.

Not in the proper context of the entire game looked at as a whole. Is ToB internally balanced? Yes. Is it balanced against casters? More or less. Is it balanced against non-ToB melee? No. Therein lies the rub. It puts all ToB classes and abilities above and beyond anything else in the game for the same party position; therefore, imbalanced.

Can non ToB melee kill enemies? No, they're tasty bags of delicious XP.

Can ToB melee kill enemies? Yes, a lot better than non ToB.

Do characters need to be able to kill level appropriate enemies? Absolutely.

= ToB is balanced, non ToB is not.

To continue this:

Is things like Shock Trooper and ToB required to make melee work? Yes.

Is this a bad thing? Yes.

Does taking those things away simply mean that beatsticking is a non starter? Yup.

And this is why people complain about Pathfinder. It makes existing balance problems worse, both by removing the fixes for them, and making the problems themselves worse. Power Attack, Improved Trip... all stuff you've likely heard before, but is still true.

In games, I am unsure if good is relevant. We can take this discussion offline though, as I really don't think you're going to budge.

The quality of a game is very relevant. Would you purchase an automobile known for breaking down? No, you would find a reliable source of transportation, likely with a competitor.

It is the prestige classes, feats, spells, and alternate abilities that produce the imbalance, not base classes.

Druid 8.

Fighter 2/Rogue 2/Psychic Warrior 2/Lion Totem Barbarian 1/Wolf Totem Barbarian +1.

One of these is a powerful build. One of these is desperately struggling to keep up. Can you guess which is which?

The entire thread is about what people think about Pathfinder, not about how good or bad it is. The fact that it's popular does imply pretty strongly that Aspenor's comments ("for the most part, people consider it inferior") are patent nonsense.

Fox News.

Additionally, it is worth pointing out that outside of their own forums, reactions typically range from indifferent to hostile.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-03-24, 04:05 PM

Caster power creep: Planar Binding line and Shapechange line are both Core. Yes, there will always be some power creep for all classes. No, it doesn't compare to the base level of power casters had in core.

Tome of Battle: Why are you using core fighters as a benchmark? In core, with little to no effort, you can have a Druid wildshaped into a bear, with a bear animal companion, summoning more bears. After one spontaneously converted spell slot, that character isn't just the frontliner of the party - he's the entire O-Line of Chicago professional football. If that's the benchmark, Warblade is either balanced or underpowered (!) compared to core.

Reverent-One

2011-03-24, 04:06 PM

The failure of the Monk is far more evident in Pathfinder where they kept the middling BAB and its middling HP die, but made all its special abilities use full BAB. It's moronic. The Monk exists in D&D to be a Monk. Nothing else.

*Ahem*

At 3rd level, a monk uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus when calculating his Combat Maneuver Bonus. Base attack bonuses granted from other classes are unaffected and are added normally.

If you play a pure monk (or Monk + other full BAB classes), you'll have full BAB for the purposes of combat maneuvers.

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 04:06 PM

Fox News.

Are still irrelevant.

The point is that you're trying to exclude evidence of popular reactions from a thread about popular reactions. It's sort of like complaining that the argument "Pathfinder is popular because it is popular" appeals to popularity.

Darth Stabber

2011-03-24, 04:08 PM

The Monk is not a "fist fighter." Special unarmed combat is just part of its secondary combatant class abilities. None of those classes advance unarmed strike damage, so how are they better at it? Because they have better BAB and aren't MAD. That's doesn't make them better "Fist fighters" than the Monk, that makes them better front-liners.

The failure of the Monk is far more evident in Pathfinder where they kept the middling BAB and its middling HP die, but made all its special abilities use full BAB. It's moronic. The Monk exists in D&D to be a Monk. Nothing else.

Monks exist in D&D and they are called unarmed sword sages (which does increment your unarmed damage, but your abilities then require you to be unarmed and unarmored). The brainspace of quasi-mystical martial arts master is covered with more style and more power by this class.

And the size of your fists damage die is not the end all be all of fist fighting ability. Fighter's increased feats and BAB and decreased MAD, mean his punches actually have a chance at hitting.

The PHB monk is not really a class so much as a container for the most non-synergistic collection of class abilities that the designers could think of.

ex cathedra

2011-03-24, 04:09 PM

2) If a druid is chosen over a core melee class because the former is markedly better in every way then the druid is imbalanced in context of the entire game.

I fixed that for you. Still not seeing how you're right.

+5 to initiative doesn't really compare to the myriad infinitely repeatable core exploits, game-breaking gaps in relative power, and general poor balance present in the core 3.5 supplements.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:11 PM

Can non ToB melee kill enemies? No, they're tasty bags of delicious XP.

Can ToB melee kill enemies? Yes, a lot better than non ToB.

Do characters need to be able to kill level appropriate enemies? Absolutely.

= ToB is balanced, non ToB is not.
That is all outright untrue, mostly. ToB is much better at killing things without ridiculous optimization and spellcasters behind them. If ToB is notably better than non-ToB melee at melee, then yes, the system is imbalanced, but so is ToB still because the system was designed around the original non-ToB melee classes

Is things like Shock Trooper and ToB required to make melee work? Yes.
No.

And this is why people complain about Pathfinder. It makes existing balance problems worse, both by removing the fixes for them, and making the problems themselves worse. Power Attack, Improved Trip... all stuff you've likely heard before, but is still true.
Their changes to Power Attack and the 'combat maneuver' series were idiotic, but that's beside the point.
Pathfinder tries to balance the casters, slightly, but otherwise doesn't fix the power curve of melee versus casters. That's the real problem. You're "fixes" were game power increases to melee classes that came in books with game power increases to non-melee classes. They are just part of the general power creep.
The only book that could have been a "fix" to melee was Complete Warrior and it is basically weaker than core.

Druid 8.

Fighter 2/Rogue 2/Psychic Warrior 2/Lion Totem Barbarian 1/Wolf Totem Barbarian +1.

One of these is a powerful build. One of these is desperately struggling to keep up. Can you guess which is which?
I'd imagine the one that is both illegal and simply trying to put a bunch of classes together and avoid multiclass exp penalties.

Additionally, it is worth pointing out that outside of their own forums, reactions typically range from indifferent to hostile.

Pathfinder forums? I try to keep it equally hostile there. But mostly towards the devs.

nyarlathotep

2011-03-24, 04:11 PM

Apparently no one on this forum balances anything in the context of the game, I guess that's what to expect from an optimization forum.

I am balancing in context. Look at a warmage incantrix, not that bad.

Apologize for being obtuse instead.

I might if this argument didn't come up every few weeks.

Rope trick and astral projection? What? And Contact Other Plane and Divination? I'm sure there are a myriad similar Divination spells were I to look. The rest do what they do. If they didn't exist in core, they would have been created in splats.
What about Nerve Skitter? "I suddenly go first in initiative!"
The dragon focused books are full of ridiculous stuff too.

Rope trick is a second level spell that gives a nearly unassailable hiding place, and astral projection allows you to essentially have a 1-up, move around and cast spells at no danger to yourself. Divination is how a batman wizard works he finds out exactly the spells he will need for the future(very unfun to play but we're talking about inherent system balance).

Nerve Skitter is not I go first it's "I get a bonus feat (improved initiative) for 1 combat" and is useful but not broken.

The dragon books have a useful blasting spell perish the thought.

Now as for the polymorph line that you just brushed off they were made in splat as well (troll-shape, fiend-shape etc.) and you know what they were balanced. Shocking I know.

Sure the system was broken, but that doesn't make what I said incorrect. The books were not trying to be coherent or in line with any other books written. They were created to make money. In doing so, they increased the game's power level exponentially.

They were made to make money and weren't made with any plans I will give you that. I will not however agree that they increased the power level. Nothing aside from spellcaster prestige classes equals core-only casters, and spellcaster prestige classes are only rarely better than a red wizard with leadership (both core).

In fact, all I really have to do to prove my point is put up a thread that says "optimize this character" and see how many suggestions are Core only.

What about when the character in question is a druid. The advice is take natural spell and the rest doesn't matter because you can turn into a dinosaur and summon more dinosaur while riding your pet dinosaur, and the fighter only has 2 attacks one of which will always miss.

Even so most threads asking for optimization help are for low tier classes that suck in core.

The game pulls all the nostalgia from the early D&D and sticks it in the 3.5 system.

I now actually have no idea what you think about pathfinder.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:13 PM

I fixed that for you. Still not seeing how you're right.
Polymorphing was out and out broken in D&D. The Druid wasn't necessarily imbalanced, its main class feature being polymorphing was. That's why they errata'd it every few months and then tried to fix the Druid in PHB II, but since that was just an alternate class ability, no one cared. That was changed in Pathfinder (for the better and for the mediocre)

+5 to initiative doesn't really compare to the myriad infinitely repeatable core exploits, game-breaking gaps in relative power, and general poor balance present in the core 3.5 supplements.
In a game where going first gives you a significant advantage and rope trick is on the list of overpowered spells, then yes, Nerve Skitter is pretty bad.

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 04:17 PM

Boci

2011-03-24, 04:17 PM

Not in the proper context of the entire game looked at as a whole.

Then how can anything be balanced? A fighter is stronger than a soulknife and lurk, but weaker than a dual wielding rogue penetrating strike and UMD. So its unbalanced as well.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:17 PM

I now actually have no idea what you think about pathfinder.

I like it better than 3.5, but I don't like the management.

Amphetryon

2011-03-24, 04:18 PM

This has come up before, as well. Druid is lethally powerful in core - even without polymorph - because it's a full casting class that gets, at worst, a Fighter as a pet as one of its class features.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:18 PM

Incorrect. Not only does core melee not receive any sort of magic sticker for being there first, but content is designed around a system. It's hard to give something a +6 attack bonus if you don't actually know what that means.
Content has to be designed against what will be put against it.

ex cathedra

2011-03-24, 04:19 PM

Okay, apparently, Druids and Wizards aren't broken, it's just that wildshape and spells are. Really? What is a class if not its abilities?

Rope Trick lets you stop anywhere, protects you from >90% of enemies that you'll encounter, and allows you to refresh your spell list. This is broken. The designers don't know how to balance fluff with crunch, and so the open-ended abilities (Polymorph, Rope Trick, Gate, Wish, etc.) ended up being significantly more powerful than the numeric abilities (Fireball).

Malevolence

2011-03-24, 04:19 PM

This is the first time I've heard pathfinder being considered worse than 3.5.

Welcome to the Internet. Where the Men are Men, the Women are Men, the Children are FBI agents, and there is always porn of it. Always.

Well, Theurges got a bump in PF.

The Mystic Theurge capstone, anyhow, is pretty great. Combine with quicken, cast four times per round. Laugh manically as you break everything. If 3.PF, stop laughing just long enough to buy a belt of battle. Resume evil laughter.

Cast four weak spells... or two strong ones that do the job better. But if that were true, it'd certainly help to make the PF is bad crowd's point for us.

Could you please speak for yourself and not everyone else? Thanks?

Pathfinder is awesome. There aren't a lot of topics about it because not as many things need fixing.

List of things that need fixing:

Every problem 3.5 had.

Various other additional problems.

Last I checked x + y is greater than x alone.

Boci

2011-03-24, 04:20 PM

Content has to be designed against what will be put against it.

Yes, can you prove core melle was well designed against what it was to be used with?

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:21 PM

Okay, apparently, Druids and Wizards aren't broken, it's just that wildshape and spells are. Really? What is a class if not its abilities?
Wildshape is a class feature that acts like a spell, but better. Without Wildshape, the Druid is powerful as a full caster, but he isn't Druid with Wildshape powerful (especially since druid spells are weird...)

Draconi Redfir

2011-03-24, 04:23 PM

i'm a fan of pathfinder myself... i just haven't been able to play that many games.

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 04:23 PM

Content has to be designed against what will be put against it.

The idea that melee characters should be expected solely to go up against other melee characters is patent nonsense.

nyarlathotep

2011-03-24, 04:24 PM

Wildshape is a class feature that acts like a spell, but better. Without Wildshape, the Druid is powerful as a full caster, but he isn't Druid with Wildshape powerful (especially since druid spells are weird...)

Even without wildshape or an animal companion a core-only druid will beat a core-only melee fighter in melee every single time with buffs, and he will also be able to provide transportation when there are environmental obstacles, and he has enough skills to contribute to social situations, and he can then bring the fighter back from the dead and beat him again, but this time the fighter is a badger.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:25 PM

The idea that melee characters should be expected solely to go up against other melee characters is patent nonsense.

Good thing I never said that.

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 04:26 PM

Good thing I never said that.

If only your statement didn't require it to be true in order to actually address my point.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:26 PM

Even without wildshape or an animal companion a core-only druid will beat a core-only melee fighter in melee every single time with buffs, and he will also be able to provide transportation when there are environmental obstacles, and he has enough skills to contribute to social situations, and he can then bring the fighter back from the dead and beat him again, but this time the fighter is a badger.
Full casters are more powerful than meleers by like level 6 or so, regardless of what they are, so that isn't really showing anything. At upper levels, a comparison between melee and casters is a farce.

If only your argument didn't require it to be true in order to be functional.
You mean the caricature of my argument you are using.

NineThePuma

2011-03-24, 04:27 PM

To answer the original poster, there aren't PF threads here because this happens every time.

Boci

2011-03-24, 04:28 PM

Full casters are more powerful than meleers by like level 6 or so, regardless of what they are, so that isn't really showing anything. At upper levels, a comparison between melee and casters is a farce.

And ToB narrows the gap...ergo its unbalanced?

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 04:29 PM

You mean the caricature of my argument you are using.

No, I mean your actual argument. Failing to include crucial steps does not magically render them unassailable.

You said that "content must be balanced to what will be put against it". This only means anything if "what will be put against it" mostly consists of other melee characters, as opposed to melee monsters, caster monsters, archers, and so on.

Otherwise, it not only fails to help your point, it actually works against it.

ex cathedra

2011-03-24, 04:30 PM

Druid is still broken without Wildshape.
Druid is still broken without Wildhape and an animal companion, even.

The Player's Handbook probably has the most severe contrast between good/too good material and bad/unusable material in any 3.5 book.

Pathfinder is a different game. It's like 3.5, but it's different in marginal ways. It isn't a fixed 3.5, nor is it strictly better. Personally, I find it drab and without point, comparatively.

Aspenor

2011-03-24, 04:31 PM

Could you please speak for yourself and not everyone else? Thanks?

Pathfinder is awesome. There aren't a lot of topics about it because not as many things need fixing.

I thought it was generally assumed that when anybody speaks, they speak for themselves. However, this is a very commonly agreed upon sentiment which anybody that has analyzed the Pathfinder system closely agrees upon.

On the whole, though, Pathfinder set out to do something and failed at most of it. It successfully weakened the druid, but did nothing to wizards. It completely shafted melees in every way imaginable. The skills consolidation is okay, but it's not worth actually paying money when you can do that with a little critical thought yourself.

There is a reason it is commonly called Pathfailure. The designers of Pathfinder set out to fix 3.5, and they failed. The only relevant change was to Wildshape. Everything else was completely misplaced and wrong. Wizards still completely rock the system, since they still have strong spells at every level that end the encounter on the spot. The same is true for druids' and clerics' spellcasting abilities. Melees were made even less relevant than they had been before, since special melee attacks were nerfed to uselessness. Forget about tripping or Power Attacking, which is the only thing that makes melee useful.

Basically, Pathfinder said "play a spellcaster, don't even think about doing anything else. Especially melee."

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:33 PM

And ToB narrows the gap...ergo its unbalanced?

No, ToB is unbalanced because it completely and totally replaces classes that came before it in the same roles. Which I have said multiple times.

Malevolence

2011-03-24, 04:35 PM

That is all outright untrue, mostly. ToB is much better at killing things without ridiculous optimization and spellcasters behind them. If ToB is notably better than non-ToB melee at melee, then yes, the system is imbalanced, but so is ToB still because the system was designed around the original non-ToB melee classes

One of the most common points of the pro PF side is an attempt to defend non optimizers playing weak classes. In which case pointing out a non optimized Warblade does decently, and a non optimized PF Fighter is at least as bad as it's 3.5 equivalent is quite on topic. But thank you for shooting down your own argument. Not to mention, the core melee haven't worked in D&D in 3.5, and didn't work in 3rd, either. And they still don't in PF.

No.

Wrong answer.

Their changes to Power Attack and the 'combat maneuver' series were idiotic, but that's beside the point.
Pathfinder tries to balance the casters, slightly, but otherwise doesn't fix the power curve of melee versus casters. That's the real problem. You're "fixes" were game power increases to melee classes that came in books with game power increases to non-melee classes. They are just part of the general power creep.
The only book that could have been a "fix" to melee was Complete Warrior and it is basically weaker than core.

If by balance casters you mean greatly improve their power, they did that. I question the judgment of anyone who would do such a thing though. Coming with melee nerfs, it's just incomprehensible.

And for something to be an improvement, it must be better than what you already have. Very little in the way of non core material qualifies as such to casters. Find an optimized caster guide, all sources allowed, and the vast majority of it will be straight up core. The most broken stuff, incidentally comes from when builds use Dragon Magazine. Who publishes that, I wonder?

I'd imagine the one that is both illegal and simply trying to put a bunch of classes together and avoid multiclass exp penalties.

WRONG ANSWER! The correct answer is "The core only Druid". Oh and you can take Lion Totem Barb at level 1, and Wolf Totem at 2, and get Pounce and Improved Trip.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:35 PM

Boci

2011-03-24, 04:35 PM

No, ToB is unbalanced because it completely and totally replaces classes that came before it in the same roles. Which I have said multiple times.

ToB makes the game as a whole (i.e. melee and casters) more balanced. Do you disagree with that?

Malevolence

2011-03-24, 04:36 PM

Are still irrelevant.

The point is that you're trying to exclude evidence of popular reactions from a thread about popular reactions. It's sort of like complaining that the argument "Pathfinder is popular because it is popular" appeals to popularity.

Proving that the common person's judgment cannot be trusted to make an informed decision is a legitimate rebuttal when discussing choices between two or more things.

nyarlathotep

2011-03-24, 04:36 PM

No, ToB is unbalanced because it completely and totally replaces classes that came before it in the same roles. Which I have said multiple times.

Druid also completely replaces all of those classes. With its animal companion both serve the same role but the companion does it better. Unless of course you are complaining that ToB replaced the animal companion's role.

Angry Bob

2011-03-24, 04:37 PM

After a falling-out in my group about optimization levels, I'm running a game that essentially treats PF as a supplement to 3.5.

Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, and Knight players simply use the PF version of each, with 3.5 ACFs still available.

Combat(fighter) feats and feats that work with the PF classes I'm using(i.e. Extra Mercy) are used. Combat feats with the same name as a 3.5 one but with altered function may be chosen instead of 3.5, or the 3.5 version may be used.

Metamagic can only be applied to a spell if you can cast that spell at the level it would be adjusted to if adjust as printed in the feat, excepting automatic metamagic, such as swift abjuration and the Wu Jen's spell secrets.

Alter Self, Polymorph, and Shapechange are replaced by PF's polymorph subschool spells. Polymorph any Object is simply gone. The Druid's wild shape changes to progress as PF's wildshape and use beast shape, but the rest of the class is unchanged. Other instances of wildshape reference beast shape instead of polymorph, but are otherwise unchanged.

There are a bunch of other houserules, but those are the big ones. I keep the 3.5 skeleton because the group's familiar with it and too many altered minutae would have to be kept track of in a complete changeover.

ex cathedra

2011-03-24, 04:38 PM

No, ToB is unbalanced because it completely and totally replaces classes that came before it in the same roles. Which I have said multiple times.

That's not how "unbalanced" works. When comparing two classes in a vacuum, if one is strictly better than the other, they are both "unbalanced," relatively speaking. So, yes, when compared to the Fighter, the Warblade is unbalanced. Conversely, when compared to the Warblade, the Fighter is unbalanced. So, your point that ToB is unbalanced when compared to core melee is... irrelevant.

Core melee is unbalanced, in the grand scheme of things. ToB endeavors to be a balanced replacement, and it mostly succeeds in doing so.

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 04:38 PM

Proving that the common person's judgment cannot be trusted to make an informed decision is a legitimate rebuttal when discussing choices between two or more things.

It does nothing to support the claim that "for the most part, people think it is inferior".

We know that "popular" does not always mean "good". But that's still not what is being discussed, which is why nobody on these forums talks about it.

The correct answer is that most people here don't bother to treat it as a distinct system.

Psyren

2011-03-24, 04:38 PM

List of things that need fixing:

Every problem 3.5 had.

Various other additional problems.

Last I checked x + y is greater than x alone.

Bolded portion is plain wrong. PF doesn't fix everything, and it does have issues of its own - like every other system ever - but it does quite a few things right that 3.5 dropped the ball on. Example:skill consolidation, more feats, removal of xp payments, reasons to stay in your base class to 20, community playtests, and much better dev interaction.

x + y is indeed greater than x... but we're not starting from x, now are we?

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:38 PM

One of the most common points of the pro PF side is an attempt to defend non optimizers playing weak classes. In which case pointing out a non optimized Warblade does decently, and a non optimized PF Fighter is at least as bad as it's 3.5 equivalent is quite on topic. But thank you for shooting down your own argument. Not to mention, the core melee haven't worked in D&D in 3.5, and didn't work in 3rd, either. And they still don't in PF.
There are not Warblades in Pathfinder. Your attempt to mix argument only succeeds at causing you to fail at both of them.

If by balance casters you mean greatly improve their power, they did that.
In what way? The entire polymorph line was shafted, many save or dies were watered down. Etc.

WRONG ANSWER! The correct answer is "The core only Druid". Oh and you can take Lion Totem Barb at level 1, and Wolf Totem at 2, and get Pounce and Improved Trip.
Wrong answer is wrong. Bad grammar is right. I left out "not." Obviously trying to compile a ridiculous built is obviously trying to compile a ridiculous build. Any one of those classes in the tree to level 8 is better than the combination of them like that.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:40 PM

ToB makes the game as a whole (i.e. melee and casters) more balanced. Do you disagree with that?
ToB introduces competent melee classes that are slightly more on par with casters. Which of course has really nothing to do with their balance. In fact, that is why the book is imbalanced in 3.5.

Druid also completely replaces all of those classes. With its animal companion both serve the same role but the companion does it better. Unless of course you are complaining that ToB replaced the animal companion's role.
Now I see everyone trying to go "But casters are better at being meleers than meleers which makes casters imbalanced and ToB not!" I am pretty sure that is some logical fallacy.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:43 PM

Metamagic can only be applied to a spell if you can cast that spell at the level it would be adjusted to if adjust as printed in the feat, excepting automatic metamagic, such as swift abjuration and the Wu Jen's spell secrets.

Isn't that how metamagic is supposed to work anyway...

Firechanter

2011-03-24, 04:44 PM

Aaalright. Well I'll limit my reply to Pathfinder issues, since I've bitten on a troll's hook before and got an infraction forced down my throat for it.

When PF was in beta, I was at first very enthusiastic. It seemed to fix a lot of things that are not so great about D&D. For example the special attacks, grapple etc. vs. the Combat Maneuver system. Today however, I say that with the exception of Grapple rules, I actually like the D&D system better, even though it's more convoluted. Why? Because every special attack _feels_ unique. In PF, it's all the same mechanic, which may be good from a simplicity standpoint, but in game it feels like all the same fare; no difference whether you try to trip or disarm or whatever.

Secondly, I wasn't too thrilled with the PF class revamp. For example the Fighter: they made him better in melee by piling more combat bonuses on him. w00t. My main beef with the Fighter never was that he weren't able to fight (although some more edge there sure wouldn't hurt... him). My problem has been that he can do nothing else _but_ fight, and is utterly useless outside combat. So I'd have expected _at least_ more skillpoints per level and more class skills.
Or the Ranger: it looks like they wanted to throw some love at the class and couldn't agree on how to do it. So eventually they piled all sorts of abilities on it and made it look like one big pot of chocolate hashbrown chili pickle stew.

Thirdly, I wasn't too impressed with the new feat system either. It's a common truth that 3.X is too stingy with feats, so upping the allowance by 3 feats over 20 levels was a good move. But then they ruined it by making so many feats only "half effective" so you have to buy two instead of one, which for a whole build can easily mean you have fewer "full" feats to choose than before, which kind of defeats the purpose.

Finally, maybe a minor gripe, PF presents some problems for the seasoned 3.5 player because, seriously, who is going to read the _whole_ book when most of the rules are the same anyway? But some rules _are_ different, and those are easily missed.

That said, I would still recommend PF to new players who don't yet have any 3.5 stuff but want to try the 3.X/d20 system. I would not recommend anyone who has a yard of shelf-space filled with 3.5 stuff to switch to PF.

Boci

2011-03-24, 04:45 PM

ToB introduces competent melee classes that are slightly more on par with casters. Which of course has really nothing to do with their balance. In fact, that is why the book is imbalanced in 3.5.

That word you keep using, I don't think it means what you think it does. When comparing two classes in a vaccum, they could be balanced towards eachother, but if they are not, then both are unbalanced, not one of them.

Now I see everyone trying to go "But casters are better at being meleers than meleers which makes casters imbalanced and ToB not!" I am pretty sure that is some logical fallacy.

Why would it be a logical fallacy? Army surgeons are better at medicine than basic first aid students, but they can also fight. Ergo doctors are not unbalanced. Its logical (just imagine those professions as possible classes).

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:49 PM

Why would it be a logical fallacy? Army surgeons are better at medicine than a first aid worker, but they can also fight. Ergo doctors are not unbalanced. Its logical.
That wasn't the argument put forward.
The argument put forward is this: class A is better at class B's job than class B; however, class C is also better at class B's job than class B and therefore class A is not unbalanced.

The introduction of a third party does not magically negate the original difference between the first two.

The Glyphstone

2011-03-24, 04:49 PM

WRONG ANSWER! The correct answer is "The core only Druid". Oh and you can take Lion Totem Barb at level 1, and Wolf Totem at 2, and get Pounce and Improved Trip.

...this is completely wrong. Totem Barbarians are variants of the Barbarian class, not separate classes, and they're not Substitution Levels like you seem to think they are. You can't be a Abjurer 1/Evoker 1, and you can't be a Wolf Totem Barbarian 1/Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian 1 either.

Angry Bob

2011-03-24, 04:49 PM

Isn't that how metamagic is supposed to work anyway...

Not if you're using divine metamagic, recaster, incantatrix, arcane thesis, metamagic school focus...

This makes it so that in order to cast a persisted haste on yourself from a 3rd level slot with divine metamagic, you need to be able to cast 9th level spells.

ex cathedra

2011-03-24, 04:49 PM

Bolded portion is plain wrong. PF doesn't fix everything, and it does have issues of its own - like every other system ever - but it does quite a few things right that 3.5 dropped the ball on. Example:skill consolidation, more feats, removal of xp payments, reasons to stay in your base class to 20, community playtests, and much better dev interaction.

x + y is indeed greater than x... but we're not starting from x, now are we?

Skill Consolidation saves time and simplifies the game, but has little to no effect on actual class balance, an area in which 3.5's problems were actually exacerbated.

I... actually don't like getting more feats. Dunno. It feels like a cop-out, like feats are worth less. Not my cup of tea, and I fail to see how getting more feats is inherently more balancing.

XP payments weren't really broken... I don't see what you're getting at. Thought bottles are a different matter, but still.

Community playtests? The last I remember of those was... pathfinder beta. They kind of disregarded a lot of playtesting information from seasoned 3.5 players who had an eye for game imbalance, and the final PF product shows this.

Boci

2011-03-24, 04:51 PM

The introduction of a third party does not magically negate the original difference between the first two.

The third party being ToB?

Malevolence

2011-03-24, 04:51 PM

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 04:51 PM

Now I see everyone trying to go "But casters are better at being meleers than meleers which makes casters imbalanced and ToB not!" I am pretty sure that is some logical fallacy.

You know that logical fallacy you accused me of committing a few posts ago? Guess what you just did.

Casters are better at melee than core melee is. This means that casters are unbalanced, or it can mean that core melee is unbalanced. It can also mean both.

The interesting thing to take away from it is that being better at melee than core melee is not special -- which suggests (but doesn't prove) that it is core melee that is underpowered.

Nice red herring, by the way -- you still haven't addressed the first counter-argument put to you.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:52 PM

Not if you're using divine metamagic, recaster, incantatrix, arcane thesis, metamagic school focus...

A bunch of splat book introduced power creep doesn't really have anything to do with metamagic rules. The power creep item supplements metamagic's rules. The metamagic rules are still you can't cast a spell affected by metamagic unless you can cast a spell at that level normally.

Casters are better at melee than core melee is. This means that casters are unbalanced,
Yes. It does. It does not however mean ToB is not imbalanced.

Boci

2011-03-24, 04:52 PM

A bunch of splat book introduced power creep doesn't really have anything to do with metamagic rules. The power creep item supplements metamagic's rules. The metamagic rules are still you can't cast a spell affected by metamagic unless you can cast a spell at that level normally.

Metamagic rods.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:54 PM

Metamagic rods.
Again, supplement metamagic rules.

However, if he is going to remove all those rules supplementations, you almost entirely void the point of using any of them.

ex cathedra

2011-03-24, 04:54 PM

That wasn't the argument put forward.
The argument put forward is this: class A is better at class B's job than class B; however, class C is also better at class B's job than class B and therefore class A is not unbalanced.

The introduction of a third party does not magically negate the original difference between the first two.

The underlying issue here is that you're putting forth class A as the source of the imbalance, while in truth the actual imbalance is caused by the inherent differences between classes B and C, and class A is nothing but a supplement that attempts to remedy this.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:56 PM

Persistent Spell.
Forcing another saving throw of the same level at the cost of increasing its spell level by makes Pathfinder more powerful.. how?

Angry Bob

2011-03-24, 04:56 PM

Again, supplement metamagic rules.

However, if he is going to remove all those rules supplementations, you almost entirely void the point of using any of them.

The most unbalanced thing about those metamagic reducers was letting you use metamagic effects many levels before you should be able to. Simply banning them seemed harsh. So I reached a compromise.

The Glyphstone

2011-03-24, 04:57 PM

Forcing another saving throw of the same level at the cost of increasing its spell level by makes Pathfinder more powerful.. how?

He may not know that Pathfinder rewrote Persistent Spell, and is talking about the old Persistent Spell - the one that was busted with metamagic cheese.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:58 PM

The underlying issue here is that you're putting forth class A as the source of the imbalance, while in truth the actual imbalance is caused by the inherent differences between classes B and C, and class A is nothing but a supplement that attempts to remedy this.
You are again pretending a third party negates the difference between two things. It. Does. Not. Class C is still better than Class B if Class A exists. You can't shuffle the targets around and make the same false assertion.

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 04:59 PM

Yes. It does. It does not however mean ToB is not imbalanced.

It supports the conclusion that core melee is not a useful balance point. It might not prove it on its own, but it's still worth bringing up.

That wasn't the argument put forward.
The argument put forward is this: class A is better at class B's job than class B; however, class C is also better at class B's job than class B and therefore class A is not unbalanced.

No, it isn't. It's that class B is not a useful comparison because class C is superior as well.

Boci

2011-03-24, 04:59 PM

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 04:59 PM

He may not know that Pathfinder rewrote Persistent Spell, and is talking about the old Persistent Spell - the one that was busted with metamagic cheese.
I would hope not. That would kill his credibility on the Pathfinder debate.

Yet that is exactly what you are doing with the imbalanced of core melee vs. magic.
..what? How?

arguskos

2011-03-24, 05:00 PM

...this is completely wrong. Totem Barbarians are variants of the Barbarian class, not separate classes, and they're not Substitution Levels like you seem to think they are. You can't be a Abjurer 1/Evoker 1, and you can't be a Wolf Totem Barbarian 1/Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian 1 either.
Actually, yes you can do that. Wolf Totem from Unearthed Arcana replaces Uncanny Dodge (and some other stuff) while Spirit Lion Totem from Complete Champion replaces Fast Movement, so yes, you can totally do what he said. You are a Barbarian 2 with the Spirit Lion Totem and Wolf Totem variant class features.

If you wish to correct the barbarian totems, make sure you check which ones are in use, since there's two sets of "totems". It gets confusing, leading to this sorta situation. :smallwink:

Boci

2011-03-24, 05:02 PM

..what? How?

By insisting that ToB is unbalanced because it is equal to casters but not to core melee. If we accept that is true, you are handwaving aside a fix to core's unbalance.

ex cathedra

2011-03-24, 05:04 PM

You are again pretending a third party negates the difference between two things. It. Does. Not. Class C is still better than Class B if Class A exists. You can't shuffle the targets around and make the same false assertion.

I'm... what? I don't know what you're talking about. Yes, Class C (Let's say, Cleric) is better than Class B (Barbarian) regardless of whether or not Class A (ToB) exists. How is that a counterargument? I never said that Class A would make Class B balanced. Replacing class B with class A, however, lowers the relative amount of imbalance between Class C and everything else.

Nothing there points to Class A being unbalanced.

nyarlathotep

2011-03-24, 05:05 PM

I would hope not. That would kill his credibility on the Pathfinder debate.

..what? How?

What everyone is saying about ToB is that it should replace core melee. Games run smoother and are more balanced if you simply get replace fighter, monk, and paladin with warblade, swordsage, and crusader. This makes the the game more balanced. Claiming the ToB is imbalanced because it replaces fighters may technically true, but that doesn't matter because balance is thrown out the window if you play with core melee and core casters anyways. It works even better if you replace sorcerers and wizards with specialized casters like dread necro, warmage, and beguiler (with homebrew conjuration, transmutation, and divination specialists also added). Cleric becomes favored soul. The only classes salvageable from core if you want balance are barbarian and bard.

Wanna fix 3.5 ban core.

Malevolence

2011-03-24, 05:06 PM

Pathfinder is at least as good a 3.5 on its face and it will only improve because everything that gets released will be built coherent with everything else. The developers and their rigid design philosophy completely unrelated to balance will, however, hamper that improvement.

Persistent Spell.

Bolded portion is plain wrong. PF doesn't fix everything, and it does have issues of its own - like every other system ever - but it does quite a few things right that 3.5 dropped the ball on. Example:skill consolidation, more feats, removal of xp payments, reasons to stay in your base class to 20, community playtests, and much better dev interaction.

x + y is indeed greater than x... but we're not starting from x, now are we?

In order: Stolen from Saga, but done much more poorly than it. More feats is meaningless if you then nerf feats, and is even more meaningless if you only nerf some feats. Namely, the non caster ones. Removal of XP payments makes those things more broken, not less as crafting and such is now better than ever, even before counting infinite money loops. Which are still there, and now truly do mean infinite power. The 1 HP/level thing is mainly a caster buff. The others still aren't worth taking 1-20. The last two are completely false.

There are not Warblades in Pathfinder. Your attempt to mix argument only succeeds at causing you to fail at both of them.

That is precisely the point. The things that would make their argument true are not there, ergo they are wrong.

In what way? The entire polymorph line was shafted, many save or dies were watered down. Etc.

It was never about Polymorph. Making necromancers suck means people stop being necromancers. But since there are still seven other schools, and most of the others do not suck you haven't succeeded in making casters less powerful, only in making the game less interesting by virtue of it having fewer options.

Wrong answer is wrong. Bad grammar is right. I left out "not." Obviously trying to compile a ridiculous built is obviously trying to compile a ridiculous build. Any one of those classes in the tree to level 8 is better than the combination of them like that.

I can has beer? Because I'm going to need a few if this discussion continues.

But seriously. Fighter is trash past level 2, maybe 4, and 6 with Dungeoncrasher. 8 is unacceptable. Rogue is trash past 2, unless you buy into that epic bonus feat thing in which case they might last ten levels. Psychic Warrior is good. Barbarian is trash past 2. So you can draw up a somewhat fair comparison between a Psychic Warrior 8 and a generic beatstick with a lot of bonus feats and Evasion, and Pounce but that's about it. In all other cases, you are abusing front loaded classes, getting out while you still can, and still being infinitely inferior to a pure class core only Druid.

ToB introduces competent melee classes that are slightly more on par with casters. Which of course has really nothing to do with their balance. In fact, that is why the book is imbalanced in 3.5.

ToB helped fix imbalance, so it's imbalanced.

...Explains a lot.

...this is completely wrong. Totem Barbarians are variants of the Barbarian class, not separate classes, and they're not Substitution Levels like you seem to think they are. You can't be a Abjurer 1/Evoker 1, and you can't be a Wolf Totem Barbarian 1/Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian 1 either.

Lion Totem from CC, Wolf Totem from UA. You can't multiclass Abjurer and Evoker, but those aren't the same thing.

ex cathedra

2011-03-24, 05:07 PM

NineThePuma

2011-03-24, 05:07 PM

The Glyphstone

2011-03-24, 05:10 PM

Actually, yes you can do that. Wolf Totem from Unearthed Arcana replaces Uncanny Dodge (and some other stuff) while Spirit Lion Totem from Complete Champion replaces Fast Movement, so yes, you can totally do what he said. You are a Barbarian 2 with the Spirit Lion Totem and Wolf Totem variant class features.

If you wish to correct the barbarian totems, make sure you check which ones are in use, since there's two sets of "totems". It gets confusing, leading to this sorta situation. :smallwink:

That's why I specified Spirit Lion (with Pounce), while he mistakenly said Lion Totem. And while they replace different features, you still can't have them both, because they're both chosen at 1st level (Unearthed Arcana, page 48). Wolf Totem doesn't actually get any benefits until 2nd level, but it's still selected when you first enter the class. Unearthed Arcana variants were written before any of the others - it's an actual variant class, not a variant class feature...those are later in the book and can be mix-and-matched. You could be a Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian just fine.

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 05:10 PM

Again, supplement metamagic rules.

Metamagic rods are core...

I would hope not. That would kill his credibility on the Pathfinder debate.

Making a mistake doesn't magically make your arguments invalid, actually. Nor does making severeal.

Psyren

2011-03-24, 05:10 PM

Skill Consolidation saves time and simplifies the game, but has little to no effect on actual class balance, an area in which 3.5's problems were actually exacerbated.

Sure it does. In 3.5, Wizards can (if they want to) outjump, outclimb and outswim fighters just because these activities are all require separate skill point expenditures - points that fighters don't have a whole lot of to begin with. And they don't even need to spend points in these areas due to spells. Which brings me to your second point:

I... actually don't like getting more feats. Dunno. It feels like a cop-out, like feats are worth less. Not my cup of tea, and I fail to see how getting more feats is inherently more balancing.

Again, you're not thinking from the perspective of a martial class. Feats are their bread and butter. Casters get spells, which are already better than feats, PLUS they can use the feats they do get to make those spells even better.

And I'm sorry if you don't like more feats, but I do. More options means more class concepts, which in turn means great build diversity.

XP payments weren't really broken... I don't see what you're getting at. Thought bottles are a different matter, but still.

XP costs and level drain let players enable all kinds of shenanigans, including de-leveling themselves to get out of RHD and trading in levels in a weaker class (used for qualification) to get into a stronger one. And XP costs themselves are a false cost - you end up behind the rest of the party, a drawback you immediately overcome because you are now earning XP faster than they are. XP is a river but GP is not - set yourself back there and you stay behind (unless the party is generous) forcing you to either carefully consider what you spend it on or forcing the party to chip in and distribute costs evenly.

Community playtests? The last I remember of those was... pathfinder beta. They kind of disregarded a lot of playtesting information from seasoned 3.5 players who had an eye for game imbalance, and the final PF product shows this.

Where have you been? :smallconfused:

Even the more recent classes (e.g. the Magus) got a playtest, and this was December 2010. And, might I add, Paizo's playtests are free, since they realize that more accessibility means more feedback - something WotC has yet to grasp.

ex cathedra

2011-03-24, 05:11 PM

Guys, I have a question for you all.

"At what point does your debate assist in answering the OP's question?"

He asked a specific question, and your devolving this topic into what amounts to a childish argument about two subjects that don't actually have anything to do with each other, and also have near nothing to do with the OP's question.

Now, be the bigger (wo)man, and stop responding. Seriously, all you're doing is making this place look like 4chan on a good day.

There's not really any hard-and-fast answer to the OP's question (which was hardly a question at all; it was more of a "I play pathfinder, why don't you play pathfinder too, playground?") that hasn't already been stated, and the thread has turned to a related piece of conversation. So it goes.

Firechanter

2011-03-24, 05:12 PM

Wolf Totem from Unearthed Arcana replaces Uncanny Dodge (and some other stuff) while Spirit Lion Totem from Complete Champion replaces Fast Movement, so yes, you can totally do what he said. You are a Barbarian 2 with the Spirit Lion Totem and Wolf Totem variant class features.

That smells of cheese from Holland all the way to South Australia. If you look at totem mythology, any person can have only _one_ totem. Trying to pick two totems is like wanting to have two Zodiac signs. I'd tap my forehead to any player who tried to pull that off in one of my games.

arguskos

2011-03-24, 05:12 PM

That's why I specified Spirit Lion (with Pounce), while he mistakenly said Lion Totem. And while they replace different features, you still can't have them both, because they're both chosen at 1st level (Unearthed Arcana, page 48). Wolf Totem doesn't actually get any benefits until 2nd level, but it's still selected when you first enter the class.
Uh... so? They replace DIFFERENT THINGS. Spirit Lion and Wolf do not replace the same things, so you can totally take them both, nothing is stopping that, not even the text in UA. When he said "Pounce" he was obviously talking about Spirit Lion, not Lion, and you clearly knew that. Being *that* level of picky about your semantics isn't helpful. :smalltongue:

Ok, if you're going to take the tack of "it's a variant class", it still doesn't matter. A Wolf Totem Barbarian has Fast Movement, which can be swapped for Pounce via Spirit Lion. It remains legal.

EDIT: Firechanter, that's nice, but not relevant here. This is RAW-only, and it *is* legal. If you don't permit it, ok, just warn your players so they don't do it. :smallwink:

Malevolence

2011-03-24, 05:14 PM

Again, supplement metamagic rules.

However, if he is going to remove all those rules supplementations, you almost entirely void the point of using any of them.

Because metamagic rods come from a completely unbalanced non core book?

Forcing another saving throw of the same level at the cost of increasing its spell level by makes Pathfinder more powerful.. how?

He may not know that Pathfinder rewrote Persistent Spell, and is talking about the old Persistent Spell - the one that was busted with metamagic cheese.

Lumping them both together because they're the same point.

Because making the enemy have to save save or lose is significantly more powerful than merely saving or losing. In fact, it is worth about +5 to spell DCs. All of them. To achieve similar in 3.5, you'd need a whole list of feats and a specific build. Nope, just do it. Even better, get a rod of it. +2 metamagic rods are cheap. Even if you ignore the pricing error that makes them even cheaper.

This is both significantly better than 3.5 Persistent Spell, which is only usable with metamagic substitution and as a +6 is much more expensive, and significantly more imbalance inducing, as 3.5 Persist is a party buff tool, and PF Persist just means you spam save or lose spells more effectively. One is selfless, one is selfish. Guess what type of caster is a gamebreaker and which is not?

DeltaEmil

2011-03-24, 05:16 PM

That's why I specified Spirit Lion (with Pounce), while he mistakenly said Lion Totem. And while they replace different features, you still can't have them both, because they're both chosen at 1st level (Unearthed Arcana, page 48). Wolf Totem doesn't actually get any benefits until 2nd level, but it's still selected when you first enter the class. Unearthed Arcana variants were written before any of the others - it's an actual variant class, not a variant class feature...those are later in the book and can be mix-and-matched.You still wrote that one couldn't be a Wolf Totem Barbarian 1 (which is from Unearthed Arcana) and a Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian 1 (which comes Complete Champion). Which technically is correct, but rather because the Spiritual Lion Totem is a class feature, not a variant class in itself. So to be technically accurate, you'd be a Wolf Totem Barbarian with the Spiritual Lion Totem class feature which replaces fast movement chosen at level 1.

Psyren

2011-03-24, 05:18 PM

In order: Stolen from Saga, but done much more poorly than it.

Saga? I thought you were comparing Pathfinder to D&D. How did Saga end up as part of this?

More feats is meaningless if you then nerf feats, and is even more meaningless if you only nerf some feats. Namely, the non caster ones.

They look fine to me. Any examples you'd like to share?

Removal of XP payments makes those things more broken, not less as crafting and such is now better than ever, even before counting infinite money loops. Which are still there, and now truly do mean infinite power.

Yes, if you abuse a system externally then it does indeed stop functioning.
Infinite money loops, last I checked, are not an assumption of the crafting system under either PF or 3.5.

The others still aren't worth taking 1-20. The last two are completely false.

I still disagree.

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 05:19 PM

Because making the enemy have to save save or lose is significantly more powerful than merely saving or losing. In fact, it is worth about +5 to spell DCs. All of them.

It's only equivalent to a +5 when the target originally had an even chance of saving -- i.e. when everyone was starting out equal before taking the feat into account.

Or, in other words, a contest where one side gets more build resources than the other favours the side with more build points. Mind == Blown.

Boci

2011-03-24, 05:20 PM

Trying to pick two totems is like wanting to have two Zodiac signs.

No, its like trying to learn the secret of forging a katana from a master forger in the city of Grento on the edge of the Blue Moon Lake and the secret of making of tameing a golden eagle to be your companion from the lead hunter of the Agraxa Tribe who dwell on the foothills of the Nomraki Mountain range. Difficult, but not impossible.

Malevolence

2011-03-24, 05:21 PM

And I'm sorry if you don't like more feats, but I do. More options means more class concepts, which in turn means great build diversity.

Only when feats are good.

Even the more recent classes (e.g. the Magus) got a playtest, and this was December 2010. And, might I add, Paizo's playtests are free, since they realize that more accessibility means more feedback - something WotC has yet to grasp.

Magus: I am a Duskblade, but worse.

That smells of cheese from Holland all the way to South Australia. If you look at totem mythology, any person can have only _one_ totem. Trying to pick two totems is like wanting to have two Zodiac signs. I'd tap my forehead to any player who tried to pull that off in one of my games.

It's a beatstick. It can go all out and cannot even come close to breaking the game. By all means, don't allow them to have nice things, but don't make out as if he's actually doing something powerful.

ex cathedra

2011-03-24, 05:23 PM

Sure it does. In 3.5, Wizards can (if they want to) outjump, outclimb and outswim fighters just because these activities are all require separate skill point expenditures - points that fighters don't have a whole lot of to begin with. And they don't even need to spend points in these areas due to spells. Which brings me to your second point:

But... those had relatively little effect on balance. I mean, sure, it's a minor boost to fighters, but it's also a larger boost to casters who get to do whatever they want with their skillpoints.

Again, you're not thinking from the perspective of a martial class. Feats are their bread and butter. Casters get spells, which are already better than feats, PLUS they can use the feats they do get to make those spells even better.

And I'm sorry if you don't like more feats, but I do. More options means more class concepts, which in turn means great build diversity.

Getting more feats makes fighters better, yes, but it also makes casters better. Significantly. Couple that with the largely reduced value of fighter feats in PF, and it seems like casters have come out ahead on value per feat yet again.
If you want greater build diversity, why don't you play 3.5?

XP costs and level drain let players enable all kinds of shenanigans, including de-leveling themselves to get out of RHD and trading in levels in a weaker class (used for qualification) to get into a stronger one. And XP costs themselves are a false cost - you end up behind the rest of the party, a drawback you immediately overcome because you are now earning XP faster than they are. XP is a river but GP is not - set yourself back there and you stay behind (unless the party is generous) forcing you to either carefully consider what you spend it on or forcing the party to chip in and distribute costs evenly.

XP-costs != level drain. Level drain WAS broken. XP costs from spells and crafting? Not broken. Yes, XP is a river, and you can use XP costs to your benefit if you plan carefully and have a good grasp of system knowledge. However, this does not outright break the game, rather it simply grants you some helpful bonuses.

Where have you been? :smallconfused:

Even the more recent classes (e.g. the Magus) got a playtest, and this was December 2010. And, might I add, Paizo's playtests are free, since they realize that more accessibility means more feedback - something WotC has yet to grasp.

Okay, so, that was an outright lie on my part. Oh well. I guess I was just looking for an excuse to refer back to the pathfinder beta playtests.

If you're interested in obtaining a free, legal source of 3.5-esque d20 roleplaying, then Pathfinder is a good option. You've got me there. I don't give much thought to the cost of books.

Psyren

2011-03-24, 05:23 PM

Magus: I am a Duskblade, but worse.

I really don't follow your argument. First you say there are no playtests, I point out playtests, then you switch to saying you just don't like the class as though that has anything to do with Pathfinder in general.

If you don't like PF then fine, but trumping up prejudices like this is really only relevant to you.

The Glyphstone

2011-03-24, 05:24 PM

Uh... so? They replace DIFFERENT THINGS. Spirit Lion and Wolf do not replace the same things, so you can totally take them both, nothing is stopping that, not even the text in UA. When he said "Pounce" he was obviously talking about Spirit Lion, not Lion, and you clearly knew that. Being *that* level of picky about your semantics isn't helpful. :smalltongue:

Actually, you should check the sidebar on p.48 as well - Multiclassing Variant Classes.

"In cases where a single class offers a variety of paths (such as the totem barbarian or the monk's fighting styles), the easiest solution is to simply bar multiclassing between different versions of the same class (just as a character can't multiclass between different versions of specialist wizards). For variants that are wholely separate from the character class - such as the bardic sage or the urban ranger - multiclassing, even into multiple variants of the same class, is probably okay.

Choosing both Wolf Totem and Spirit Lion Totem is absolutely an example of the first type, not the second. You can always rule otherwise, particularly since we're dealing with rules variants in the first place, but the only book in which this issue is even remotely addressed suggests not to - not to mention the fluff issues of totem-spirit-shopping. Now, if this was in an actual game I was running, I'd have no problem assisting in a refluffing of the two variants to become one (Wolf is one of the few totems that doesn't get a Fast-Movement substitution) - but as far as RAW can be defined when UA gets involved, it's against it.

Firechanter

2011-03-24, 05:28 PM

@Malevolence: it's not as if I begrudged a player to have nice things, especially for melee classes -- more power to them! Wolf Totem also isn't even that good, the swapped-out abilities are certainly not overpowered (I'd much rather have Uncanny Dodge). I guess I'm just allergic to the fluff nonsense, which as I said is like having two birthdays.
I guess if the player really wanted it, I'd just let him have it but ignore the "Totem" fluff bit. It's not like I'm the big ole meanie DM that takes delight in shafting his players, I just want it to be coherent.

Angry Bob

2011-03-24, 05:30 PM

UA Totem Barbarian is a variant barbarian class. Spirit Totem is an alternative class feature replacing the barbarian's fast movement. A Wolf totem barbarian is still a)a barbarian and b)still has fast movement to trade out, qualifying him for a spirit totem.

I mean, the "two birthdays" problem aside.

Malevolence

2011-03-24, 05:31 PM

Saga? I thought you were comparing Pathfinder to D&D. How did Saga end up as part of this?

Saga is the original source of similar skills being combined together. It did so well before PF exists. Any credit for such goes to Saga, not PF. Additionally, PF's take on it is rather poor.

They look fine to me. Any examples you'd like to share?

Power Attack to Power Attack. Anything relating to combat maneuvers to the exact same things. Mage Slayer, from Complete Warrior of all things to... the multiple feats that are collectively inferior to it alone. Things like Step Up, that literally have no effect because you could already do that, for free. And it isn't even a stealth nerf, the ability to 5 foot step as part of a readied action is still there. Meanwhile, feats aimed at casters are the same, and in some cases are better, so getting more feats actually does mean getting more feats.

Yes, if you abuse a system externally then it does indeed stop functioning.
Infinite money loops, last I checked, are not an assumption of the crafting system under either PF or 3.5.

Even ignoring those, double wealth, but limited by your ability to spend XP is worse than double wealth, no drawback. And that's the difference between 3.5 crafting and PF crafting. In 3.5 you ride the river and get it back, but in PF you don't have to.

I still disagree.

You are welcome to do so. It does not stop those things from being true.

It's only equivalent to a +5 when the target originally had an even chance of saving -- i.e. when the result was almost certainly comparable to flipping a coin.

Given what the opponent might have to counteract it, it isn't inherently bad.

Typical success rate of save or loses = 50-75%. Persistent Spell instantly makes this 75%-93.75%. Now consider you will have multiple casters, and lots of them...

arguskos

2011-03-24, 05:31 PM

Choosing both Wolf Totem and Spirit Lion Totem is absolutely an example of the first type, not the second. You can always rule otherwise, particularly since we're dealing with rules variants in the first place, but the only book in which this issue is even remotely addressed suggests not to - not to mention the fluff issues of totem-spirit-shopping. Now, if this was in an actual game I was running, I'd have no problem assisting in a refluffing of the two variants to become one (Wolf is one of the few totems that doesn't get a Fast-Movement substitution) - but as far as RAW can be defined when UA gets involved, it's against it.
No, it's not. Wolf Totem is a class. Spirit Lion is not. You can bar multi-classing between the same classes (wise decision, by the by), but that's not the case here.

Spirit Lion is a substitution, not a class. Therefore, the suggestion (which is all that it is, by the way, if one wants to be super technical about it) is irrelevant. There is no text anywhere in anything saying you cannot combine a class with a substitution. Therefore, you can combine the Wolf Totem Barbarian class with the Spirit Lion Totem substitution for Barbarians (which Wolf Totem is). I see no firm base here. In fact, let's take this to the RAW thread so Curmudgeon can figure it out. He's basically Mr. RAW Guy, so if anyone can provide clear rulings, it'll be him.

If you want to argue fluff, fine. Fluff is mutable (says so in the DMG like four times). Change the fluff involved so it works. Say your clan had a half-wolf, half-lion as its patron or something.

DeltaEmil

2011-03-24, 05:32 PM

Choosing both Wolf Totem and Spirit Lion Totem is absolutely an example of the first type, not the second. Fortunately, Spirit Lion Totem (or more precisely "Spiritual Totem: Lion") is an alternate class feature that doesn't conflict at all.

You can always rule otherwise, particularly since we're dealing with rules variants in the first place, but the only book in which this issue is even remotely addressed suggests not to - not to mention the fluff issues of totem-spirit-shopping. Now, if this was in an actual game I was running, I'd have no problem assisting in a refluffing of the two variants to become one (Wolf is one of the few totems that doesn't get a Fast-Movement substitution) - but as far as RAW can be defined when UA gets involved, it's against it.There is no fluff issues. You're just more pantheistic (or panspiritual in that case) than normal.

arguskos

2011-03-24, 05:35 PM

Malevolence

2011-03-24, 05:37 PM

I really don't follow your argument. First you say there are no playtests, I point out playtests, then you switch to saying you just don't like the class as though that has anything to do with Pathfinder in general.

If you don't like PF then fine, but trumping up prejudices like this is really only relevant to you.

When did I say there were no playtests? As opposed to making fun of their quality? Which is exactly what I did in the jab at the Magus. My argument has been very consistent. It's not about not liking the Magus. It's about the Magus failing at its job. And the reason why it did so is directly the fault of the playtesters, who gave exactly the wrong sorts of feedback, and the developers who also did the wrong things.

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 05:38 PM

Typical success rate of save or loses = 50-75%. Persistent Spell instantly makes this 75%-93.75%. Now consider you will have multiple casters, and lots of them...

You're taking an initially-balanced test, giving one side an extra feat and extra class features, and then claiming that it is the feat that is unbalanced, as opposed to the test. Your reasoning is off.

The Glyphstone

2011-03-24, 05:40 PM

Tell you what guys, I moved this to the RAW thread. Check it out here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10624766#post10624766). Let's await a ruling and see what happens.

Glyph, if I have misrepresented your argument, please edit the post appropriately with your exact argument. I want to give you proper representation, of course. :smallsmile:

It's a good enough summary. Personally, I think you guys have managed to convince me that it works (again, as much as 'works' can be applied when the wonkiness that is UA gets involved) - it's just the fluff aspects that bother me, and I love refluffing anyways. A third party opinion is a fine way to settle it though.

arguskos

2011-03-24, 05:41 PM

It's a good enough summary. Personally, I think you guys have managed to convince me that it works (again, as much as 'works' can be applied when the wonkiness that is UA gets involved) - it's just the fluff aspects that bother me, and I love refluffing anyways. A third party opinion is a fine way to settle it though.
Fluff is mutable, thank god. Like I said, a half-wolf half-lion is the most rapid method to do it, if clunky. There's probably hundreds of methods to do it though. :smallwink:

The Glyphstone

2011-03-24, 05:44 PM

Well, now that that's settled, I should probably do my job, which is why I came in here to begin with.

Great Modthulhu: Please remain civil when discussing or debating the merits of various systems or editions. The prohibitions defined under Flaming and Trolling apply as much to 3.0 vs. 3.5 vs. PF as they do to 3.X vs. 4.X. This is directed at all posters currently in the thread. Thank you.

Burble.

ooknabah

2011-03-24, 05:44 PM

Wow, that exploded fast.

I guess I just figured that more people would be into Pathfinder since it's the only actively supported 3.5-ish game out there (that I'm aware of!). Like I said, the main reason my group moved over was because we lost a whole bunch of 3.5 books, and since they've become increasingly scarce it was figured that it would be worth it to just migrate over to a new system and start from scratch.

A few points here:

I know the retail price of the core book is $50, but you can grab it off Amazon for closer to $35, which is a steal IMO since you're getting what would be the PHB and pertinent sections of the DMG in the old 3.5 verse. Imagine, multiple players might want to peruse the magic items list while spending loot!

I also find that Pathfinder does a very good job giving players a reason to take a core class from 1-20 and included many options to allow characters to carve out their own niche and flexibility to conform to player choices much better. The skill system, for one, is a great idea, as is a lot of the rules now using the CMD and CMB.

I also found towards the end of playing 3.5 that we had to house rule more and more frequently to keep new material from unbalancing the game. Either that or new material would be so weak (I'm looking at you Tome of Magic) so as to be pretty much useless.

Psyren

2011-03-24, 05:49 PM

Thank you for the succinct summary ook. I couldn't agree more.

And now to avoid tentacly wrath I will be exiting this thread. (Burble.)

ex cathedra

2011-03-24, 05:50 PM

I also found towards the end of playing 3.5 that we had to house rule more and more frequently to keep new material from unbalancing the game. Either that or new material would be so weak (I'm looking at you Tome of Magic) so as to be pretty much useless.

Well... Binders were pretty cool... :smallfrown:

On topic, though, I feel that pathfinder needs just as many if not more houserules than core 3.5...

The Glyphstone

2011-03-24, 05:55 PM

Well... Binders were pretty cool... :smallfrown:

On topic, though, I feel that pathfinder needs just as many if not more houserules than 3.5...

That's close to how I treat it. I use Pathfinder as a mine for houserules - the skill point to skill rank system was the first thing I yanked, along with the Favored Class system. I don't like CMD/CMB though, so I left that alone - most of the base classes I don't replace, but certain prestige classes (Dragon Disciple, Arcane Archer) get upgraded to their PF counterparts. My version of 3.5 is riddled with houserules anyways, so it doesn't make too much of a splash in my total rules department.

Malevolence

2011-03-24, 05:58 PM

You're taking an initially-balanced test, giving one side an extra feat and extra class features, and then claiming that it is the feat that is unbalanced, as opposed to the test. Your reasoning is off.

...What are you talking about? No really, I'm not being facetious, I really do want to know how this follows the statement you responded to.

ex cathedra

2011-03-24, 06:00 PM

My version of 3.5 is riddled with houserules anyways, so it doesn't make too much of a splash in my total rules department.

Honestly, that's just as most reasonable 3.5 games should be. That says something about the system, to be fair, but the same can be said of PF. I prefer it to PF, but I'm well aware that neither of them are anywhere near perfection. I'm just happy that the d20 system is as mutable as it is, I suppose.

@Malevolence:
He's pointing out that the character using Persistent spell is in a specific situation, and has advantages that the defending creature lacks.

lesser_minion

2011-03-24, 06:07 PM

...What are you talking about? No really, I'm not being facetious, I really do want to know how this follows the statement you responded to.

It follows your argument.

Persistent spell makes the most difference in an otherwise fair contest (whether or not it cost both sides equal amounts to get to this point is not important -- this is about feat balance, not class balance).

If you then give one side a feat, it's not a fair test any more, so the fact that the caster starts winning more often isn't a sign that the feat is unbalanced.

Overall, if giving the other side an extra feat as well would provide them with a way to get around the Persistent Spell, then Persistent Spell is balanced -- and even if that isn't true, whether or not Persistent Spell ends up balanced depends on the scenario and the relationships that the designers are trying to establish.

You're not considering enough of the picture.

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 06:11 PM

Persistent Spell.

Since my reply to this was inexplicably removed. How does that make Pathfinder more powerful?

Aspenor

2011-03-24, 06:23 PM

I really don't follow your argument. First you say there are no playtests, I point out playtests, then you switch to saying you just don't like the class as though that has anything to do with Pathfinder in general.

If you don't like PF then fine, but trumping up prejudices like this is really only relevant to you.

Playtests are irrelevant when you don't actually listen to the people giving feedback. The Paizo forums are completely hostile to people that actually put forth the effort to demonstrate the failures of the system. Crank a bunch of numbers and show mathematical proof something doesn't work? Get banned.

What this results in is that the only people that playtest are people that don't actually offer constructive criticism. Simply put, Paizo does not actually want any playtesting, they just want a bunch of cheerleaders.

Knaight

2011-03-24, 06:35 PM

1) Saga is the original source of similar skills being combined together. It did so well before PF exists. Any credit for such goes to Saga, not PF. Additionally, PF's take on it is rather poor.

2) Power Attack to Power Attack. Anything relating to combat maneuvers to the exact same things. Mage Slayer, from Complete Warrior of all things to... the multiple feats that are collectively inferior to it alone. Things like Step Up, that literally have no effect because you could already do that, for free. And it isn't even a stealth nerf, the ability to 5 foot step as part of a readied action is still there. Meanwhile, feats aimed at casters are the same, and in some cases are better, so getting more feats actually does mean getting more feats.

3) Even ignoring those, double wealth, but limited by your ability to spend XP is worse than double wealth, no drawback. And that's the difference between 3.5 crafting and PF crafting. In 3.5 you ride the river and get it back, but in PF you don't have to.
Taking these points one by one, having split them up:
1) SAGA is the first famous d20 adaptation to consolidate skills. It is by no means the first game, skill breadth has varied highly since the 80's with plenty of games with consolidated skills. For that matter, one could go so far as to claim SAGA lifted most of its skill lists from other games and as such didn't innovate. The source is irrelevant, and if SAGA is better than D&D in the respect of skill consolidation due to lessened skills, then so is Pathfinder. If one wants to bring up how the skills are consolidated it gets more complex, and of course skills are such a trivial part of the d20 system that the general importance of this is irrelevant.

2) Pretty much all true. Power Attack deserves special mention here, it was so critical to melee and utterly crushed by Pathfinder.

3) In 3.5 you spent a bunch of time accounting for benefit, in Pathfinder you just get an absurd benefit. Its a lose lose situation.

Akal Saris

2011-03-24, 06:42 PM

I think the main reason for the lack of Pathfinder threads here is, that there's a very active official PF forum. If you ask here, it takes some time until someone who knows a lot about the game replies. In the PF-forum, every poster knows the game and usually plays it a lot. You'll get replies to even obscure questions much faster there.

I'd agree with that - it's more forum demographics than it is any inherent problem with PF's ruleset. Personally I now run my games as PF with 3.5 materials allowed, but I still label most of my threads as 3.5, since that's what people are familiar with.

If I remember correctly, PF is the 2nd-most popular RPG in stores after D&D 4E right now, so it's not really lack of popularity. But look at the 4E subforum - 4E is a very popular game, but the subforum here is tiny, because the community is elsewhere, probably on the official game forums.

Playtests are irrelevant when you don't actually listen to the people giving feedback. The Paizo forums are completely hostile to people that actually put forth the effort to demonstrate the failures of the system. Crank a bunch of numbers and show mathematical proof something doesn't work? Get banned.

What this results in is that the only people that playtest are people that don't actually offer constructive criticism. Simply put, Paizo does not actually want any playtesting, they just want a bunch of cheerleaders.

I'm not disputing your argument here, but I'll point out that a lot of the posters who offered "constructive criticism" during the playtests and were subsequently banned were baiting other posters and being generally offensive. Quite frankly, many members of the CO crowd are far too full of themselves and unwilling to admit when they're wrong, and I think it definitely influenced the PF forum mods, who simply started banning them. Nobody is going to ban you for posting numbers showing that fighters aren't any better off in PF than in 3.5. It's doing so in a 20pg rage thread and calling other posters idiots that gets you banned.

I saw quite a lot of constructive criticism during the APG playtesting, by the way. It resulted in some good changes, like the alchemist gaining several useful abilities and a significant power boost, and some lame changes, such as the summoner having a list of summoner-specific exceptions and rules 10 pages long, since the devs tried to patch every loophole that playtesters found, and ended up with a very difficult-to-understand class.

subject42

2011-03-24, 06:42 PM

The game itself is at least par with 3.5, if not slightly better. It's the people in charge that are really going to be the problem with the game.

All that is honestly a very silly position to hold.

First off, dang this thread has wandered all over the place.

Secondly, I'm going to agree with Cartigan wholeheartedly. PF has been a boon to me as a DM. The CMB/CMD system, while a little mathematically inferior for SpikedChain von Ubertripper, saves me a ton of time. Also, it's incredibly more accessible for new players. I have NO idea why this is, but new players pick up the rules faster and more fluidly than I've ever seen in 3.5.

Unfortunately, every time I read an official proclamation from the creator, I usually have to expend real effort not to just sit at my desk and facepalm for a while. My biggest worry is that they'll end up driving a nice concept straight into the ground.

Firechanter

2011-03-24, 07:07 PM

I'm not following the recent PF developments, any gems to share? ^^

Akal Saris

2011-03-24, 07:25 PM

Well, they are working on Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic right now, not sure how far into development those are but you can play the new classes for free with the playtest. None of the Ultimate Combat classes seem particularly exciting to me though.

Ranos

2011-03-24, 07:56 PM

Unfortunately, every time I read an official proclamation from the creator, I usually have to expend real effort not to just sit at my desk and facepalm for a while. My biggest worry is that they'll end up driving a nice concept straight into the ground.
Heh. He IS pretty funny to read though. This (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html), for example could be brilliant comedy if he wasn't being dead serious.

The Glyphstone

2011-03-24, 08:17 PM

Heh. He IS pretty funny to read though. This (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html), for example could be brilliant comedy if he wasn't being dead serious.

I dunno - that's actually a very good concept - his 'benchmarks' are worthless, but the concept itself is something I like quite a bit.

Firechanter

2011-03-24, 08:26 PM

I love it how he says TWF gives you an extra opportunity to use Power Attack. :smallbiggrin:

Boci

2011-03-24, 08:26 PM

I dunno - that's actually a very good concept - his 'benchmarks' are worthless, but the concept itself is something I like quite a bit.

True, but a 11 point range is too much. I'd recommend three, maximum five.

NineThePuma

2011-03-24, 08:31 PM

I love it how he says TWF gives you an extra opportunity to use Power Attack. :smallbiggrin:

Maybe he's persisting True Strike?

Cartigan

2011-03-24, 08:41 PM

I love it how he says TWF gives you an extra opportunity to use Power Attack. :smallbiggrin:
Technically speaking, any extra attack is an extra opportunity to use Power Attack.

Boci

2011-03-24, 08:42 PM

Technically speaking, any extra attack is an extra opportunity to use Power Attack.

Off-hands weapons are light in 3.5, so unless something changed in pathfinder...

The Glyphstone

2011-03-24, 08:48 PM

True, but a 11 point range is too much. I'd recommend three, maximum five.

Technically, it only operates on a 6-point range (ignoring Spell Mastery).

Arutema

2011-03-24, 09:16 PM

Off-hands weapons are light in 3.5, so unless something changed in pathfinder...

The text of Pathfinder's Power Attack does not prevent you from using it with a light weapon.

Aspenor

2011-03-24, 09:28 PM

Everquest D20 works on a point system for purchasing feats. Every level you get 5 points. You spend:

1 Point on 1 point of energy resistance (fire, acid, sonic, electric, cold, poison, magic, disease)
3 Points on 1 rank to a class skill
5 points on 1 rank to a cross class skill
7 points on a bonus feat
12 points to +1 to any ability score

You also got feats as outlined in your class progression, but did not get them in the way you do in D&D. You got skill points the same way you do in D&D, though.

The system worked okay, well, that part of it did. The system itself is broken as all get-out. My party quickly recognized the holes in the system and exploited them ruthlessly, to the point where we were steamrolling CR +20 encounters.

subject42

2011-03-24, 10:15 PM

None of the Ultimate Combat classes seem particularly exciting to me though.

Wasn't there a bug in the Gunslinger class that interacted with guns-as-touch-attacks in a way that their main class feature unusable? If so, did they fix it?

Ninja seems interesting in the "Dark, unwholesome longing to smash the Rogue's party role wide open" kind of way.

Akal Saris

2011-03-25, 12:53 AM

Wasn't there a bug in the Gunslinger class that interacted with guns-as-touch-attacks in a way that their main class feature unusable? If so, did they fix it?

Ninja seems interesting in the "Dark, unwholesome longing to smash the Rogue's party role wide open" kind of way.

I remember something about that vaguely. Reminds me of how 3.5 monks aren't proficient in unarmed strikes :P I think the main gripe was that it's difficult to get full attacks as a gunslinger though.

Ninja seemed to me like a rogue with better combat options and no trap-finding.

John Campbell

2011-03-25, 01:19 AM

Off-hands weapons are light in 3.5, so unless something changed in pathfinder...

Something changed in Pathfinder. Light weapons get a 1:1 damage:BAB exchange in Pathfinder. One-handed weapons get 2:1. Two-handed weapons get 3:1.

Power Attack didn't get nerfed... precisely. Pathfinder nerfed the ubercharger who's dumping his entire BAB into a Leap Attack pounce and then getting it all back with Shock Trooper and doesn't care about the fact that his AC is now negative because whatever he charged isn't ever going to be attacking anything again, but for the guy who's using it to turn a few points of BAB into damage against low-AC opponents, it's actually better, if less flexible. And it evens up the playing field between TWF and THF a bit... they both end up with the same total Power Attack damage bonus. Though the TWF guy is still spending a bunch of feats to stack a TWF to-hit penalty on top of the Power Attack to-hit penalty.

Firechanter

2011-03-25, 04:31 AM

Ah okay, thanks for the clarification. Well, if PF also offers some more ways to get extra damage, that may make TWF worthwhile. Although when you have extra damage, it's usually dumb to lower your attack.

I find it funny in a painful kind of way that whatever love is thrown at TWF in rules variants, it is still not enough to bring it on par with plain ole THF, only making it more clear how much it sucks in 3.X.

Yora

2011-03-25, 05:59 AM

Everything is always worse than two handed weapons. Single weapon or sword and shield don't do any better.

Malevolence

2011-03-25, 06:03 AM

@Malevolence:
He's pointing out that the character using Persistent spell is in a specific situation, and has advantages that the defending creature lacks.

Um, yes. Persistent Spell gives you a massive advantage over the defender. That's the whole point.

It follows your argument.

Persistent spell makes the most difference in an otherwise fair contest (whether or not it cost both sides equal amounts to get to this point is not important -- this is about feat balance, not class balance).

If you then give one side a feat, it's not a fair test any more, so the fact that the caster starts winning more often isn't a sign that the feat is unbalanced.

Overall, if giving the other side an extra feat as well would provide them with a way to get around the Persistent Spell, then Persistent Spell is balanced -- and even if that isn't true, whether or not Persistent Spell ends up balanced depends on the scenario and the relationships that the designers are trying to establish.

You're not considering enough of the picture.

Did I ever say the other side didn't have feats? Thing is it doesn't matter, because while offense is raised considerably, defense is not. Which means either the enemy is also a Persistent Spell caster, and whoever goes first wins due to extreme rocket tag, or they aren't, but in either case everyone is still extremely susceptible to Persistent Spell, as there is no such thing as good saves there.

Taking these points one by one, having split them up:
1) SAGA is the first famous d20 adaptation to consolidate skills. It is by no means the first game, skill breadth has varied highly since the 80's with plenty of games with consolidated skills. For that matter, one could go so far as to claim SAGA lifted most of its skill lists from other games and as such didn't innovate. The source is irrelevant, and if SAGA is better than D&D in the respect of skill consolidation due to lessened skills, then so is Pathfinder. If one wants to bring up how the skills are consolidated it gets more complex, and of course skills are such a trivial part of the d20 system that the general importance of this is irrelevant.

The whole D20 thing is new though, which means you can compare the same or similar games to each other fairly. Saga gets the credit for using a similar system, but combining skills together because they did do it first. Further, Pathfinder's track record consists of them taking things from other sources without accreditation, making them worse, and then using them. Which is exactly what they did with their skill system. Now skills still suck, and that's a different point, but the only point that is relevant here is that the skill system is not a point in favor of PF, and if anything is also a point against it.

Secondly, I'm going to agree with Cartigan wholeheartedly. PF has been a boon to me as a DM. The CMB/CMD system, while a little mathematically inferior for SpikedChain von Ubertripper, saves me a ton of time. Also, it's incredibly more accessible for new players. I have NO idea why this is, but new players pick up the rules faster and more fluidly than I've ever seen in 3.5.

"Don't use combat maneuvers" is an excellent means of simplifying the combat maneuver system. Of course, so is deleting those subsystems and using the page space for other things.

Something changed in Pathfinder. Light weapons get a 1:1 damage:BAB exchange in Pathfinder. One-handed weapons get 2:1. Two-handed weapons get 3:1.

Power Attack didn't get nerfed... precisely. Pathfinder nerfed the ubercharger who's dumping his entire BAB into a Leap Attack pounce and then getting it all back with Shock Trooper and doesn't care about the fact that his AC is now negative because whatever he charged isn't ever going to be attacking anything again, but for the guy who's using it to turn a few points of BAB into damage against low-AC opponents, it's actually better, if less flexible. And it evens up the playing field between TWF and THF a bit... they both end up with the same total Power Attack damage bonus. Though the TWF guy is still spending a bunch of feats to stack a TWF to-hit penalty on top of the Power Attack to-hit penalty.

Except that the ubercharger turning his full BAB into a 4 damage a level bonus and then Pouncing on things was the only one doing enough damage. You take that away, no one does enough damage. Making THF suck as badly as TWF means "play a caster" not that balance problems have been fixed. To actually fix balance problems, you'd have to buff TWF immensely to be comparable to THF.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 08:04 AM

Something changed in Pathfinder. Light weapons get a 1:1 damage:BAB exchange in Pathfinder. One-handed weapons get 2:1. Two-handed weapons get 3:1.

Power Attack didn't get nerfed... precisely. Pathfinder nerfed the ubercharger who's dumping his entire BAB into a Leap Attack pounce and then getting it all back with Shock Trooper and doesn't care about the fact that his AC is now negative because whatever he charged isn't ever going to be attacking anything again, but for the guy who's using it to turn a few points of BAB into damage against low-AC opponents, it's actually better, if less flexible. And it evens up the playing field between TWF and THF a bit... they both end up with the same total Power Attack damage bonus. Though the TWF guy is still spending a bunch of feats to stack a TWF to-hit penalty on top of the Power Attack to-hit penalty.
False. Pathfinder Power Attack works on a curve. You take 1 off +1 more for X number of BAB above 1. And it ALWAYS works like that. You don't get to choose for yourself how to vary power attack. You either take the penalty that increases with level or you don't.

Um, yes. Persistent Spell gives you a massive advantage over the defender. That's the whole point.
How, exactly? By increasing their statistical chance of failing a saving throw by a negligible amount?

as there is no such thing as good saves there.
There is no such thing as good saves in Pathfinder...? Sure, if you make arbitrary and baseless statements for the sole purpose of making an argument out of them.

Further, Pathfinder's track record consists of them taking things from other sources without accreditation, making them worse, and then using them. Which is exactly what they did with their skill system. Now skills still suck, and that's a different point, but the only point that is relevant here is that the skill system is not a point in favor of PF, and if anything is also a point against it.
That's laughable, at best. Anyone remotely familiar with how skills work would have slimmed the 3.5 skill system down in nearly the same way.

Firechanter

2011-03-25, 08:36 AM

False. Pathfinder Power Attack works on a curve. You take 1 off +1 more for X number of BAB above 1. And it ALWAYS works like that. You don't get to choose for yourself how to vary power attack. You either take the penalty that increases with level or you don't.

Then PA _is_ nerfed in Pathfinder. Unless you have Shock Trooper (which I don't know exists in PF), it is usually a bad idea to convert your full BAB into PA. Hooray, one more shaft to melee, it really was way too good after all!

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 08:39 AM

Then PA _is_ nerfed in Pathfinder. Unless you have Shock Trooper (which I don't know exists in PF), it is usually a bad idea to convert your full BAB into PA. Hooray, one more shaft to melee, it really was way too good after all!

It DOESN'T convert your entire PA. I think it maxes out at -5/+10. But you don't get to pick and choose how much you get to take off. Once your BAB qualifies, that is how Power Attack works for you.

Combat Expertise works similarly terribly, but even worse because it has the same progression completely voiding the use of it for the classes that would actually use it.

Bobikus

2011-03-25, 08:39 AM

There was some stuff I liked in PF, but ultimately I ended up enjoying 3.5 more after adding a few house rules from PF and Frank and K's material.

Reverent-One

2011-03-25, 08:41 AM

Then PA _is_ nerfed in Pathfinder. Unless you have Shock Trooper (which I don't know exists in PF), it is usually a bad idea to convert your full BAB into PA. Hooray, one more shaft to melee, it really was way too good after all!

You don't dump your full BAB into PA, at level 1 you dump 1 BAB, and every time your BAB is a multiple of 4 (4,8,16, ect) you dump one more BAB. So a 4th level fighter is dumping 2 BAB and getting 4 extra damage (6 if they're using a two hander, since it's a 3:1 ratio).

Aspenor

2011-03-25, 08:47 AM

Power Attack is nerfed because it no longer offers choice.

Melees in general were hosed because all their toys (okay, one toy, trip) doesn't work anymore.

Saves were lowered across the board in Pathfinder. This means that spellcasters rule the roost, as defenses against them are lower.

Pathfinder set out to fix lots of things, and fixed almost none of them at all. It is not good as a core rulebook. It is a decent source for a few houserules, but beyond that is virtually useless.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 08:53 AM

Saves were lowered across the board in Pathfinder. This means that spellcasters rule the roost, as defenses against them are lower.

Saving throw progressions are exactly the same in Pathfinder.

Aspenor

2011-03-25, 08:54 AM

Saving throw progressions are exactly the same in Pathfinder.

I'm talking about the enemies, not the PC's.

Reverent-One

2011-03-25, 08:55 AM

Saves were lowered across the board in Pathfinder. This means that spellcasters rule the roost, as defenses against them are lower.

How were saves reduced? It's not the base saves from the classes, so I assume they got rid of some common save booster?

EDIT: Ninja'd. By both the same question and the answer.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 09:09 AM

I'm talking about the enemies, not the PC's.
Where? The save progressions for those are also the same. Provide some examples.

Malevolence

2011-03-25, 09:15 AM

How, exactly? By increasing their statistical chance of failing a saving throw by a negligible amount?

Last I checked, boosting 50-75% success to 75%-93.75% success was not negligible. It's exactly the same as casting two spells at once, except that it only costs one.

There is no such thing as good saves in Pathfinder...? Sure, if you make arbitrary and baseless statements for the sole purpose of making an argument out of them.

There are certain criteria that give you good saves. It is not possible for PF characters to meet any of these criteria, as the tools required to do so do not exist in that system. Additionally, you will find that your saves, if not the same have been reduced. Particularly if you are a beatstick.

Then PA _is_ nerfed in Pathfinder. Unless you have Shock Trooper (which I don't know exists in PF), it is usually a bad idea to convert your full BAB into PA. Hooray, one more shaft to melee, it really was way too good after all!

Shock Trooper does not exist in PF. If you brought it in anyways, you would still be screwed by the nerfed PA. There's no getting around the melee nerfs without not using those rules.

Reverent-One

2011-03-25, 09:18 AM

There are certain criteria that give you good saves. It is not possible for PF characters to meet any of these criteria, as the tools required to do so do not exist in that system. Additionally, you will find that your saves, if not the same have been reduced. Particularly if you are a beatstick.

How so? As previously mentioned, the base saves haven't changed.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 09:19 AM

Last I checked, boosting 50-75% success to 75%-93.75% success was not negligible. It's exactly the same as casting two spells at once, except that it only costs one.
It costs a higher level spell slot. +2 in fact.
And no it's not the same as casting two spells at once. Each has an individual save, even if they are the same spell.
I'm not going to debate you on the statistical increase because probability and statistics is my weak suit.

There are certain criteria that give you good saves.
Arcane criteria you aren't going to provide but are going to refer to like everyone should know what they are.

It is not possible for PF characters to meet any of these criteria, as the tools required to do so do not exist in that system. Additionally, you will find that your saves, if not the same have been reduced. Particularly if you are a beatstick.
I imagine that no, it isn't possible for PF character to meet arbitrary, unknown criteria.

Shock Trooper does not exist in PF.
I can't stress enough how damn irrelevant that is.

Malevolence

2011-03-25, 09:25 AM

How were saves reduced? It's not the base saves from the classes, so I assume they got rid of some common save booster?

EDIT: Ninja'd. By both the same question and the answer.

Aspenor did not describe the situation in very much detail, so here it is:

Spellcasting characters have a class lineup that looks like one of these:

Class x.

Class x/PRC y.

Class x/PRC y/PRC z.

As any of the PRC worth taking are worth taking all the way, you end up with a very straightforward progression.

Beatsticks, on the other hand have a large number of 1 and 2 level dips in various classes, trying to salvage themselves for a little longer by taking advantage of the front loaded nature of these classes in a feeble attempt to get enough features to keep up.

The latter approach boosts saves. But not in PF. So beatsticks end up with terrible saves.

Additionally to get good saves you need all the obvious stuff, like a cloak of resistance, but you also need spells boosting your saves. 3.5 non core spells. If you don't have those, you don't have good saves.

So in 3.5, a level 7 character is running around with saves of say... 16/12/23, and level appropriate save DCs are around 19 or so, so they are reasonably well protected against the devastating one shot nature of spells.

In PF though you'll have terrible saves. Something along the lines of 9/5/5, at the same level. Meanwhile level appropriate save DCs are at least 2 points higher, and you have to save twice or lose.

In 3.5, you have reasonably reduced Rocket Tag. In PF you have no means of reducing it, you can only hope that you one shot the enemy before they one shot you, and if you are anything but a save or lose spammer, you might as well not exist.

Malevolence

2011-03-25, 09:28 AM

It costs a higher level spell slot. +2 in fact.
And no it's not the same as casting two spells at once. Each has an individual save, even if they are the same spell.
I'm not going to debate you on the statistical increase because probability and statistics is my weak suit.

Oh no, +2, whatever shall I do? Oh right, I'll make use of the fact I get double wealth, and it comes on a cheap item.

If you get a save or lose to land, you win. Persist makes them save save or lose. This really isn't a difficult concept to understand. Even if math is hard for you, which explains a lot.

Aspenor

2011-03-25, 09:33 AM

That is a good summary. I sortof assumed PC's were never beatsticks, ever, which would be why PC's don't run into the same problems because casters win at life in PF.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 09:34 AM

Oh no, +2, whatever shall I do? Oh right, I'll make use of the fact I get double wealth, and it comes on a cheap item.

If you get a save or lose to land, you win. Persist makes them save save or lose. This really isn't a difficult concept to understand. Even if math is hard for you, which explains a lot.

Which save or lose? I guess Phantasmal Killer sucks, but then you are playing save roulette already.

Reverent-One

2011-03-25, 09:39 AM

*Snip*

While on the one hand, I see your point that with less dipping, you're not boosting what would otherwise be a weak save with a strong save from another class (especially from their front loaded base saves), thinking that 16/12/23 is reasonable for a level 7 beatstick character in 3.5 sounds a bit off to me. Can you give an example character and how their saves would be around that mark?

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 09:41 AM

So using WBL, we get a Metamagic rod. With a little flexibility on the chart, you can get a lesser Persist rod at 5th level netting you... a 3rd level spell to make persistent. I guess Hold Person is good. If you are fighting Humanoids (though since Giants are Humanoids now, that makes it significantly better). I gets kind of droll after that.

Aspenor

2011-03-25, 09:41 AM

While on the one hand, I see your point that with less dipping, you're not boosting what would otherwise be a weak save with a strong save from another class (especially from their front loaded base saves), thinking that 16/12/23 is reasonable for a level 7 beatstick character in 3.5 sounds a bit off to me. Can you give an example character and how their saves would be around that mark?

He didn't say beatstick, he said level 7 character.

Reverent-One

2011-03-25, 09:43 AM

He said beatsticks saves will suck in PF, specifically that they would be lower than in 3.5.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 09:46 AM

Beatsticks, on the other hand have a large number of 1 and 2 level dips in various classes, trying to salvage themselves for a little longer by taking advantage of the front loaded nature of these classes in a feeble attempt to get enough features to keep up.
...
This is ridiculous. You are saying Pathfinder's saves are worse because a system you made up for a reason you made up would lead to lower saves for a character.

Are we supposed to take you seriously? I hope not.

Draconi Redfir

2011-03-25, 09:48 AM

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 09:51 AM

What’s all the issue with power attack? The text says you trade your attack bonus for your damage bonus. So if you had an attack bonus of +11, and a +5 damage bonus because of STR or magic or whatever, then your attack bonus would instead become +5 and your bonus damage +11 for one round.

You loose accuracy for more damage, seems simple to me.

Pathfinder's Power Attack is -1 - (1/4 BAB) converted to +2 damage.
The real problem is you can't choose how much you reduce your to-hit.

Combat Expertise's problem is it works under the assumption only full BAB classes use it.

Shpadoinkle

2011-03-25, 09:53 AM

Aspenor

2011-03-25, 09:54 AM

...
This is ridiculous. You are saying Pathfinder's saves are worse because a system you made up for a reason you made up would lead to lower saves for a character.

Are we supposed to take you seriously? I hope not.

He didn't make that up. In order to be relevant a melee must take numerous, front-loaded classes. This results in higher saves. It's a simple fact of life in optimization.

Draconi Redfir

2011-03-25, 09:54 AM

Pathfinder's Power Attack is -1 - (1/4 BAB) converted to +2 damage.
The real problem is you can't choose how much you reduce your to-hit.

Combat Expertise's problem is it works under the assumption only full BAB classes use it.

Doesn’t really make sense, why would you be able to choose? i mean you can't choose your CMD, it's just all the numbers adding up.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 10:04 AM

He didn't make that up. In order to be relevant a melee must take numerous, front-loaded classes. This results in higher saves. It's a simple fact of life in optimization.

It results in higher GOOD saves, which if melee classes are going to dabble is solely going to be Fort. You'd be better off taking straight Fighter in Pathfinder than playing musical melee chairs. And there aren't enough classes to dip in to make that ridiculously absurd assertion even plausible in Pathfinder.

Malevolence's entire argument stems from a number of false premises. Primarily, that Pathfinder isn't a standalone system. Sure, you can reference dabbling in a dozen different 3.5 splat classes and using 3.5 splat abilities is what made melee strong and then complaining that they aren't in Pathfinder makes Pathfinder weak. It also makes your argument weak. That argument obviously exists on the platform that 3.5 and Pathfinder are systems that aren't going to be meshed together. Given that fact, you CAN'T penalize Pathfinder for 3.5 splat content. If that splat content had never been created for 3.5, it wouldn't be an option in 3.5. Since it hasn't been created in Pathfinder, it isn't an option in Pathfinder and you can't judge the system based on nonexistent material. If you assume 3.5 and Pathfinder are compatible, then just shut up and mix and match like you would anyway.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Doesn’t really make sense, why would you be able to choose? i mean you can't choose your CMD, it's just all the numbers adding up.

...because you can choose how much you reduce your to-hit by in 3.5. It was a change for the worse.

Malevolence

2011-03-25, 10:07 AM

Which save or lose? I guess Phantasmal Killer sucks, but then you are playing save roulette already.

Any. Glitterdust, Slow...

While on the one hand, I see your point that with less dipping, you're not boosting what would otherwise be a weak save with a strong save from another class (especially from their front loaded base saves), thinking that 16/12/23 is reasonable for a level 7 beatstick character in 3.5 sounds a bit off to me. Can you give an example character and how their saves would be around that mark?

Saves of that level are reasonable once you remember if a spell lands on you, you're gone. Even passing on a 2, you'll still fail often, since enemies will be spamming spells every single round.

I didn't specify beatstick, but it easily could be.

Cleric 3/Church Inquisitor 2/Divine Oracle 2.

Fortitude: 16.83. (4.83 base, 3 Con, 3 resistance, 3 luck, 3 morale).

Reflex: 12.33. (2.33 base, 1 Dex, 3 resistance, 3 luck, 3 morale).

Will: 23.5. (9.5 base, 5 Wis, 3 resistance, 3 luck, 3 morale).

Persisted Recitation = luck, Mass Conviction = morale, Greater Resistance = Resistance.

Rest of the party ranges from 10-15 Fort, from 11-16 Ref, and from 12-17 Will. So outside of the divine caster = higher Will save anomaly, this is rather consistent across the party.

So using WBL, we get a Metamagic rod. With a little flexibility on the chart, you can get a lesser Persist rod at 5th level netting you... a 3rd level spell to make persistent. I guess Hold Person is good. If you are fighting Humanoids (though since Giants are Humanoids now, that makes it significantly better). I gets kind of droll after that.

Slow.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 10:12 AM

Any. Glitterdust, Slow...
Save or Lose? Those make you lose how? By partially disabling a character for a few rounds?

Slow.
So you manage to douse some creatures' action economy. Color me unimpressed.

These also assume the target has no SR.

Cleric 3/Church Inquisitor 2/Divine Oracle 2.

Fortitude: 16.83. (4.83 base, 3 Con, 3 resistance, 3 luck, 3 morale).

Reflex: 12.33. (2.33 base, 1 Dex, 3 resistance, 3 luck, 3 morale).

Will: 23.5. (9.5 base, 5 Wis, 3 resistance, 3 luck, 3 morale).

Persisted Recitation = luck, Mass Conviction = morale, Greater Resistance = Resistance.
{Scrubbed}

Malevolence

2011-03-25, 10:14 AM

I've looked over it, and to me it looks like they changed a lot of stuff just for the hell of changing it (and making it look different from 3.5, but they clearly didn't think many of the changes through.)

Which isn't to say it's all bad. I really like that they got rid of stat penalties just for being a certain race (that never sat quite right with me), and how they handled class skills and cross class skills is nice, I think.

I agree that for a low-op game, PF is probably better balanced than 3.5e. If your group is the kind to attempt to optimize with any degree of proficiency, however, PF is going to give you more problems than 3.5e will.

Overall, I think Paizo screwed up more than they improved.

Stat penalties are still there.

Humans and half humans get +2 to one stat, their choice. Everyone else gets +2 to 2 stats and -2 to a third, preset.

In a low op game, you'll encounter constant problems.

It results in higher GOOD saves, which if melee classes are going to dabble is solely going to be Fort. You'd be better off taking straight Fighter in Pathfinder than playing musical melee chairs. And there aren't enough classes to dip in to make that ridiculously absurd assertion even plausible in Pathfinder.

Some beatstick classes boost Ref and Will. Straight Fighter is still a trash class. The fact there aren't enough classes to dip in as a non spellcasting class is one of the reasons why Pathfinder is widely mocked as "Caster Edition".

Malevolence's entire argument stems from a number of false premises. Primarily, that Pathfinder isn't a standalone system. Sure, you can reference dabbling in a dozen different 3.5 splat classes and using 3.5 splat abilities is what made melee strong and then complaining that they aren't in Pathfinder makes Pathfinder weak. It also makes your argument weak. That argument obviously exists on the platform that 3.5 and Pathfinder are systems that aren't going to be meshed together. Given that fact, you CAN'T penalize Pathfinder for 3.5 splat content. If that splat content had never been created for 3.5, it wouldn't be an option in 3.5. Since it hasn't been created in Pathfinder, it isn't an option in Pathfinder and you can't judge the system based on nonexistent material. If you assume 3.5 and Pathfinder are compatible, then just shut up and mix and match like you would anyway.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

{Scrubbed}

Malevolence

2011-03-25, 10:16 AM

Save or Lose? Those make you lose how? By partially disabling a character for a few rounds?

By kicking their combat abilities to effectively nil, duration: well in excess of the combat length.

So you manage to douse some creatures' action economy. Color me unimpressed.

These also assume the target has no SR.

See previous comment, and add that no caster is ever concerned by SR at any point in time unless they are blasting or are a necromancer, in which case they have worse problems.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 10:18 AM

Some beatstick classes boost Ref and Will.
Ok great, so if I go 2 Fighter/2 Barbarian/2 Swashbuckler/(Prestige class parade), I will be rolling in saving throws!

The fact there aren't enough classes to dip in as a non spellcasting class is one of the reasons why Pathfinder is widely mocked as "Caster Edition".
That's also incomprehensibly stupid.

Hey look, it's Cartigan with another straw man argument. I'd correct you, but as you have demonstrated repeatedly, you are unwilling to listen and learn from your mistakes, so it would be a waste of my time to do so.
Correct me with what exactly? Your generic references to misty material where only you know what you are talking about?

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 10:22 AM

By kicking their combat abilities to effectively nil, duration: well in excess of the combat length.
So... 5 or 6 rounds? Stuff starts developing SR at some point. Creatures can still fight while both blinded and slowed.
And what is your statistical assessment of creatures breaking Glitterdust - they get a new saving throw each round. My probability filters aren't very good, but I am fairly certain they eventually have to pass that saving throw.

See previous comment, and add that no caster is ever concerned by SR at any point in time unless they are blasting or are a necromancer, in which case they have worse problems.
So casters using Slow, a spell with SR: yes, aren't concerned with SR because they aren't blasters or Necromancers. Right.

Firechanter

2011-03-25, 10:24 AM

Whoa. PF Power Attack sounds more crappy with every further explanation posted in this thread. Didn't they want to narrow the gap between casters and melee? Epic phail.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 10:25 AM

Whoa. PF Power Attack sounds more crappy with every further explanation posted in this thread. Didn't they want to narrow the gap between casters and melee? Epic phail.

Don't bother looking into the combat maneuver stuff. They broke all of it into two feats. Which voids the entire point of adding extra feats to the game.

Firechanter

2011-03-25, 10:34 AM

Yep, I know. Actually I wrote exactly that in my initial post in this thread, but I guess that got lost in the immense flux this has created.

Malevolence

2011-03-25, 10:44 AM

So... 5 or 6 rounds? Stuff starts developing SR at some point. Creatures can still fight while both blinded and slowed.
And what is your statistical assessment of creatures breaking Glitterdust - they get a new saving throw each round. My probability filters aren't very good, but I am fairly certain they eventually have to pass that saving throw.

Yes, that is considerably in excess of 1-3 rounds, which is the combat length. Yes, stuff has SR... that thing that is irrelevant. Blinded creatures can't find targets, slowed creatures are negated outright if not a caster, and still shut down rather well if they are.

The statistical assessment is "they will die, before getting another save, meaning that the completely meaningless nerf is indeed a completely meaningless nerf".

So casters using Slow, a spell with SR: yes, aren't concerned with SR because they aren't blasters or Necromancers. Right.

Glad you're catching on.

Whoa. PF Power Attack sounds more crappy with every further explanation posted in this thread. Didn't they want to narrow the gap between casters and melee? Epic phail.

They claimed they wanted to. They did the exact opposite. Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice and vice versa. This is what happens when you don't listen to the people with math and numbers, and do listen to those who find math and numbers too hard, and complain that it takes too long to subtract x and add x * 2 and that the beatstick is slowing down play by deciding how much to PA for. In other words, making one of the few choices he can make. Which is what Power Attack is, and what the developers have gone on record to claim as their reasoning behind nerfing Power Attack into uselessness. Their playerbase had extreme difficulty with basic arithmetic. I wish I were making this up, but I'm not.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 10:44 AM

Yep, I know. Actually I wrote exactly that in my initial post in this thread, but I guess that got lost in the immense flux this has created.

You don't even want to get me started on the people running the game.
Hasbro/WotC may represent a huge faceless entity best represented by disinterest and churning out books for profit. Paizo is down in the pit with their shirtsleeves rolled up. But sadly it's more to employ sharp elbows than anything else. They have an active disdain for errataing errors, even ones brought to their attention, and are loathe to address issues. And most issues addressed are "If I was DMing, I would do this/talk to your DM" despite the fact they are the damn developers and have a game society where RAW is law.

Shpadoinkle

2011-03-25, 10:45 AM

Stat penalties are still there.

Humans and half humans get +2 to one stat, their choice. Everyone else gets +2 to 2 stats and -2 to a third, preset.

In a low op game, you'll encounter constant problems.

Really? I could have sworn Pathfinder removed the stat penalties. It's been a while since I bothered looking at it, though.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 10:47 AM

Yes, that is considerably in excess of 1-3 rounds, which is the combat length.
In fantasy optimization land.

Blinded creatures can't find targets,
False; they have a significant failure rate at finding targets.

slowed creatures are negated outright if not a caster, and still shut down rather well if they are.
Exceedingly false. Perhaps you are thinking of Hold Person? Slowed targets are significantly hampered but not even remotely negated unless your entire party is ranged skirmishers.

The statistical assessment is "they will die, before getting another save, meaning that the completely meaningless nerf is indeed a completely meaningless nerf".

Glad you're catching on.
You obviously missed the sarcasm. True, they aren't concerned with SR. That also means they are less likely to focus on trying to overcome it and Slow and other Save or Loses with an "SR: yes" rating quickly become not very Save or Lose to them. I guess we better leave the Save or Loses up to Blasters and Necromancers. Oh wait, blasters are subpar so that means the only people running respectable save or loses past like 6th level are Necromancers. Hurray, you win D&D logic.

Reverent-One

2011-03-25, 10:50 AM

Saves of that level are reasonable once you remember if a spell lands on you, you're gone. Even passing on a 2, you'll still fail often, since enemies will be spamming spells every single round.

I didn't specify beatstick, but it easily could be.

Cleric 3/Church Inquisitor 2/Divine Oracle 2.

Fortitude: 16.83. (4.83 base, 3 Con, 3 resistance, 3 luck, 3 morale).

Reflex: 12.33. (2.33 base, 1 Dex, 3 resistance, 3 luck, 3 morale).

Will: 23.5. (9.5 base, 5 Wis, 3 resistance, 3 luck, 3 morale).

Persisted Recitation = luck, Mass Conviction = morale, Greater Resistance = Resistance.

Rest of the party ranges from 10-15 Fort, from 11-16 Ref, and from 12-17 Will. So outside of the divine caster = higher Will save anomaly, this is rather consistent across the party.

Well, if multiple Non-core spells (and Divine Metamagic for persisting?) are required to have good saves in 3.5, it's likely that many a 3.5 player doesn't have them either, and if you play in a core only game, you're totally screwed. So PF isn't really going to have much drop off there for those people.

Don't bother looking into the combat maneuver stuff. They broke all of it into two feats. Which voids the entire point of adding extra feats to the game.

Leaving aside that requiring one additional feat for a given combat manuever doesn't take up every single extra feat you get, the second feat provides an additional benefit, like in trip's case, the enemy you trip provokes AoOs from being tripped.

They claimed they wanted to. They did the exact opposite.

And I would think that's how you prefer it, since you've said melee characters aren't valid archetypes, and only work in fantasy through Author Fiat.

onthetown

2011-03-25, 10:53 AM

For the most part people consider Pathfinder to be inferior.

Based on what statistics? That's a fairly generalized statement.

I like playing PF as much as I like playing D&D 3.x, because our DM made the move pretty smoothly and I don't really notice anything different except for some buffed up classes and condensed skills.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 10:53 AM

Leaving aside that requiring one additional feat for a given combat manuever doesn't take up every single extra feat you get, the second feat provides an additional benefit, like in trip's case, the enemy you trip provokes AoOs from being tripped.

Making taking Improved Trip->Greater Trip in PF only slightly better than Improved Trip in 3.5 in that other people can try to hit him when you trip him. However, if you took your AoO to trip him, you aren't guaranteed to be able to hit him after doing so. Better hope you have alot of meleers in your group.

Oh, and you can't gain that massive benefit until 6 BAB.

Reverent-One

2011-03-25, 11:01 AM

Making taking Improved Trip->Greater Trip in PF only slightly better than Improved Trip in 3.5 in that other people can try to hit him when you trip him. However, if you took your AoO to trip him, you aren't guaranteed to be able to hit him after doing so. Better hope you have alot of meleers in your group.

Oh, and you can't gain that massive benefit until 6 BAB.

Of course, someone building a character and planning on using this feat is likely to consider the need to make multiple AoOs and take Combat Reflexes, which seems to be common for a tripper build anyway.

Aspenor

2011-03-25, 11:03 AM

Combat absolutely only lasts 1-3 rounds. Beyond 3 rounds, the victor has been decided and all that is left is mopping up and slitting the throats of the defeated.

Slowed beatsticks cannot full attack. Inability to full attack means you are useless since nobody cares about one swing. Spellcasters can still be at full power with only a standard action available.

In my experience, the vast majority of groups do not play core-only. If they do play only core, they are playing initiative-hockey. Whoever gets the puck wins. Non-core gives the tools necessary for iterative probability proofing that allows for PC's to live longer than 18 hours.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 11:03 AM

Of course, someone building a character and planning on using this feat is likely to consider the need to make multiple AoOs and take Combat Reflexes, which seems to be common for a tripper build anyway.
Common but not required. Congratulations, to duplicate the actions of a 2nd level Fighter with 2 feats, we now need 4 feats and 6 levels.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 11:05 AM

In my experience, the vast majority of groups do not play core-only.

Then their assessment of Pathfinder as inferior is irrelevant. 3.5 splat books have no bearing on the playability or effectiveness of Pathfinder as a system.

Reverent-One

2011-03-25, 11:07 AM

Common but not required. Congratulations, to duplicate the actions of a 2nd level Fighter with 2 feats, we now need 4 feats and 6 levels.

To duplicate? We're doing everything that second level fighter does and making extra attacks in the process, which that second level fighter can't do.

Aspenor

2011-03-25, 11:09 AM

Then their assessment of Pathfinder as inferior is irrelevant. 3.5 splat books have no bearing on the playability or effectiveness of Pathfinder as a system.

I don't know how this statement is relevant.

3.5 splat books may have no bearing on the playability or effectiveness of PF as a system, but since Pathfinder fails independently this doesn't matter.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 11:10 AM

To duplicate? We're doing everything that second level fighter does and making extra attacks in the process, which that second level fighter can't do.
What extra attacks are you making related to the Trip maneuver? You may be generating more attacks from OTHER players, but you yourself aren't getting any more than you were previous.

I don't know how this statement is relevant.

3.5 splat books may have no bearing on the playability or effectiveness of PF as a system, but since Pathfinder fails independently this doesn't matter.
Let me address this in the hypothetical
I ask: "Why does Pathfinder fail independently?"
I will, eventually and inevitably get: "*some references to power increases provided by the myriad 3.5 splat books that do not exist in Pathfinder*"

Malevolence

2011-03-25, 11:12 AM

Really? I could have sworn Pathfinder removed the stat penalties. It's been a while since I bothered looking at it, though.

You are probably thinking of 4th edition, where there are no stat penalties, only bonuses. Of course when the default is bonuses, a lack thereof is the exact same as a penalty...

Elves take a Con hit, Gnomes and Halflings take a Str hit, Dwarves take a Cha hit.

In fantasy optimization land.

In actual games. It's fantasy lands that have long combats.

False; they have a significant failure rate at finding targets.

{Scrubbed}

Exceedingly false. Perhaps you are thinking of Hold Person? Slowed targets are significantly hampered but not even remotely negated unless your entire party is ranged skirmishers.

Nope, I am thinking of Slow. They can't full attack, they can only take one action, and they have a low move speed. You hover 10 feet outside their threat range, and they can never even attempt to touch you. And even if they do somehow manage to do so, it's a single attack, so you will always survive easily.

You obviously missed the sarcasm. True, they aren't concerned with SR. That also means they are less likely to focus on trying to overcome it and Slow and other Save or Loses with an "SR: yes" rating quickly become not very Save or Lose to them. I guess we better leave the Save or Loses up to Blasters and Necromancers. Oh wait, blasters are subpar so that means the only people running respectable save or loses past like 6th level are Necromancers. Hurray, you win D&D logic.

{Scrubbed}

Well, if multiple Non-core spells (and Divine Metamagic for persisting?) are required to have good saves in 3.5, it's likely that many a 3.5 player doesn't have them either, and if you play in a core only game, you're totally screwed. So PF isn't really going to have much drop off there for those people.

Core only is imbalanced, true. There still is a dropoff though, because you now have, and will face higher save DCs, and will have the same or lower saves.

And I would think that's how you prefer it, since you've said melee characters aren't valid archetypes, and only work in fantasy through Author Fiat.

You should not confuse can with should.

And as long as we are on the subject of trippers, go look up Spiked Chains.

Combat absolutely only lasts 1-3 rounds. Beyond 3 rounds, the victor has been decided and all that is left is mopping up and slitting the throats of the defeated.

I'd say more than that... after 3 rounds, the combat is flat out over. It went to the clean up phase well before that, typically in the top half of the first round.

Slowed beatsticks cannot full attack. Inability to full attack means you are useless since nobody cares about one swing. Spellcasters can still be at full power with only a standard action available.

In my experience, the vast majority of groups do not play core-only. If they do play only core, they are playing initiative-hockey. Whoever gets the puck wins. Non-core gives the tools necessary for iterative probability proofing that allows for PC's to live longer than 18 hours.

Initiative hockey. I'm stealing that.

Tyndmyr

2011-03-25, 11:13 AM

Cast four weak spells... or two strong ones that do the job better. But if that were true, it'd certainly help to make the PF is bad crowd's point for us.

Oh, I wasn't trying to say PF was good or bad. I'm apathetic on it. It has things I like and things I don't.

Just saying that theurges are among the things that improved solidly.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 11:14 AM

{Scrubbed}

Nope, I am thinking of Slow. They can't full attack, they can only take one action, and they have a low move speed. You hover 10 feet outside their threat range, and they can never even attempt to touch you. And even if they do somehow manage to do so, it's a single attack, so you will always survive easily.
And how do you, the single caster, plan to kill them within the time allotted?

{Scrubbed}

Aspenor

2011-03-25, 11:16 AM

Let me address this in the hypothetical
I ask: "Why does Pathfinder fail independently?"
I will, eventually and inevitably get: "*some references to power increases provided by the myriad 3.5 splat books that do not exist in Pathfinder*"

Pathfinder fails independently because it sought to fix 3.5. It did not do so, it actually exacerbated the problems and made the imabalances even more pronounced.

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 11:18 AM

Pathfinder fails independently because it sought to fix 3.5. It did not do so, it actually exacerbated the problems and made the imabalances even more pronounced.
No one has bothered to provide evidence of their multiple assertions that the problems were made more pronounced.

Do the problems still exist? Yes. No one is debating Pathfinder upended the entire game and fixed the linear vs quadratic curve of the game. In fact, they aren't even trying to. Pathfinder is full of luddites wanting to play the game to level 8 at max.

To optimizers:
Even in my patently absurdly optimized game of Age of Worms I played where the enemies were laughably written, no combat lasted 3 rounds or less. And that was with a Tiger flying around and pouncing with 50+ AC, +40 to hit and an average damage of 300 to 400 a round.

I think the ONLY combat that lasted less than 3 rounds was when he Dominated the enormous beast that lived in the cave.

Malevolence

2011-03-25, 11:20 AM

No one has bothered to provide evidence of their multiple assertions that the problems were made more pronounced.

Do the problems still exist? Yes. No one is debating Pathfinder upended the entire game and fixed the linear vs quadratic curve of the game. In fact, they aren't even trying to. Pathfinder is full of luddites wanting to play the game to level 8 at max.

{Scrubbed}

Cartigan

2011-03-25, 11:21 AM

{Scrubbed}

Aspenor

2011-03-25, 11:21 AM

No one has bothered to provide evidence of their multiple assertions that the problems were made more pronounced.
They have been explained. Beatsticks are now worse: power attack nerfed, trip nerfed. Those were your only options, so you are now worse off than you were before.

Saves lowered by proxy, spellcasters basically unchanged. This results in a net power increase.

Do the problems still exist? Yes. No one is debating Pathfinder upended the entire game and fixed the linear vs quadratic curve of the game. In fact, they aren't even trying to. Pathfinder is full of luddites wanting to play the game to level 8 at max.
The problems were quite literally made worse. This is why PF fails.

Quietus

2011-03-25, 11:22 AM

No, ToB is unbalanced because it completely and totally replaces classes that came before it in the same roles. Which I have said multiple times.

I'd like to revisit this, just for a moment. Let's look at three different strata of balance in Core :

Wizards
Rogues/Barbarians
Monks, Fighters and their ilk

We have those that can break the game any time they want (wizards), those that are generally seen as fairly well balanced with strengths and weaknesses (rogues/barbarians), and those whose entire role as a class either doesn't work the way it's intended (Monk) or whose class features are the same thing every other class can get (Fighter). Let's call them, in order, High/Medium/Low power, just for sake of definition.

Of those strata, where does game balance lie? Should the game be played at the High power level, where everything is rocket tag? Medium, where you've got a couple of different interesting things you can do in each combat, and often something to contribute out of combat as well, such as skills? Or Low, where you're either forced to branch out so much that you suck at most everything, or have to specialize to ridiculous amounts just to be functional?

If you prefer to play at the Low power level, Fighters are balanced, and ToB is overpowered. If you prefer to play around Medium, however, then Fighters are underpowered, and ToB is balanced. If you play at High, then only full casters are balanced, and everything else is underpowered.