'Breaking' Pathfinder

[Dust]

I've never been much of a fan of 3.5, truth be told, because I find the balance problems to be prevalent in our group. With a share of power gamers and min-maxers, too often our groups wind up being 2-3 wizards, a Factotum, a Radiant Servant, and me.
To counter this, our GM has proposed we switch to Pathfinder, which, to quote him, 'solves every balance issue in D&D.' I told him I was prematurely skeptical of this claim, and he responded by requesting I do my best to prove him wrong.

I have no idea how to go about this, so I'm asking for your advice. Firstly, is Pathfinder indeed a fair, tier-less rebuild of 3.5? And secondly, if not, can anyone recommend to me some cheese I can bring to the table?
We're starting at first level with the high fantasy 25-point buy, but the game's expected to be a long one (perhaps up to a year or more, knowing our group).

Thanks in advance.

[Dust]

Some lucky google-fu also brought me to this thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?536501-NECRO-Pathfinder-What-are-the-top-builds), which I suspect has quite a few possibilities and answers for me, and I regret not seeing it on my first few searches before posting this thread.

[gomipile]

Cast Summon Bigger Fish.

[MeeposFire]

Frankly if you want to break PF you do the same thing you did in standard 3.5 which is play a wizard.

They took away a couple toys but most of it still exists and that's if you don't open up the splat books from old 3.5.

Melee classes still are not up to snuff and they missed several key fixes (monks are still not very good and fighters outside of possibly mobile warrior type are the same with some bigger numbers but did not fix the base problems).

Fortunately if you play with people that don't play casters to their potential (playing blaster mages and the like) and your melee players don't mind being nearly the same from 3.5 then you can still have a fun game (just like in 3.5). Essentially I am saying it is mostly the same as 3.5 don't expect a truly different game. It will be the same game with minor tweaks. that is PF biggest strength and weakness.

[Jeraa]

90-95% of Pathfinder is the same as 3.5. Whatever problems existed in 3.5 still exist (for the most part) in Pathfinder. So, whatever was broken in 3.5 is probably still broken in Pathfinder.

Don't think of Pathfinder as a rebuild of 3.5. Think of it more like 3.5, but with houserules. (At least in my opinion.)

[navar100]

If you don't like 3E you're not going to like Pathfinder. Pathfinder did make cosmetic changes, but they're only improvements/indifferents if you like 3E. Pathfinder did improve the Fighter, but if you already have negative feelings towards the 3E class the improvements will be insignificant.

However, I think part of your issue is your playing group. While not changing the fact that the 3E rules allow for "broken" stuff, your playing group hunts for it. There is nothing inherently wrong with power gaming and min/maxing, but your tolerance level for the power involved is less than your fellow players. Power level can also go too far to the point of making the game non-functioning, the broken. If your fellow players are purposely seeking that brokenness, however possible that can be done in 3E, that is not entirely 3E's fault. They will seek out the broken in any game system.

[Eldan]

On class balance:

They did give the weaker classes a few more toys. Namely, the Monk, Barbarian, Bard, Paladin and, to a lesser degree, Fighter all got more class features. However, while these are nice, they don't really bring them to the level of the casters.

The casters, on the other hand, got actual class features. Sorcerers get bloodlines, as an example. This means, on the one hand, that they have less of a reason to enter prestige classes immediately, but also means they get a bit more power from that (or rather a lot in one case: there is one power on the list which gives free metamagic).

They did weaken a handful of spells. Polymorph was brought down quite a bit. However, even more spells weren't changed at all.

So, in the end: no, balance isn't fixed. Some details were changed, but most of it is on the level of house rules, not a total balance overhaul.

[Prime32]

Druids were nerfed a bit, paladins were buffed enough to rise to tier 4.
Fighters get a few minor numerical bonuses, but their feats have been nerfed. :smallconfused:
Playing a monster is viable now, though I prefer the Races of War method (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Races_of_War_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29/Playing_Unusual_Races#Powerful_Races). "Quick templates" aren't really a balance thing, but make things easier on the DM.

As for specific "breaks", IIRC there's an ability which lets you auto-shaken enemies and another which lets you perform a coup de grace on shaken enemies. Or something like that.


So some things are better, some are worse. Arguably a core-only PF game is more balanced than a core-only 3.5 game. The psionics system by Dreamscarred Press, however, is pure awesome. (people don't give you weird looks if you want to play a soulknife)

[Nero24200]

My advice? Don't bother.

If your friend insists that it "Solves every balance issue in D&D" then I don't see how you can persuade him otherwise. Games like D&D can be very subjective and it's very easy to find reasons why this or that is slightly better or worse.

It sounds like your friend has already made up his mind.

[Ceaon]

Step 1. Build a wizard in 3.5 that your friend considers broken.
Step 2. Build the same wizard in Pathfinder.
Step 3. ???
Step 4. Profit/Proof.

[eepop]

I think making a Wizard is the wrong way to go here. In your description, you seemed to indicate that you had several other min-maxers in your group, they will handle having the OP casters.

What you would really need to do to disprove balance is to play the weakest class. Make an honest effort to make it the best it can be. And point out every time it gets drastically over-shadowed by those optimized full casters...which is going to be a lot.

[Grendus]

Pathfinder is a little more balanced. Save-or-Suck abilities now give a saving throw each round, polymorph got shredded (still good, but the nerf was a hellova lot tougher than the 3e-3.5e nerf). Pretty much everybody got new tricks, though melee generally got more, bringing them a little more up to par.

Generally speaking though, if you're interested in balance, 3.x d&d is probably not your style. You can make it work, if you're willing to try, but it takes time and familiarity with the system.

[Prime32]

Pretty much everybody got new tricks, though melee generally got more, bringing them a little more up to par.Take a look at tripping builds in 3.5e and PF.

In PF you need two feats to gain the same benefit as Improved Trip, and you can only use it once per round. And you can't make attacks of opportunity in the same round you trip someone. And enemy CMDs rise very quickly.


Also, monks can't take Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike). This is a specific exception to the rules on natural attacks because some of the playtesters thought it was cheesy. :smallsigh: Monks also cannot dual-wield flurry of blows with another weapon any more. On the plus side they get more feats, alternate uses of Stunning Fist, can jump higher, and are treated as having full BAB for everything except prereqs. (why not just give them full BAB? :smallconfused:)

[John Campbell]

Take a look at tripping builds in 3.5e and PF.

In PF you need two feats to gain the same benefit as Improved Trip, and you can only use it once per round. And you can't make attacks of opportunity in the same round you trip someone. And enemy CMDs rise very quickly.

Greater Trip makes targets of your trip provoke an AoO. You can use it as much as you want. You get the +4 bonus (which also applies if others try to trip you) and the freedom from your trip attempt provoking (from Improved Trip) regardless. It does not deny you the ability to do anything else in the same round. It does not use up your AoOs in any special way. Normal limitations on taking the AoO apply. i.e., if you have Combat Reflexes - and don't even try to tell me your one-trip-pony build doesn't have Combat Reflexes - you can keep taking the AoOs until you run out of Dex mod.

And anyone else who threatens your victim can take the AoO too. Even if you don't have any left.

(I'm still hunting for a way for my wolf animal companion/mount to qualify for Improved/Greater Trip. There's a quirk in the way AoOs work that, combined with the wolf's Trip special ability, would allow him to juggle opponents - keep hitting them and getting the free trip attempt, off which he gets an AoO and hits and trips them again - until he misses an attack, fails a trip attempt, or runs out of Dex bonus. And I, riding him, would get to take the AoOs too. (The wolf runs out of Dex first.))

Yeah, it takes four feats instead of three. (Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes. Plus Greater Trip in Pathfinder.) You get at least three more feats in Pathfinder than you did in 3.5.

More limiting is that Greater Trip requires a +6 BAB.

I've also found that the changes to the way combat maneuvers work make their casual use by non-specialist melee types a lot more viable.

[cfalcon]

Frankly if you want to break PF you do the same thing you did in standard 3.5 which is play a wizard.

They took away a couple toys but most of it still exists and that's if you don't open up the splat books from old 3.5.

I suspect that if you open up 3.5 splat books, you aren't really playing Pathfinder.

Pathfinder does NOT solve "every balance issue". However, it is much more balanced. Hell, I think some of the spells are *overnerfed*. You can still do some stuff with NPCs (calling and such), and most of the control spells are still quite good.

I suspect you'll like Pathfinder.


How bad are you looking to break it, and what levels are you playing? I'd suggest that a summoner is pretty powerful, but they don't do the reality-altering stuff as well as a wizard.


90-95% of Pathfinder is the same as 3.5.

That's really not accurate. A lot of the less-vetted or imbalanced stuff simply doesn't make it over there. While everyone here discounts pun-pun (while otherwise insisting we evaluate stuff as written in the rules), I will point out that Pun-Pun is not *in* Pathfinder. There's also less broken prestige classes, and builds actually look like a character you are playing instead of Fullcaster5/Otherfullcaster2/Brokendip1/Wowlev3isgood3/...

If you are playing Pathfinder rules but also allowing in 3.5 material freely, then you are playing a hybrid game. If your DM's goal is balance, then this isn't probably what he is looking for.


I will also point out that Pathfinder has some rather poor decisions about balance, from petty things like the Falcata being way too good to build oriented ones like human sorcerers getting too many spells, all the way up to some of the classic high level spell exploits.


All of this aside, I will likely start my next game as Pathfinder, though i don't expect that will be for a couple years. For now, I'm buying the books as they come out and occasionally participating in org play, so I know what houserules I want to run whenever I actually build a world or convert one of mine over. For now, 3.5 has more material, and many players will want to use some of that. There are plenty of cool things that 3.5 does that Pathfinder doesn't right now. However, everything Pathfinder does is Open Content. I can link to it all. It's all getting jammed into an SRD, and eventually my bookshelf will have all the Paizo rulebooks next to the 2ed, 3ed, 3.5ed, and even a couple 4ed player stuff if any of my friends decide to take that plunge... eventually, it will be bigger and better than 3.5.

And it will probably be more balanced, because it already is. Pathfinder Core only is definitely more fair than 3.5 Core only. And of course, everything else is optional :P

Note if you go to the pathfinder SRD, you can find their APG concepts as well. That has the summoner and the witch, both pretty damned powerful and cool- and of course, normal old wizards are still great too.

[Tyndmyr]

To counter this, our GM has proposed we switch to Pathfinder, which, to quote him, 'solves every balance issue in D&D.' I told him I was prematurely skeptical of this claim, and he responded by requesting I do my best to prove him wrong.

Haha, he's wrong. Absolutely wrong.

What are the greatest weaknesses of casters in 3.5? Lack of feats? Low hp? Lack of spell slots at low level?

Yes, none of these are great weaknesses...but they are the weakest points of casters. They are all removed in pathfinder.

Also, certain builds, like MT, have gotten much more badass, with a new way to break the action economy, and another core PrC to tack on after MT for a much better double progression by 20.

Melee people have become more interesting, but they are not actually usually better. Their feats got split up into longer chains, negating the feat advantage for them, as one example. Building a grappler is now significantly harder. Frenzied dipping into different classes(as is typical for most melee builds, especially core only) costs you your favored class bonus. Not so for magical classes, which work out just fine going straight classed. Chargers are gimped.

No, PF adds some interesting ideas, and the occasional fix is actually good...but if your DM thinks it fixes every balance problem, he's hilariously wrong.

[Infernalbargain]

Also, certain builds, like MT, have gotten much more badass, with a new way to break the action economy, and another core PrC to tack on after MT for a much better double progression by 20.

MT seems good in TO game, but with 0 methods of early entry in PF, have fun not getting 3rd levels spells until level 8.

One thing about the long term balance of PF vs. 3.5. PF will be more stable than 3.5. Yes, there will still be the overall increase in spells that will gradually boost up casters. Yes, there will still be exponential increase in feat combos. Yes, there will be an increase in PrC's and gear. However, their implementation of archetypes instead of new bases (they stated that magus, samurai, ninja, and gunslinger will be the last for quite some time) helps alleviate the munchkin builds and if they continue on with adding more traits, they can continue adding options without that exponential increase.

[cfalcon]

I will also add that blocking the monk from getting Improved Natural Attack is a good thing. Simply put, it's pretty silly to have a feat that literally EVERY MEMBER of a class needs to function.

I don't really think it's broken or anything if you allow it, of course. But I suspect that had something to do with the decision- to give you a choice of feats back. Imp NA isn't really supposed to buff a full attack cycle, it's supposed to represent a tiger having a really fierce bite compared to like, a horse.

[The Cat Goddess]

I will also add that blocking the monk from getting Improved Natural Attack is a good thing. Simply put, it's pretty silly to have a feat that literally EVERY MEMBER of a class needs to function.

I don't really think it's broken or anything if you allow it, of course. But I suspect that had something to do with the decision- to give you a choice of feats back. Imp NA isn't really supposed to buff a full attack cycle, it's supposed to represent a tiger having a really fierce bite compared to like, a horse.

So now "Superior Unarmed Strike" (from ToB) becomes the new "every member needs this to function" feat?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The simplest way to do this is to point out that the planar binding line hasn't functionally changed.

[Doc Roc]

Cast Summon Bigger Fish.

:: swims up :: Burble.

I disliked pathfinder's approach enough that I spent 2000+ hours on building legend.

Burble :: swims off ::

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Melee is less pathetic-- ranging from mildly less pathetic for the Monk to considerably less pathetic for the Paladin-- and full casters are less abusive. Druids are forced to choose between being good at summoning bears and being good at being bears. Casters still take over the game entirely after 9th.

Single-class and single-class + PrC characters are now more viable than characters with levels several classes, and you always lose something by multiclassing. Multiclass spellcasters have improved, but are still mostly worthless, except to demonstrate that even at half-strength they're better than melee.

The only real balance issue that PF "solves" is the ability to combine abilities from multiple supplements and reap the benefits of unintended consequences. Mostly because there aren't any supplements, and partially because there are almost no new PrCs. Every new class they introduce is a base class. This is a change I approve of almost entirely.

I'll grant that most of the changes between 3.5 and PF were solid improvements-- the Rage and Bardic Music nerfs were baffling-- but there aren't actually enough of those changes to say that Pathfinder is even a new edition. The changes are on par with the shift from 3.0 to 3.5, both in terms of scope and impact.

[Blisstake]

You could at least give Pathfinder a chance before trying to break it. I mean, if you're specifically looking for ways to exploit a system, you're going to find one no matter what you try.

I've noticed that with the removal of 3.5's many splatbooks, and the changes to a number of problematic spells and abilities, everyone at my gaming table feels relatively competent, even if the wizards might have a slight edge.

[holywhippet]

If he wants a balanced version of D&D then he'll have to go for 4th edition. It's not perfectly balanced, but the imbalances are far less significant than 3rd edition. Of course it's very different than 3rd edition as a result.

[Sir_Wulf]

The Pathfinder rules addressed some of the balance issues found in D&D; they also added options for low-level characters and streamlined some problematic rule mechanisms (such as grapples and special maneuvers).

Pathfinder's developers didn't "munchkin-proof" the rules. They saw their role as preserving what was good about 3.5 while smoothing out its rough spots. They were very cautious about making controversial changes: The folks who wanted 3.5 turned inside out and rebuilt from scratch already had a new system. These rules were meant for the players who didn't want to throw out their 3.5 characters and campaigns.

Part of Pathfinder's design ethos is that players and gamemasters need to exercise some discretion when it comes to the games they want to play. Any GM who lets his players pull feats, spells, and abilities from scores of different splatbooks is inevitably going to have a mess. If the rules give players the freedom to build a wide variety of character types, munchkins will inevitably seek "exploits" they can manipulate for their own advantage. Pathfinder tries to balance the power of the different classes, but shies away from the draconian restrictions that would be needed to prevent all potential balance problems.

[MeeposFire]

The Pathfinder rules addressed some of the balance issues found in D&D; they also added options for low-level characters and streamlined some problematic rule mechanisms (such as grapples and special maneuvers).

Pathfinder's developers didn't "munchkin-proof" the rules. They saw their role as preserving what was good about 3.5 while smoothing out its rough spots. They were very cautious about making controversial changes: The folks who wanted 3.5 turned inside out and rebuilt from scratch already had a new system. These rules were meant for the players who didn't want to throw out their 3.5 characters and campaigns.

Part of Pathfinder's design ethos is that players and gamemasters need to exercise some discretion when it comes to the games they want to play. Any GM who lets his players pull feats, spells, and abilities from scores of different splatbooks is inevitably going to have a mess. If the rules give players the freedom to build a wide variety of character types, munchkins will inevitably seek "exploits" they can manipulate for their own advantage. Pathfinder tries to balance the power of the different classes, but shies away from the draconian restrictions that would be needed to prevent all potential balance problems.

Well aren't you insulting. Further you are just flat out wrong. PF is barely any better at balance than stock 3.5. Without going into "munchkin" territory spells still trump melee classes. You might think that is ok (and some people do like that) but that still does not say balance (people that like casters being better for flavor are fine with casters being better mechanically as it fits their paradigm. Not my style but at least that is being honest with everybody). On top of that you do realize the most broken stuff in 3.5 was core right? The splats were better balanced overall and invariably restricting to core hurt the lower end classes more than it did the higher end classes (just for fun restrict casters to just core and everything else to everything. Guess who comes out ahead. Casters by far so your point is off the mark). If casting a spell as it is supposed to be used (for instance using gate to summon a monster to fight for you is using the spell as designed) makes you a munchkin count me very happy I don't have to play in your games.

[Nightblade]

The changes that Pathfinder makes to 3.5e may or may not be what you're looking for, but that's a matter of perspective.

Barbarian, for example, is probably no more powerful than it's original if you don't take feats into account. If you do, Barbarian is more versatile but less powerful as some of the charging builds.

Bards lose the traditional Bardic Knowledge but gains the ability to make any Knowledge check untrained with a bonus equal to half its class level. Inspire Competence scales with Bard class levels. Versatile Performance allows a bard to use certain types of Perform in place of other skills such as Oratory in place of Diplomacy and Sense Motive or Dance in place of Acrobatics and Fly. A few new songs are added including one that heals, one that debuffs, one that causes fear, and one that kills. The bard isn't a whole lot more "powerful" but it has more options.

The changes to both Barbarians and Bards highlight one of the things I like about Pathfinder so much. A lot of classes that needed a little love got it in one form or another. Every class, however, feels more fun. Anyone who played low level casters knows what I'm talking about if they look at Pathfinder. Cantrips can be used at-will, giving some fun abilities to be used in and out of combat. No one has to prepare a full retinue of Detect Magic anymore. No Wizard/Sorcerer has to make due with a Crossbow/Bow/Sling for most of the first few levels. For melee types - the addition of the Vital Strike feat tree isn't perfect but definitely a step in the right direction to retain DPR while being able to stay mobile.


Well aren't you insulting. Further you are just flat out wrong. PF is barely any better at balance than stock 3.5. Without going into "munchkin" territory spells still trump melee classes. You might think that is ok (and some people do like that) but that still does not say balance (people that like casters being better for flavor are fine with casters being better mechanically as it fits their paradigm. Not my style but at least that is being honest with everybody). On top of that you do realize the most broken stuff in 3.5 was core right? The splats were better balanced overall and invariably restricting to core hurt the lower end classes more than it did the higher end classes (just for fun restrict casters to just core and everything else to everything. Guess who comes out ahead. Casters by far so your point is off the mark). If casting a spell as it is supposed to be used (for instance using gate to summon a monster to fight for you is using the spell as designed) makes you a munchkin count me very happy I don't have to play in your games.

How was he being insulting? He's actually correct in what he's talking about. Sure, there was plenty in Core 3.5 that was broken, but splatbooks honestly hurt non-casters as much as it helped! Congratulations, your Barbarian can now do over 9000 damage per round doing the same thing over and over. Casters still do what they do in Core but better. Casters retained their versatility while non-casters become pigeon-holed into one-trick ponies. Divine Metamagic and Sculpt Spell are examples of feats. Initiate of the Seven Veils or the Incantrix are examples of prestige classes. Spells or Domains? There was enough to devote a Compendium to it. No one is arguing that Pathfinder is the way, the truth, and the life - but it is a hell of a lot better than Core.

[Doc Roc]

The changes that Pathfinder makes to 3.5e may or may not be what you're looking for, but that's a matter of perspective.

Barbarian, for example, is probably no more powerful than it's original if you don't take feats into account. If you do, Barbarian is more versatile but less powerful as some of the charging builds.

Bards lose the traditional Bardic Knowledge but gains the ability to make any Knowledge check untrained with a bonus equal to half its class level. Inspire Competence scales with Bard class levels. Versatile Performance allows a bard to use certain types of Perform in place of other skills such as Oratory in place of Diplomacy and Sense Motive or Dance in place of Acrobatics and Fly. A few new songs are added including one that heals, one that debuffs, one that causes fear, and one that kills. The bard isn't a whole lot more "powerful" but it has more options.

The changes to both Barbarians and Bards highlight one of the things I like about Pathfinder so much. A lot of classes that needed a little love got it in one form or another. Every class, however, feels more fun. Anyone who played low level casters knows what I'm talking about if they look at Pathfinder. Cantrips can be used at-will, giving some fun abilities to be used in and out of combat. No one has to prepare a full retinue of Detect Magic anymore. No Wizard/Sorcerer has to make due with a Crossbow/Bow/Sling for most of the first few levels. For melee types - the addition of the Vital Strike feat tree isn't perfect but definitely a step in the right direction to retain DPR while being able to stay mobile.



How was he being insulting? He's actually correct in what he's talking about. Sure, there was plenty in Core 3.5 that was broken, but splatbooks honestly hurt non-casters as much as it helped! Congratulations, your Barbarian can now do over 9000 damage per round doing the same thing over and over. Casters still do what they do in Core but better. Casters retained their versatility while non-casters become pigeon-holed into one-trick ponies. Divine Metamagic and Sculpt Spell are examples of feats. Initiate of the Seven Veils or the Incantrix are examples of prestige classes. Spells or Domains? There was enough to devote a Compendium to it. No one is arguing that Pathfinder is the way, the truth, and the life - but it is a hell of a lot better than Core.

Actually, there's a lot of cool builds that are only possible outside of core. Like Commander Shouts, or Doctor LIE DOWN.

[MeeposFire]

T



How was he being insulting? He's actually correct in what he's talking about. Sure, there was plenty in Core 3.5 that was broken, but splatbooks honestly hurt non-casters as much as it helped! Congratulations, your Barbarian can now do over 9000 damage per round doing the same thing over and over. Casters still do what they do in Core but better. Casters retained their versatility while non-casters become pigeon-holed into one-trick ponies. Divine Metamagic and Sculpt Spell are examples of feats. Initiate of the Seven Veils or the Incantrix are examples of prestige classes. Spells or Domains? There was enough to devote a Compendium to it. No one is arguing that Pathfinder is the way, the truth, and the life - but it is a hell of a lot better than Core.


1) He says it is balanced assuming you don't be a "munchkin" despite many of the things that are not balanced in coe PF are things like using stuff as intended. Using my own example I cast gate as intended, that spell overpowers the game, therefor he is saying that I am being a munchkin for just casting a spell as it is intended. I don't see how being called a "munchkin' could be conceived as being not insulting. If the spell is too powerful to be used without being called a munchkin it should not exist. Throwing around the term "munchkin" should not be done lightly and only in cases directly showing how somebody is being a munchkin. Blanket statements like this are so general that the munchkin term would be applied to many players that are assuredly not munchkins and so it would be insulting to those players and it is needless.

2) The pigeonholing you are talking about using the non-core material is precisely because it is the only way for those classes to compete at all and is one of the few avenues open to them. Not having that option at all pushes them into a place that has even fewer options for doing well.

3) Casters on the other hand gets some nice things that they don't need in splats but as I said you can open up all the splats to non casters and restrict casters to just core and casters still win. If casters are better without all the stuff then having all the stuff just means they stay ahead. Restricting is more hurtful for melee so if you care about balance at all you need to allow non-core stuff or change how the game works a lot. PF does not do that. The problems are still there. PF does a good job at making some minor changes that do some nice things such as the change to bardic knowledge (which is a very nice change) but in the grand scheme of things those changes do not change balance in a meaningful way.

So I can have just core only and have non-casters than cannot compete or I could allow splats and non-casters cannot compete but at least have more options to use. Which sounds more fun for most groups? Most groups would say give me more options.

4) PF is slightly better than core (just by having the classes get a few new things so it ain't by much) but I prefer the later WotC class design to the PF designs. ToB classes are much better mechanically than the PF non-casters. Binders, factotums, and totemists are all mechanically strong and I at least find them to be far more interesting to play than the classes offered by PF. If PF would make classes more like these I might be interested but right now they are still predominantly preoccupied with early 3.5 class design and so offer little that I want and in keeping with the thread's topic it is too easy to break for me to suggest it to somebody who did not like 3.5. If they loved 3.5 then it is fine. If they want a "balanced" 3.5 PF won't do it. If 3.5 was unbalanced for them then PF will be just about as bad (though for some players that is exactly what they want).

EDIT: The sort of things I would have liked to see would have been stuff leanred from books such as ToB. For instance one BIG advantage that ToB characters (and many later classes like the duskblade) have that non-ToB characters don't are effective standard actions. This allows them to be useful in any situation even when slowed, can't charge, or have to move and attack. If PF effectively did something about this issue they would have a lot more respect from me. Thier vital strike line is an attempt at this but it fails because it is too expensive (too many feats) and gives too little value for that cost. As a basic and simple example as a standard rule (as in no feat cost this would just be standard) you could say "when you make an attack action the first, and probably only, attack deals additional damage of 1d6 points of damage per point of BAB. In addition you deal this damage if you do a charge attack and you lack the pounce ability". So your 20th level fighter deals 1d8+20d6+mods on a standard action (which is close to what ToB warriors do). The flavor is that since you are not trying to make a ton of attacks you spend more time prepping your strike and are better able to apply the force of the attack. Make a few tweaks to get the damage right and this could serve to be helpful to these standard core classes on a standard action. This will also help make melee classes more dynamic since they can more afford to move around since it will not cost them so much damage from making less attacks. These are the sort of things needed to make many of those classes into the tier 3 range (some classes need more though I think this would be a great help). This sort of bold thinking would have made me think more of the designers of PF.

[darkdragoon]

The new Persistent Spell arguably makes the 3.5 one look balanced.

The bloated feat trees didn't get trimmed; they got more branches many of which are needed to regain the same base functionality they used to have. Staples like Power Attack lost oomph or in the case of Cleave are a different effect (what was that about compatibility?).

Other features like Bardic Music and Rage are in a setup that seems designed to nickel and dime them to unusability.

Every base class technically has more stuff on its writeup, but many of these are niche changes. Paladins do get a couple nice things, but then again I'm not sure their healing 'boost' is all that compared to a Caduceus Bracer. Most of these seem like somebody was randomly flipping through PHB II and/or the Complete books. Yet somehow most of those tricks got worse. Unless you're a full caster of course, then you get 3-4 abilities based on your school/bloodline/domain for lulz.

[Veyr]

I've noticed that with the removal of 3.5's many splatbooks, and the changes to a number of problematic spells and abilities, everyone at my gaming table feels relatively competent, even if the wizards might have a slight edge.
No. Just no.

90% of the broken spells are in the PHB. Removing splatbooks just removes all sources of hope for the mundanes, since almost all of their options worth taking weren't printed in Core, while spellcasters still have almost all of their power.

[Tyndmyr]

MT seems good in TO game, but with 0 methods of early entry in PF, have fun not getting 3rd levels spells until level 8.

One thing about the long term balance of PF vs. 3.5. PF will be more stable than 3.5. Yes, there will still be the overall increase in spells that will gradually boost up casters. Yes, there will still be exponential increase in feat combos. Yes, there will be an increase in PrC's and gear. However, their implementation of archetypes instead of new bases (they stated that magus, samurai, ninja, and gunslinger will be the last for quite some time) helps alleviate the munchkin builds and if they continue on with adding more traits, they can continue adding options without that exponential increase.

Eh, look at it from a PO perspective compared to 3.5. Not everyone who played 3.5 had access to early entry. Lots of core-only games have happened. A core only PF MT is flat out superior to a core-only 3.5 MT.

The only real balancing factor is that PF has less splatbooks printed for it. So far. If you allow 3.5 splatbooks in PF, any semblance of balance in PF goes straight out the window.

Consider the DD in 3.5. It basically allowed a melee character to have a one level sorc dip, then get some fun things over ten levels to boost it's melee. It wasn't particularly powerful in general, but it did provide some fun toys to core melee types, such as mundane flight. In PF, it's a 7/10 casting class in addition to melee bonuses. It also grants some polymorph-like abilities. It's basically a gish in a can that utterly dominates either the 3.5 gish(EK) or the pure melee route that was the 3.5 DD.

That said, the PF spell critical feature of EK is of interest if you're into novaing off spells.

Now, consider traditional melee prestige classes. Assassin has become Red Mantis Assassin. It now requires LE instead of any evil, and it requires a total of four feats, all of which range from meh to terrible. An EMP to treat what is effectively a longsword as a light weapon? Gah. Then of course, weapon focus in it. You basically get locked into this mediocre exotic weapon. You get one less SA die over ten levels. You get a few meh insect based abilities instead of, yknow, death attack. She does gain the ability to not leave a corpse behind when she dies. Woohoo. Big plus, there. HIPS? No. At least the spells gained are good.

Pretty much everything what involves spells is still awesome in PF, and has only gotten vastly more awesome. Everything that is melee has, at best, picked up a bunch of situational abilities to keep track of that tend not to be terribly helpful. Some classes have both, and thus, ended up being more or less balanced, but the system as a whole? Balanced? No.

[Reverent-One]

Now, consider traditional melee prestige classes. Assassin has become Red Mantis Assassin. It now requires LE instead of any evil, and it requires a total of four feats, all of which range from meh to terrible. An EMP to treat what is effectively a longsword as a light weapon? Gah. Then of course, weapon focus in it. You basically get locked into this mediocre exotic weapon. You get one less SA die over ten levels. You get a few meh insect based abilities instead of, yknow, death attack. She does gain the ability to not leave a corpse behind when she dies. Woohoo. Big plus, there. HIPS? No. At least the spells gained are good.

You're confusing the Red Mantis Assassin PrC with the Assassin PrC (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/assassin).

[Veyr]

I have my doubts about a 7/10 casting PrC beating a 9/10 casting PrC ever. I doubt the PF Dragon Disciple grants enough in class features to make up for two lost spellcasting levels (especially since it presumably is still expecting Sorcerer and thus you're losing 9ths). But I haven't read most of the PF PrCs

Also, having read and actually analyzed the PF Mystic Theurge... strictly superior? Yes. Good? No. The ability to cross-apply spells costs a spell level for no apparent reason — the only really interesting thing the class could have possibly provided was serving as a source of spells for a spontaneous class, if you combine it with a prepared class. But having to increase the spell level of every spell you do that with makes it useless.

Then you have the capstone, cast an Arcane and Divine spell in one turn. First time I read it, I thought it was overpowered — which made the "theurge-problem" even worse in PF. Here's what I mean:

Levels 1-3 were normal, because you were a Wizard 3 or Cleric 3. Then levels 4-6 (or maybe 7), you barely gain any power at all while single-classed characters are gaining spell levels (a Wizard 3/Cleric 3 is closer, IMO, to a Wizard 3 in power than it is to a Wizard 6 — and the comparison between a Cleric 7 and a Cleric 3/Sorcerer 4 isn't even close). So before you enter Mystic Theurge, you suck.

As Mystic Theurge levels continue, you start to catch up — dual-progression is worth something. The PF class features before 10th are pretty much useless, so the difference between PF and 3.5 isn't too significant here (except that in PF you've given up on your Cleric or Wizard class features since you're not in those classes). Most importantly, by 15th (Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 9), you are still categorically weaker than a Wizard 15 or Cleric 15. 6th Cleric and Wizard spells do not compare to 8th level Cleric or Wizard spells.

Then you hit 10th, and you get the ability to cast both an Arcane and a Divine spell in one turn. Suddenly, you might jump ahead of the single-classed character — two 7th level spells in one turn looks pretty good compared to a single 8th. It's almost too good.

But then you continue leveling... and you can't continue dual-progression. 17th level Wizard and 13th level Cleric spell casting, plus you get the dual-casting thing... the single-classed character is catching up, and quickly. You still get 9ths, though, as long as you've missed out on the chance to use your prepared casting to supply spells known to a spontaneous caster. At 20th, you're probably even to a Wizard 20 or Cleric 20. In between 17th and 20th, though, you don't have 9ths, which makes you worse, even with the dual-casting thing. Yes, 9th level spells are that good.

So we have a situation where you're normal from 1-3, suck horribly from 4-6, suck quite a lot but not quite so bad from 7-15, are overpowered at 15th and maybe 16th, are weak again from 17-19, and then at 20 probably somewhere about even.

This is a huge problem. A character's power should not be a rollercoaster ride like that. The idea of sucking from 4th to 15th just to be overpowered at 16th is terrible.


But then it turns out that the capstone is 1/day. OK, well, that eliminates most of the above — even at 16th, you still suck. So it's just all suck, all the time, from 4th on.

This is not good design. It's better than the 3.5 Mystic Theurge, but it's a lot worse than the 3.5 Ultimate Magus, which they could have (and should have) looked to for inspiration on how to do a theurge-type right.

[Tyndmyr]

You're confusing the Red Mantis Assassin PrC with the Assassin PrC (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/assassin).

Oh, my bad. Yeah, rants against Red Mantis aside, the regular assassin class is...not really different at all. So, while caster classes get fun toys, they get nothing of importance.

Veyr, Dragon Disciple (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/dragonDisciple.htm), in 3.5, gets 0/10 casting. They just get some bonus spells. Meh. It's considered substantially inferior to a straight caster. 7/10 beats the hell out of 0/10 and a few bonus spells at what...level one? 3.5 DD does not go well with a full caster.

Note that PF DD progresses bloodline abilities too. So, the sorc dip for a melee character becomes quite potent. Note that you get much better flight in this way than does the 3.5 DD.

[Blisstake]

No. Just no.

90% of the broken spells are in the PHB. Removing splatbooks just removes all sources of hope for the mundanes, since almost all of their options worth taking weren't printed in Core, while spellcasters still have almost all of their power.

If you're talking about cheezy stuff like taking a 1 level dip that gets you pounce, then I don't really agree. Cheese to counter cheese isn't really the answer, in my opinion.

And people keep saying stuff like that. All the PHB are ridiculous/broken/overpowered/whatever. Could someone give me a list of what's actually broken, because I honestly don't see it, unless you're a deliberate power gamer.

[Tyndmyr]

If you're talking about cheezy stuff like taking a 1 level dip that gets you pounce, then I don't really agree. Cheese to counter cheese isn't really the answer, in my opinion.

And people keep saying stuff like that. All the PHB are ridiculous/broken/overpowered/whatever. Could someone give me a list of what's actually broken, because I honestly don't see it, unless you're a deliberate power gamer.

Er, wish, gate. Things like that. In short, spells. Some of them are really just pretty crazy powerful. Hell, at the level you first get flight, it can entirely negate or avoid many encounters. Melee lacks comparable options.

PF does not change this.

Hell, the infinite wish loop abusing candles of invocation and efreeti still exists in PF.

[Veyr]

Veyr, Dragon Disciple (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/dragonDisciple.htm), in 3.5, gets 0/10 casting.
I know, but you said:

Consider the DD [...] it's basically a gish in a can that utterly dominates either the 3.5 gish(EK) or the pure melee route that was the 3.5 DD.It's far better than the 3.5 Dragon Disciple. It is not even remotely as good as the 3.5 Eldritch Knight.


If you're talking about cheezy stuff like taking a 1 level dip that gets you pounce, then I don't really agree. Cheese to counter cheese isn't really the answer, in my opinion.

And people keep saying stuff like that. All the PHB are ridiculous/broken/overpowered/whatever. Could someone give me a list of what's actually broken, because I honestly don't see it, unless you're a deliberate power gamer.
Here. (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/spells.htm)

[Blisstake]

No, I'm serious. I think most of the spells are reasonable (especially in PF). The only one I can think of right away that's still broken is maybe Summon Monster, but I think that's been trimmed a bit. Some spells are really only a problem if the group is really optimize-crazy (like Contingency).

When I played 3.5, my group didn't exactly optimize, but there were still ridiculous spells like polymorph and Black Tentacles that made everyone else feel pretty pointless. Those specifically aren't as ridiculous anymore, and now the physical classes actually feel a lot more useful due to being stronger themselves, and taking away a few of the wizard's game breaking toys.

This may all be moot since Dust mentioned the group does have optimizers inside, but honestly, it feels like it's hard to break PF, unless you're really trying.

[Veyr]

You did say "PHB", which is why I linked the 3.5 spells.

But mostly, just look through the changes that PF made — it never touched most spells. As a result, there's more than enough absolutely broken crap available.

[Sir_Wulf]

Well aren't you insulting. Further you are just flat out wrong. PF is barely any better at balance than stock 3.5.
I wasn’t trying to insult anybody. If you think I meant that “only a munchkin would have balance problems with Pathfinder”, you’re mistaken. My main point actually agrees with the criticisms you expressed, in that Pathfinder’s designers didn’t prioritize balance as highly as they could have. They preferred to remain consistent with 3.5, which sometimes meant accepting potential balance issues.

Without going into "munchkin" territory, spells still trump melee classes.
I don't think I'm a draconian GM, but that hasn't been the case in the Pathfinder games I've run. The system seems to play best below 15th level, but my groups’ fighter-types were still essential to the party at 12th and 13th level.

If casting a spell as it is supposed to be used (for instance using gate to summon a monster to fight for you is using the spell as designed) makes you a munchkin count me very happy I don't have to play in your games.
It sounds like we’re approaching this issue from different perspectives. If your character is firing up a gate to summon something to fight for him, you’re probably not playing the level range I normally run. I’ve always considered the top end of the level spectrum as intended for NPCs and antagonists. A party of 14th level PCs needs an opponent of 17th or higher level to adequately challenge them.

When I refer to something as “munchkin”, I’m thinking of strategies and builds that may follow the rules, but don’t make sense from other perspectives. I’m thinking of guys who believe their PC can manipulate and coerce extra-planar beings without repercussions (After all, the planar ally spells don’t mention anything about these creatures’ wrathful allies and patrons) or who throw together optimized characters that make no sense (other than to grab “1337” powers). Just because someone can theoretically build a hyper-optimized PC who’s unstoppable in his own field of expertise doesn’t mean such a character makes for a good game.

MeeposFire, we may disagree about some things, but you’re welcome at my table anytime. I doubt that our differences are as substantial as they look in print. When I’m behind the GM’s screen, my sole goal is providing a good experience for my players. (I would have to bring things up a notch if you prefer high-level play: That’s not my usual style!)

[Doc Roc]

No, I'm serious. I think most of the spells are reasonable (especially in PF). The only one I can think of right away that's still broken is maybe Summon Monster, but I think that's been trimmed a bit. Some spells are really only a problem if the group is really optimize-crazy (like Contingency).

When I played 3.5, my group didn't exactly optimize, but there were still ridiculous spells like polymorph and Black Tentacles that made everyone else feel pretty pointless. Those specifically aren't as ridiculous anymore, and now the physical classes actually feel a lot more useful due to being stronger themselves, and taking away a few of the wizard's game breaking toys.

This may all be moot since Dust mentioned the group does have optimizers inside, but honestly, it feels like it's hard to break PF, unless you're really trying.

Solid fog, for example, is largely unchanged. Helping hand? Still glitched. Planar binding? Yep, functionally unchanged. Polymorph? Nerfbatted, but so much additional book-keeping! Teleport? Still no real way to get it as a fighter. Overland flight? Unchanged. There's probably 30 others.

My big gripe is simple: PF doesn't really feel faster or cleaner and it isn't really that back-compatible, because apparently splats make the game asplode?

[John Campbell]

You did say "PHB", which is why I linked the 3.5 spells.

But mostly, just look through the changes that PF made — it never touched most spells. As a result, there's more than enough absolutely broken crap available.

"Most spells" don't need to be fixed. My barbarian isn't going to be crying himself to sleep because fireball didn't get nerfed.

I'm rather more unhappy that protection from evil and its ilk did get nerfed.

[cfalcon]

No. Just no.

90% of the broken spells are in the PHB. Removing splatbooks just removes all sources of hope for the mundanes, since almost all of their options worth taking weren't printed in Core, while spellcasters still have almost all of their power.

As much as you say this, this is just not a truism. At the very least, most people have houseruled enough that this isn't true.

[navar100]

Spellcasters are entitled to cast spells that are "awesome". It is not a sin for a player character to be such. So what a wizard teleports? Perhaps teleporting is the only way the party can get to where the adventure is, using up one of the wizard's spell slots for that day.

Pathfinder did nerf spells, but they weren't required to make spells useless. They just toned them down a bit. Save or die is replaced with 10 damage per level. That can still kill some characters, but at least dedicated warriors can withstand one. Phantasmal Killer is still save or die. That is either an oversight or ignored because it requires two failed saves to die. Save or Sucks that really didn't have saving throws now do (Ray of Enfeeblement) or lets you try again (Glitterdust). Don't have book with me but I think Slow is still only one save. That's ok. Polymorphs depend upon your base ability scores. Immunity to stuff is replaced with a bonus to saving throw.

Pathfinder raised the strength of warriors. Good. Pathfinder lowered the power of spells but not to the point of why bother casting. Good. Pathfinder recognized that a good number of people were screaming about the power discrepancy between 3E spellcasters and warriors, and this is how they addressed it. Spellcasters and their spells do not need to be exactly the same as a warrior swinging his weapon. If you absolutely must have that, 4E is waiting for you.

[Doc Roc]

As much as you say this, this is just not a truism. At the very least, most people have houseruled enough that this isn't true.

So the game is okay because you can fix the huge broken segments? Can I get you to work on my open source projects? Please?

[Veyr]

"Most spells" don't need to be fixed. My barbarian isn't going to be crying himself to sleep because fireball didn't get nerfed.
I don't care to start counting which spells do and which spells did, but I'd be utterly unsurprised if more than 50% of the spells did, in fact, require a nerf.

And more to the point, more than Pathfinder fixed needed it.


As much as you say this, this is just not a truism. At the very least, most people have houseruled enough that this isn't true.
It is, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you again.

[Tyndmyr]

I know, but you said:
It's far better than the 3.5 Dragon Disciple. It is not even remotely as good as the 3.5 Eldritch Knight.

Why not?

PF DD = 7/10. 3.5 EK = Full BaB
PF DD = 7/10 spell progression. 3.5 EK = 9/10 spell progression.
3.5 EK also gets a fighter bonus feat, and there it's abilities end.
They have the same skills/lvl.

So, we need everything else in PF DD to beat 2 spellcaster levels and one fighter bonus feat, and 3 BaB. I'll grant you that the caster levels are nice. The fighter bonus feat is easy.

Bonus Feat: PF DD gets three bloodline bonus feats. This includes a number of fighter feats like Power Attack, but also has other fun options like Quicken Spell. This is absolutely superior to one fighter bonus feat.

3 BaB. DD gets +4 Str in total. This negates 2 BaB except for iteratives, but also provides extra damage. Note that you do also gain natural attacks, which provides you with some interesting attack heavy options, and that when in your class-granted draconic polymorph, another +4 str is stacked on top of this.

Note that your existing natural attacks from PF DD are not replaced by the draconic form. You're going to have a selection of like 8 natural attacks when shifted.

Yes, I think PF DD wins this handily.

The third and final thing DD needs to make up is the two lost spellcasting levels.

You get 2/day shapeshifting into the aforementioned draconic form. This provides you with a lovely array of advantages. This is basically 2/spells a day. Hefty ones, with some scaling built in. They remain useful.

You also get a breath weapon. Twice a day, minimum. This is not unlike having additional blasty spells.

You gain blindsense 60 ft. This is not unlike a very good detection spell, but the fact that it's EX is quite handy.

You gain wings, and hence, flight. This is like flight. Correction, this is like persisted flight.

Sure, you say, in pure gishy power, this may be the equal of additional spell slots, but what about the flexibility loss? Surely, even though a sorcerer would not have many additional spells known from those two additional levels, he could at least pick those? Read on.

Well, DD has a d12, EK has a D6. So, another 30 hp over the life of the PrC. For a front-liner, this is actually a significant amount of hp. It is extremely difficult to make a good gish build that is as hp heavy as a PF DD build.

DD also has a +2 int. Not terribly synergistic, but free stats are always desirable. A few extra skill points and resistance to being stat drained is a positive.

DD also gets a +2 con. Woohoo. Together with the d12 hit die, this makes for someone who can withstand some serious face melting.

DD also gets natural armor boosts. +3 from the class, and +2 from the progression of the draconic bloodline through the class. +5 NA is a substantial AC boost. Together with armor boosting spells and giant piles of hp, this can give you a pretty durable gish.

DD also, through progression of the draconic bloodline, grants 10 energy resist to your energy type. See above.

Lastly, you can enter it only losing a single BaB without shenanigans. Dip sorc for two levels(because hey, caster levels are fun), and take a few levels of your favorite beat things up classes. Comboing it with PF EK is quite possible, if you prefer to conserve caster levels.

Yes, it's stupidly better than 3.5 EK....and dipping sorc to go DD is a ridiculously easy decision for essentially any melee class in PF.

[The Cat Goddess]

One of the spells that is often considered "broken" (or at least unbalanced):
Grease: Pathfinder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/g/grease), D&D (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/grease.htm)

A spell my groups have used to radically affect combat:
Entangle: Pathfinder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/entangle), D&D (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/entangle.htm)

Note that the Pathfinder description is confusing, because it says if you make your save you can move normally, but it also mentions (one time, in a minor way) that the area is "difficult terrain".

These are 1st level spells that can affect an encounter much more greatly than even adding an additional melee combatant to the party would... and the pathfinder versions are identical to the D&D versions.

Here's another... the low-level "auto-safe camp" spell:
Rope Trick: Pathfinder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/rope-trick), D&D (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/ropeTrick.htm)

[Tyndmyr]

Of special note for grease is that it got a compensatory boost to minutes/lvl in PF.

The nerfing of spells in PF is...quite rare, and generally extremely soft. It doesn't make much difference in practical terms beyond causing you to flip through the book just in case this spell is one of the ones that got a minor change.

[MeeposFire]

Which is the most annoying type of change (since you are never sure). Even if a spell is nerfed unless they go after the other spells you will just switch witch spell they want to use.

[Sir_Wulf]

These are 1st level spells that can affect an encounter much more greatly than even adding an additional melee combatant to the party would... and the pathfinder versions are identical to the D&D versions.
I don't want to be rude, but you are mistaken. Looking at entangle, I see that escaping from entanglement is much easier (The DC equals the spell's save DC instead of DC 20) and requires a move action instead of a full-round action.

When casting grease, during my games I've found that the simpler skill system in Pathfinder makes characters more likely to put a couple of points into Acrobatics. Adding to that, traits like Armor Expert and the Fighter's Armor Training ability tend to reduce armor penalties, reducing the difficulty posed by Acrobatics checks.

Pathfinder also completely eliminated one nasty use: Foes balancing on a greasy floor are no longer considered flat-footed, so you can't use it to set up a sneak attack.

Here's another... the low-level "auto-safe camp" spell: Rope Trick: Pathfinder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/rope-trick), D&D (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/ropeTrick.htm)
This spell is changed in one minor, but significant way: The caster can no longer pull up or hide the rope that leads to his extradimensional haven. While that's hardly an earthshaking change, it means that rope trick isn't something the party can rely on every time. Unless one's foes are idiots, casters overly reliant on rope trick run the risk of encountering an ambush soon after they climb out of it.

[Veyr]

snip
I disagree with your analysis; I don't think those are "stupidly better" than two spellcasting levels, at all. Especially since losing 3 levels as a Sorcerer means you don't get 9ths ever.

[adecoy95]

Frankly if you want to break PF you do the same thing you did in standard 3.5 which is play a wizard.

They took away a couple toys but most of it still exists and that's if you don't open up the splat books from old 3.5.

Melee classes still are not up to snuff and they missed several key fixes (monks are still not very good and fighters outside of possibly mobile warrior type are the same with some bigger numbers but did not fix the base problems).

Fortunately if you play with people that don't play casters to their potential (playing blaster mages and the like) and your melee players don't mind being nearly the same from 3.5 then you can still have a fun game (just like in 3.5). Essentially I am saying it is mostly the same as 3.5 don't expect a truly different game. It will be the same game with minor tweaks. that is PF biggest strength and weakness.

yes, at first glance wizard/sorceror control was reduced, but only at first glance.

laughs were had when i read aqueous orb.

a crowd control spell that i can use every round while still casting spells??

:smallbiggrin:

[Tael]

I disagree with your analysis; I don't think those are "stupidly better" than two spellcasting levels, at all. Especially since losing 3 levels as a Sorcerer means you don't get 9ths ever.

You're comparing a full caster to a gish. Guess who always wins in that situation? Yeah.

He's saying that it's a much better choice for gishes, not for full casters. And really, how often do your games get to 9th level spells?

[Veyr]

My point is that EK loses only one spellcasting level. Is it worth the BAB and bonus feat? No. Is it better than just about anything that loses 3? Yes.

You want a good gish class, that actually makes its lost spellcasting worth something? See the Jade Phoenix Mage, Ruby Knight Vindicator, or Swiftblade.

But, barring those, Wizard 20 > Wizard 10/Eldritch Knight 10 > Sorcerer 10/Dragon Disciple 10. Purely as a function of spellcasting levels.

The Pathfinder Dragon Disciple has some nice features. It's a massive step up from a Fighter or whatever. It might be worth a lost spellcasting level. It's not worth two, or three.

[Doc Roc]

My point is that EK loses only one spellcasting level. Is it worth the BAB and bonus feat? No. Is it better than just about anything that loses 3? Yes.

You want a good gish class, that actually makes its lost spellcasting worth something? See the Jade Phoenix Mage, Ruby Knight Vindicator, or Swiftblade.

But, barring those, Wizard 20 > Wizard 10/Eldritch Knight 10 > Sorcerer 10/Dragon Disciple 10. Purely as a function of spellcasting levels.

The Pathfinder Dragon Disciple has some nice features. It's a massive step up from a Fighter or whatever. It might be worth a lost spellcasting level. It's not worth two, or three.

I'd say it's worth two, if it was a first and last.

[Veyr]

You keep 9ths, get Ex Flight and Blindsight, a bunch of ability bonuses, natural attacks, and the pretty good polymorph effect... yeah, I suppose you're probably right.

When I said "two", though, I meant the difference between the EK losing 1 and the DD losing 3. It's not worth those levels, because it precludes 9th level spells.

[Doc Roc]

You keep 9ths, get Ex Flight and Blindsight, a bunch of ability bonuses, natural attacks, and the pretty good polymorph effect... yeah, I suppose you're probably right.

When I said "two", though, I meant the difference between the EK losing 1 and the DD losing 3. It's not worth those levels, because it precludes 9th level spells.

Link me to the class on the PFSRD, someone? i'd like to examine its saucy little breakpoints.

[The Cat Goddess]

Link me to the class on the PFSRD, someone? i'd like to examine its saucy little breakpoints.

Right here. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/dragon-disciple)
Retaining spell casting boost at 5th might be what you're looking for.

[Tech Boy]

Cast Summon Bigger Fish.

YES.^20

Darths and Droids :)

[Infernalbargain]

yes, at first glance wizard/sorceror control was reduced, but only at first glance.

laughs were had when i read aqueous orb.

a crowd control spell that i can use every round while still casting spells??

:smallbiggrin:

They get a second save against the crowd control effect. Reread it.


Any creature in the path of the aqueous orb takes 2d6 points of nonlethal damage. A successful Reflex save negates this damage, but a Large or smaller creature that fails its save must make a second save or be engulfed by the aqueous orb and carried along with it. Engulfed creatures are immersed in water and must hold their breath unless capable of breathing water.

Not entirely reliable. And they get another save each round. You need to throw persistent on there, but then you're talking about 5th level spells.


When I said "two", though, I meant the difference between the EK losing 1 and the DD losing 3. It's not worth those levels, because it precludes 9th level spells.

Yes, for a caster it is worse than EK. For a non-caster it is better than EK. Typical DD entries are sorc 1 (or 2) / pal 4 (or 3) / DD X.
Typical EK entries are wizard 5 / fighter 1 / EK X
Those characters have vastly different roles. Simply put, EK is a caster who can fight, DD is a fighter who can cast. Honestly only idiots would actually do sorc 10 / DD 10.


One of the spells that is often considered "broken" (or at least unbalanced):
Grease: Pathfinder, D&D

A spell my groups have used to radically affect combat:
Entangle: Pathfinder, D&D

Note that the Pathfinder description is confusing, because it says if you make your save you can move normally, but it also mentions (one time, in a minor way) that the area is "difficult terrain".

These are 1st level spells that can affect an encounter much more greatly than even adding an additional melee combatant to the party would... and the pathfinder versions are identical to the D&D versions.

Here's another... the low-level "auto-safe camp" spell:
Rope Trick: Pathfinder, D&D

First off, grease is indeed nerfed fairly significantly. Grease in PF does not require a check every round to avoid falling. Creatures who fail are not flat-footed. Also there's the stealth nerf of skill combining. More people are going to have more ranks in acrobatics.

Entangle isn't as nerfed as grease. It is only a move action now to break free. It has also been mentioned that it is against spell DC instead of flat DC 20 which is considerably easier because you'll have at best DC 18 at level 1 (assuming human taking (greater) spell focus). Also it is considered difficult terrain which there are feats and class features to step side this.

If you look at the egregarious stuff that paizo didn't touch, it is the high level stuff. Which I speculate most campaigns don't actually get to. What they did fix was much of low level play. Knock no longer obsoletes a rogue, even at lock picking since lock picking and disable device are jammed together. At level 3, you merely get a +13 bonus to the check. At level 3, a rogue can have +9 with minimal effort (+3 class, +3 dex, +3 ranks) and has the ability to take 20.

Side note: Arcane lock on a chest is bypassable by rogues in PF (3.5 has no such clause)

Honestly, anyone who has Paizo didn't take steps to rectify the caster / non-caster imbalance has not actually read through the spell descriptions. That being said, I will concede that high level balance is still on a gentleman's agreement regarding things such has planar binding. But then again that's fine with me because I view 15+ as territory reserved for BBEG and other plot devices.

[Veyr]

Those characters have vastly different roles. Simply put, EK is a caster who can fight, DD is a fighter who can cast. Honestly only idiots would actually do sorc 10 / DD 10.
I agree. Again, I was only responding to the comment that the PF Dragon Disciple would "utterly dominate the 3.5 gish (EK)" — it would not. The EK is nearly a full-caster, and therefore would beat the Dragon Disciple who is nothing close.

[darkdragoon]

I don't want to be rude, but you are mistaken. Looking at entangle, I see that escaping from entanglement is much easier (The DC equals the spell's save DC instead of DC 20) and requires a move action instead of a full-round action.

Spell DCs can be boosted. At level 1 it may be easier to break, but later on it will be tougher. Plus it automatically creates difficult terrain now.

[Infernalbargain]

Spell DCs can be boosted. At level 1 it may be easier to break, but later on it will be tougher. Plus it automatically creates difficult terrain now.

Yes, but you got better things to do at higher levels, and having it qualify properly as difficult terrain means there's more ways around it than back in 3.5. 3.5 merely thrust upon you half move, no questions asked.

[Ashram]

They get a second save against the crowd control effect. Reread it.



Not entirely reliable. And they get another save each round. You need to throw persistent on there, but then you're talking about 5th level spells.



Yes, for a caster it is worse than EK. For a non-caster it is better than EK. Typical DD entries are sorc 1 (or 2) / pal 4 (or 3) / DD X.
Typical EK entries are wizard 5 / fighter 1 / EK X
Those characters have vastly different roles. Simply put, EK is a caster who can fight, DD is a fighter who can cast. Honestly only idiots would actually do sorc 10 / DD 10.



First off, grease is indeed nerfed fairly significantly. Grease in PF does not require a check every round to avoid falling. Creatures who fail are not flat-footed. Also there's the stealth nerf of skill combining. More people are going to have more ranks in acrobatics.

Entangle isn't as nerfed as grease. It is only a move action now to break free. It has also been mentioned that it is against spell DC instead of flat DC 20 which is considerably easier because you'll have at best DC 18 at level 1 (assuming human taking (greater) spell focus). Also it is considered difficult terrain which there are feats and class features to step side this.

If you look at the egregarious stuff that paizo didn't touch, it is the high level stuff. Which I speculate most campaigns don't actually get to. What they did fix was much of low level play. Knock no longer obsoletes a rogue, even at lock picking since lock picking and disable device are jammed together. At level 3, you merely get a +13 bonus to the check. At level 3, a rogue can have +9 with minimal effort (+3 class, +3 dex, +3 ranks) and has the ability to take 20.

Side note: Arcane lock on a chest is bypassable by rogues in PF (3.5 has no such clause)

Honestly, anyone who has Paizo didn't take steps to rectify the caster / non-caster imbalance has not actually read through the spell descriptions. That being said, I will concede that high level balance is still on a gentleman's agreement regarding things such has planar binding. But then again that's fine with me because I view 15+ as territory reserved for BBEG and other plot devices.

You forgot the one big fix they made to Rope Trick: You can no longer "pull the rope into the extradimensional space", so there's always a rope hanging from the middle of nowhere, and it can't be magically concealed.

[Gnaeus]

You forgot the one big fix they made to Rope Trick: You can no longer "pull the rope into the extradimensional space", so there's always a rope hanging from the middle of nowhere, and it can't be magically concealed.

Huh. You're right. "The rope cannot be removed or hidden.". I wonder what happens if someone tries to remove or hide the rope. If Mr. Enemy spellcaster sees the rope, and he casts invisibility on it, does invisibility fail? Or does Rope trick end? Is there a CL check? What if he hides it behind a curtain. Does that end the Rope trick? Or can you see the rope anyway, through the curtain (because it can't be hidden)?

There has to be a use for an unhidable rope, somehow:smallbiggrin:

[Infernalbargain]

Huh. You're right. "The rope cannot be removed or hidden.". I wonder what happens if someone tries to remove or hide the rope. If Mr. Enemy spellcaster sees the rope, and he casts invisibility on it, does invisibility fail? Or does Rope trick end? Is there a CL check? What if he hides it behind a curtain. Does that end the Rope trick? Or can you see the rope anyway, through the curtain (because it can't be hidden)?

There has to be a use for an unhidable rope, somehow:smallbiggrin:

It merely says magic concealment. So unless you're producing a magic curtain, it shouldn't matter. But I believe the invis would fail.

[Endarire]

Balance is a matter of perspective.

What does your GM consider a challenging and fun adventure? What level are y'all? Really, these are bigger factors than the 3.5/PF ruleset.

I offer advice about how things really work in Challenging 3.5 and Pathfinder Parties in Practice (http://antioch.snow-fall.com/~Endarire/DnD/Challenging%203.5%20and%20Pathfinder%20Parties%201 %2031%2011.doc).

[Doc Roc]

It merely says magic concealment. So unless you're producing a magic curtain, it shouldn't matter. But I believe the invis would fail.

Waaaiit. Wait. It only says removed. Pulling it up inside the pocket really isn't removing it. Are we sure this was supposed to fix rope trick?

Also, the spell no longer breaks if you rip the rope out, so just apply 16k pounds of weight. Depressingly easy to do, even in PF.

[Infernalbargain]

Waaaiit. Wait. It only says removed. Pulling it up inside the pocket really isn't removing it. Are we sure this was supposed to fix rope trick?

Also, the spell no longer breaks if you rip the rope out, so just apply 16k pounds of weight. Depressingly easy to do, even in PF.


The rope cannot be removed or hidden.

I'd say that pulling it up qualifies as hiding.

[Sucrose]

I'd say that pulling it up qualifies as hiding.

So, does that mean that you aren't permitted to choose an unobtrusive spot for your rope trick? You can't cast it in the middle of a tree, or dig a foxhole and and then cast the rope trick in there? If a blind person happens by, do you need a sign in braille stating 'someone has cast a rope trick five feet to the right'? Exactly how much stealth is permitted?:smallconfused:

[Doc Roc]

I'd say that pulling it up qualifies as hiding.

You could certainly make a cogent argument that it does, and I'd buy it.

[Karoht]

Pathfinder sold itself for me when I discovered that Cleave and Great Cleave are astoundingly good melee feats now, especially at low level. I always had a fondness for reach weapons and Whirlwind, but this... It's just awesome.

[claricorp]

I ran a pathfinder game for awhile(lasted around a year once a week, with many interruptions) where the group got from 1 to 14-15 relatively well.

The group all remained pretty much equally useful, with a good amount of dying in this game and the good ol "no same character in a row" rule, we ended up playing almost every base class as well as trying out a few 3.5 ones.

My group are by no means complete optimizers but still try to make there characters the best they can be.

Mostly no one was overshadowed that much, the fighter got in and bruised(though eventually ended up with a crazy homebrew prestige class). The casters focused much less on blasting but more on illusions and summoning this time around. A certain cleric of destruction ended up doing awesome yet still got licked by the party ranger when he backstabbed him. We even had a thri ranx sword sage who ended up working pretty well with some of the groups.

In the APG(effectively phb 2) we tried out an inquisitor and a summoner, both of whom did quite well. (however the summoner was arguably one of the most game changing ones).

We had a good time with not much in the way of balance issues. The one thing I really did not like was that the paladin did so much damage to evil creatures and much less to non evils.

In general its incredibly fun and in my opinion is much more fun than 3.5(though we pretty much focused on core rules both times, with some dips into TOB and some of the complete books).

[Tyndmyr]

I agree. Again, I was only responding to the comment that the PF Dragon Disciple would "utterly dominate the 3.5 gish (EK)" — it would not. The EK is nearly a full-caster, and therefore would beat the Dragon Disciple who is nothing close.

Core gish. That's important.

Because a core gish in 3.5 only has one decent spell/BaB option, EK. You have ten level of that, and ten levels of other stuff. Oh, sure, you might end up a mere two levels behind in casting...but at the price of being pretty bad indeed at hitting things. You're a full 5 BaB behind. That's not a great gish.

And you entirely miss in the comparison of "nearly full-caster" and "nothing close". EK is 9/10, and in core, it requires a level of non-caster to qualify. PF DD is 7/10, and it's prereqs are easy to achieve with sorc alone, if you so desire. That is a whopping 1 CL difference. The definition of close. You also have a great deal more flexibility on entry build.

[Veyr]

Either Sorcerer 9/Fighter 1/Eldritch Knight 10 or Wizard 9/Fighter 1/Eldritch Knight 10 gets ninth level spells. The latter is the best gish available in Core.

Sorcerer 10/Dragon Disciple 10 does not.

Those were the things that I was comparing in my post. Any other comparison you may want to talk about has nothing to do with my statements.

[Infernalbargain]

So, does that mean that you aren't permitted to choose an unobtrusive spot for your rope trick? You can't cast it in the middle of a tree, or dig a foxhole and and then cast the rope trick in there? If a blind person happens by, do you need a sign in braille stating 'someone has cast a rope trick five feet to the right'? Exactly how much stealth is permitted?:smallconfused:

For RAI, I'd say non-magical hiding is allowed. RAW, it must be plainly visible. Which is to say it is a DC 0 perception to spot it (likening it to an unhidden creature) once they have LoS.

Also even back in 3.5 you'd be unlikely to cast it inside a tree, as the rope still had to extend at least 5 feet up into the air and you must actually climb up it and foxholes aren't 5 feet deep.


Either Sorcerer 9/Fighter 1/Eldritch Knight 10 or Wizard 9/Fighter 1/Eldritch Knight 10 gets ninth level spells. The latter is the best gish available in Core.

If all you're focused on is 9th level spells then why bother with the whole playing around with a sword? Maybe, just maybe, the point of some classes is not about getting 9th level spells.

[Tyndmyr]

If all you're focused on is 9th level spells then why bother with the whole playing around with a sword? Maybe, just maybe, the point of some classes is not about getting 9th level spells.

Yup. Being a gish is about being good with spells and a sword. Not just spells. That's what a gish is.

Sure, outside of core, picking up nines and great BaB is possible, but it's not really a thing in core 3.5 and PF. If you want to be gishy, you sacrifice a certain level of arcane juice. The question is really what you can get for that tradeoff.

And note that those precious 9th level spells are available in core as a sorc only at level 20, if you take the eldritch knight route. They're great, sure, but it's one level. It's only valid if you assume that the game caps out at 20, and that's the important level for play. Not really sure that's always valid.

[Infernalbargain]

It's only valid if you assume that the game caps out at 20, and that's the important level for play. Not really sure that's always valid.

For any build that I actually play, I always look to see how they perform at 8-12. By then, the effects of poor builds start to tear you apart (I.E. "traditional" entry to theurge) while good builds are ramping through these levels.

[Veyr]

I would argue that a +15/+10/+5 BAB Wizard 9/Fighter 1/Eldritch Knight 10 is better with a sword than any variation thereof that gets fewer spellcasting levels. Time Stop alone seems sufficient for that, since it gets you buff rounds to be a lot more dangerous, even in melee, than the guy with higher BAB. And if you're a Dragon Disciple who can turn into a dragon, then Shapechange is also fair game, and now you've really lost any hope.

Again, you may not be playing to get 9s, but you will never be better without 9s than you would be with them. I'm not saying every person who ever wants to play a gish absolutely must get 9s. I am saying that the statement that the Dragon Disciple (which cannot get 9s) does not utterly dominate the Eldritch Knight (which can). That was the only statement that I made.

I really, honestly do not care. I made a statement, and I'm sticking to it. The Eldritch Knight is better than even the PF Dragon Disciple. The PF Dragon Disciple is by no means overpowered, at least compared to what spellcasters are doing anyway.

I will stipulate that there are levels you could choose in which the Dragon Disciple is better than the Eldritch Knight (mostly, all the odd ones where the two have the same level spells). But being able to pick levels at which the Dragon Disciple is better does not make it "utterly dominate" the Eldritch Knight.

[Hyde]

We've been playing Pathfinder for a few months now, and we're all shameless minmaxers.

Of course, our DM made the mistake of allowing 3rd party materials, so I'm playing a Psion, so I'm broken by my very nature.

at level 12, I pull about ~300 damage with disintegrate, give or take. I can do around ten or so of those a day, with points for other things taken into consideration.

So that's me, even with my levels in Thrallherd providing an effective nerf to my output (What people don't really realize about cohorts is they just don't get the same treasure as a PC. Especially since mine doesn't even get even a partial share of the treasure.)

The straight fighter, on the other hand, played it to the Pathfinder SRD. He swapped his armor specs for the "Two-Handed Fighter" alt class features out of the advanced players guide (which as I'm interpreting it, isn't strictly speaking core? I can't imagine what backwards and incompetent DM would say "okay, the Core Rulebook only, guys, because all those... words... are intimidating.")

anyway, the guy pulls something like 2d4+45 a swing, with a x4 crit (name that oh-so-obvious weapon, kids!) Which as either part of a cleave (+great cleave, cleaving finish, etc) ends up being a pretty nice amount of pain.

That he can do all day long.
he's got a pretty healthy stack of hitpoints, probably around what twice my psion has (ignoring the cheap cost of "Vigor").

Now, by contrast, we have another fighter we built specifically because someone said "hey, there isn't really any way to build classes differently in Pathfinder".

so we built him a tank. It's really hard to damage, and it's really great and locking down bad guys... But other than that, it doesn't really do anything. Put it against something with DR, and they'll probably just sit there all day until one of them dies from exhaustion.

So, my psion doesn't really feel that much more powerful than the fighter, mostly because I've willingly lowered my output by taking a PrC that's less than ideal (because let's face it, the only way cohorts are really all that useful is in a game with too few players, or when you really break out the cheese. Mercantile background, anyone?)

God this post is long. I tried to put some white space in there to break it up.

[Hiro Protagonest]

We've been playing Pathfinder for a few months now, and we're all shameless minmaxers.

Of course, our DM made the mistake of allowing 3rd party materials, so I'm playing a Psion, so I'm broken by my very nature.

at level 12, I pull about ~300 damage with disintegrate, give or take. I can do around ten or so of those a day, with points for other things taken into consideration.

So that's me, even with my levels in Thrallherd providing an effective nerf to my output (What people don't really realize about cohorts is they just don't get the same treasure as a PC. Especially since mine doesn't even get even a partial share of the treasure.)

The straight fighter, on the other hand, played it to the Pathfinder SRD. He swapped his armor specs for the "Two-Handed Fighter" alt class features out of the advanced players guide (which as I'm interpreting it, isn't strictly speaking core? I can't imagine what backwards and incompetent DM would say "okay, the Core Rulebook only, guys, because all those... words... are intimidating.")

anyway, the guy pulls something like 2d4+45 a swing, with a x4 crit (name that oh-so-obvious weapon, kids!) Which as either part of a cleave (+great cleave, cleaving finish, etc) ends up being a pretty nice amount of pain.

That he can do all day long.
he's got a pretty healthy stack of hitpoints, probably around what twice my psion has (ignoring the cheap cost of "Vigor").

Now, by contrast, we have another fighter we built specifically because someone said "hey, there isn't really any way to build classes differently in Pathfinder".

so we built him a tank. It's really hard to damage, and it's really great and locking down bad guys... But other than that, it doesn't really do anything. Put it against something with DR, and they'll probably just sit there all day until one of them dies from exhaustion.

So, my psion doesn't really feel that much more powerful than the fighter, mostly because I've willingly lowered my output by taking a PrC that's less than ideal (because let's face it, the only way cohorts are really all that useful is in a game with too few players, or when you really break out the cheese. Mercantile background, anyone?)

God this post is long. I tried to put some white space in there to break it up.

First off, 3.5 and Pathfinder psionics are not broken. They're not as powerful as core full casters. You ARE following the "can only spend up to ML in PP per power", right?

Second, it doesn't sound like you're cheesing it out, considering a lockdown fighter is considered powerful, and not just competent. And for the scythe-user, 2d4+25 damage isn't overpowered.

Also, you just said cohorts weren't very useful except when you have too few party members or are cheesing it out. Either you're way off the mark, or your definition of "cheese" is very different from mine.

[Nohwl]

If you're talking about cheezy stuff like taking a 1 level dip that gets you pounce, then I don't really agree. Cheese to counter cheese isn't really the answer, in my opinion.

And people keep saying stuff like that. All the PHB are ridiculous/broken/overpowered/whatever. Could someone give me a list of what's actually broken, because I honestly don't see it, unless you're a deliberate power gamer.

if you think 3.5 is really balanced, you should check out this (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=4511) core only build by solo. could you please explain how a core fighter can compete with it?

as for overpowered spells, click on the "Display Spells & Powers" button.

[Jeraa]

Please don't raise threads from the dead. This one died 9 months ago.

[Blisstake]

if you think 3.5 is really balanced, you should check out this (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=4511) core only build by solo. could you please explain how a core fighter can compete with it?

as for overpowered spells, click on the "Display Spells & Powers" button.

That's not what I claimed at all, but I'd rather not argue over something I said... what, 9 months ago?

[Vaynor]

The Red Towel: Thread necromancy.