What Do You Like About 3.P?

[ArcanistSupreme]

The title pretty much says it. I'm wanting to run a game this summer, and I normally use 3.5, but I like some of the options I've seen while browsing the Pathfinder SRD and was thinking of mixing it in with the 3.5 books my group has. That being said, I also know that there is a lot of stuff in there that is not worth bothering with. So what specific changes do you like in Pathfinder that are well implemented? What new classes/items/feats/PrCs are cool and a great way to add variety to a game?

[Aron Times]

1. Casters get actual class features.
2. Everything is available in the SRD.
3. Single class builds are encouraged.
4. The artwork is nice.
5. Noncasters can craft magic items.
6. Cantrips are at-will.
7. You actually lose something for taking a prestige class.

Note: This is coming from someone who slightly dislikes Pathfinder buy plays it anyway.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Archetypes. Basically a set of combined ACFs that allow a single class to represent a larger variety of archetypes.

I also like the way they improved the majority of classes, though I'm not happy with the "stealth nerfs" of the Barbarian and Bard.

[Mojo_Rat]

uh stealth nerf to barbarian and bard? Pf barbarian is way more fun than 3.5 and even better with apt. and Pf bard is hands down better.

[TOZ]

The Paladin class is about the only thing for me.

[sonofzeal]

uh stealth nerf to barbarian and bard? Pf barbarian is way more fun than 3.5 and even better with apt. and Pf bard is hands down better.
Bardic Performance is only useable 4+Cha rounds per day, as opposed to the 3.5 Bardic Music which can practically be indefinite past the first couple levels. I imagine this is what Viktyr is talking about.

[Legend]

The existence of adventure paths. I miss the days of modules so damn much.

[Violet Octopus]

The updated races are good. The game I'm playing in has 7 PCs: 1 human, 2 half-elves, 2 half-orcs, an elf and a gnome. This would be very strange in 3.5.

Replacing the "4x skill points at 1st level" rule and having increases to Int grant skill points retroactively makes high-level NPC creation just that bit easier (especially if they're multiclass). As a player, it's nice to be able to take cross-class skills and not suck.

The new rules for favored class struck me as a kludgy way to retain a mechanic called "favored class" without having it get in the way of character creation. The race/class combination-specific options in the Advanced Player's Guide restore it to its original purpose (encouraging certain race/class combinations as culturally supported)

Content from Advanced Player's Guide and Unearthed Arcana make for a nice range of ACFs without having to dig through 10 different books. Just two books/websites.

When putting together NPC statblocks, the classes that made me most excited about running the encounters were Oracle, Rogue, Gunslinger and Barbarian. Haven't played around with Summoner or Inquisitor yet.

edit: not a fan of the rage/bardic music stealth nerfs either, but it's pretty irrelevant for enemy NPCs.

[GoatBoy]

Streamlining is much better in PF.The Combat Manoeuvre system means you don't have to smash your head into the table when grappling comes up.

[ThunderCat]

The favoured class rules and better class features means multi classing and prestige classing are no longer the norm.

Not having to pay extra for cross class skills, and gaining skill points retroactively from int, increases flexibility and simplifies character creation at the same time. Getting a +3 bonus on class skills have meant that my groups are more likely to put a couple points in most class skills, rather than focussing exclusively on maxing a few of them out.

The combat manoeuvre system is easier to work with.

While humans are still a great choice, the changes to the races have meant my groups are now more diverse.

Many overpowered spells have been nerfed.

Cantrips at will are great fun and very flavourful, but have little impact on power on after level 5+ (where casters tend to really start to pull ahead).

I haven't looked at all the classes in depth, but the changes to the paladin are definitely worth implementing, as are the changes to the ranger. The druid has been nerfed without getting rendered useless, the new cleric channelling is at once both more useful and less abusable than turn undead was, and sorcerers are much more fun with actual class features.

The new base classes seem to be made mostly with tier 3 in mind (reasonably powerful while still having some flexibility), and even if they don't always succeed, they're generally well made. My groups have been happy about the inquisitor (though allowing them a feat to get extra judgements is a good idea), oracle, and summoner.

Generally, I can't think of a singe instance where 3.5 is superior to Pathfinder, except for having more options.

[Lastgrasp]

Classses are bumped up, more incentive to stick with you class. Also have the ability to use archetype to customize your class. Still has Prestige Classes, but you have to think twice before taking them.

CM is superior to the 3.5 grapple system.

Skill System streamlined.

Can still use all your 3.5 stuff. Monsters, magic items, spell are super easy conversion. With little to no work. Monsters might require half a minute or so.

Paizo really produces some gorgeous books. They are on par with Wotc and their a quality company. The option books like Advanced Players Guide and the Bestiaries are quite nice. I like the Alchemist and Summoner class. Looking forward to Ultimate Magic. (pre-ordered and it's shipping soon
!)
The adventure path series is pretty cool. Running Carrion Crown and it's a blast.

[Lastgrasp]

Forgot to mention Paizo campaign setting is pretty cool. I picked up Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Inner Sea World Guide and it's an amazing read. It has the whole gonzo and kitchen stink feel. The setting has a rich history and mixes a bunch of cool settings together. You can play gothic horror, pirates, vikings, oriental adventures, alien invasion, etc all in one place.

[Eldan]

A favoured class system that is remotely sensible.
All classes have actual class features.
At will cantrips.

[peacenlove]

Cleaned up rules, expanded on some (new combat maneuevers at APG)

The Dreamscarred Psionics unleashed. Psionics dangerously begin to be my favorite system.

Free OGL, and organized too.

Better sorcerer you don't want to multiclass from (and while I woved to bring the shadowcaster into sorcerer power levels :smalltongue:). More feats/character, merged skills.

Monster CR is calculated by set criteria (unlike half of the MM2 :smallamused:)

As a DM and an owner of most 3.5 edition books, system comparability is very very easy, however 3.5 creatures generally are weaker when introduced into a Pathfinder enviroment.

[ArcanistSupreme]

This is all good stuff. I do have a question about the combat maneuvers:

The Pathfinder SRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Combat-Maneuvers) says that combat maneuvers are:
CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier
and the defense rolls are:
CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier + miscellaneous modifier

Doesn't that mean that the attacker is usually at a disadvantage? Or am I missing something? Are there any other hidden pitfalls or rules that I should be wary of?

[Jeraa]

Only by a few points. But since the defense is set at 10 + modifiers, and the attacker rolls a d20 + modifiers, its not too bad. Its only when your target has both a very high Strength and Dexterity that it becomes a real problem.

And since it is an attack roll, it lets you add any spells/feats/effects that increase your attack rolls as well. Like Weapon Focus. A weapons enchantment (its +'s) may be included as well I think. So basically, anything that boosts your attack rolls helps when performing combat maneuvers, including True Strike.

[FMArthur]

I like the simplified Combat Maneuver system, which makes combat feel slightly less like a frankenstein of varying mechanics and more like a coherent system, without losing much of the benefits of that complexity. Size modifiers being reduced to 1 make the gameworld sometimes feel silly, but overall improve the lot of a warrior among monsters. I also like what Wild Shape and Polymorph are now.

I don't like that a number of melee feats are now two feats or just flat-out irrecoverably weaker like Power Attack, as if to compensate for the badly needed and mostly insufficient melee buffs. For noncasters, feats are still the main driving force behind their combat abilities alongside their BAB, rather than their real class features. This fact may have led designers to believe melee feats were more powerful and needed a nerf, but it's really just a result of weak class design. The increased feat gain doesn't make up for the losses incurred. So one of the biggest problems was not only unfixed, but exacerbated.

I'm finding it best to treat Pathfinder as Unearthed Arcana II: a long list of optional rules to adopt independently in your games as you see fit, not a new and upgraded system.

[true_shinken]

The title pretty much says it.
I believe 3.P does not stand for Pathfinder. I always thought it stood for '3.5 with Pathfinder mixed in'.



I'm finding it best to treat Pathfinder as Unearthed Arcana II: a long list of optional rules to adopt independently in your games as you see fit, not a new and upgraded system.
That's exactly how I see it as well.

[Taelas]

What I like? Hmn.

-Cantrips at will. It makes perfect sense and works fine.
-XP per creature is fixed independently of the party's level, which is great for monsters taken straight out of the book.
-Non-casters can craft magical items. Dwarf mastersmiths make sense again.
-No multiclass XP penalties.
-Single-classed characters are encouraged.
-Improved base classes and races.

But unfortunately, the list of cons is somewhat larger. I would create a document with the best aspects of both, but it would take too long and I might as well simply run house rule-free 3.5, which is easier on the players.

[Coidzor]

Bardic Performance is only useable 4+Cha rounds per day, as opposed to the 3.5 Bardic Music which can practically be indefinite past the first couple levels. I imagine this is what Viktyr is talking about.

That's a huge nerf. :smalleek: Even with an 18 CHA at first level that's still only 2 fights in a day until one gets to about CHA 24-26 or manages to make fights be a lot shorter.

[ArcanistSupreme]

I believe 3.P does not stand for Pathfinder. I always thought it stood for '3.5 with Pathfinder mixed in.

I did not know that. That's basically what I want anyway, but it's good to know.

So rules I think I'll use:
Unlimited cantrips per day
Race changes
Encouraged single-classing
Revamped skill system
Combat maneuvers
Class fixes (but not the nerfs on lower tier classes)
The spells that were fixed
New classes/PrCs

Am I missing anything good?

[Infernalbargain]

Bardic Performance is only useable 4+Cha rounds per day, as opposed to the 3.5 Bardic Music which can practically be indefinite past the first couple levels. I imagine this is what Viktyr is talking about.


At each level after 1st a bard can use bardic performance for 2 additional rounds per day.


or just flat-out irrecoverably weaker like Power Attack,

Run the math when you're fighting level = CR monsters. PF power attack comes out ahead. Here's a handy guide for monster AC by CR (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/monster-creation)

[Taelas]

Eh, what? No. Pathfinder is intermittently more powerful... until you hit level 6 and can take Shocktrooper. It is more powerful at level 1 and at level 4, that's it. As soon as Shocktrooper enters the picture, 3.5 stays way ahead, as the penalty becomes meaningless and the benefit will always be higher. Even if you allow Shocktrooper in Pathfinder, 3.5 PA remains superior. If you disallow Shocktrooper altogether, they are more equal, and it becomes hard to say which is the better choice... but why would you disallow Shocktrooper?

[peacenlove]

Eh, what? No. Pathfinder is intermittently more powerful... until you hit level 6 and can take Shocktrooper. It is more powerful at level 1 and at level 4, that's it. As soon as Shocktrooper enters the picture, 3.5 stays way ahead, as the penalty becomes meaningless and the benefit will always be higher. Even if you allow Shocktrooper in Pathfinder, 3.5 PA remains superior. If you disallow Shocktrooper altogether, they are more equal, and it becomes hard to say which is the better choice... but why would you disallow Shocktrooper?

Of course 3 feats (PA, Imp.bull rush and shock trooper) are better than one. Also -20 AC for 1 round isn't meaningless at all (at the very least it allows your opponent to Power attack you for the same ridiculus amount of damage without him spending 2 more feats) unless you built around it, while -6 AC still hurts but it is manageable.

On topic: I am beginning to love Golarion, their new campaign world. Planetary teleports, Zon kuthon and the Pathfinder society have won my heart as of recently.

[Taelas]

Fine. Improved Bull Rush exists in Pathfinder, but I will let him choose a better feat. What would you like it to be? It should be a feat taken at third level, but I'll let you grab one at 6th, assuming you are a fighter. Weapon Specialization, then? Lunge?
Shocktrooper does not exist in Pathfinder and there is no equivalent. What would you like for the Pathfinder PA-user to have? Vital Strike?

-6 AC for +12 to damage is golden. -2 attack for +6 damage is pitiful by comparison, even if you add Vital Strike and Weapon Specialization, and this is just at level 6.

Also note that I did say the Pathfinder PA would still be weaker even if it also got Shocktrooper.

You seem to forget that Shocktrooper requires you to Charge. (So it's -22 to AC for a level 20 character.) But Shocktrooper is usually combined with Leap Attack and Combat Brute. Leap Attack allows you to triple the PA bonus damage on a charge with a successful Jump check. Combat Brute does the same in the round after a charge. Even without Pounce, that's 700 damage from PA alone in two rounds. The Pathfinder PA has done, what, +15 damage per PA? 120 over two rounds of full attacks. I doubt you could find 480 damage over two rounds through five feats in Pathfinder.

Power Attack is a strong feat on its own, but it is through the interplay with those feats that it becomes tremendous. Even if you added those feats to Pathfinder, however, it simply is not the same thing.

[Mojo_Rat]

my persoonsl experience has been fighters barbs etc are far better I'n Pf I like the new PA.

[Grendus]

I wasn't that impressed with PF, to be honest. It feels a little too much like 3.5, it's still too easy to break the game with just a core spellcaster without bumping up melee a notch. And the Power Attack nerf was just cold, that's like making a quadruple amputee fight in a MMA tournament and taking away his prosthetics.

It is nice to keep the 3.5 flavor alive via an official source, I just haven't seen them do any better with it than WotC did. I was hoping for more.

[true_shinken]

Shocktrooper does not exist in Pathfinder and there is no equivalent.
Makes no difference. Pathfinder is backwards compatible for that exact reason.
Also, uberchargers with Shock Trooper don't last long, because they can kill one target when they charge... and then they sit around like paralyzed ducks waiting to be shot.
Pathfinder PA is less abusable, that's all. An ubercharger already deals way more damage than you need, anyway. What Pathfinder PA does is make two-handed weapons a choice instead of the best choice ever.

[McSmack]

Fine. Improved Bull Rush exists in Pathfinder, but I will let him choose a better feat. What would you like it to be? It should be a feat taken at third level, but I'll let you grab one at 6th, assuming you are a fighter. Weapon Specialization, then? Lunge?
Shocktrooper does not exist in Pathfinder and there is no equivalent. What would you like for the Pathfinder PA-user to have? Vital Strike?

-6 AC for +12 to damage is golden. -2 attack for +6 damage is pitiful by comparison, even if you add Vital Strike and Weapon Specialization, and this is just at level 6.

Also note that I did say the Pathfinder PA would still be weaker even if it also got Shocktrooper.

You seem to forget that Shocktrooper requires you to Charge. (So it's -22 to AC for a level 20 character.) But Shocktrooper is usually combined with Leap Attack and Combat Brute. Leap Attack allows you to triple the PA bonus damage on a charge with a successful Jump check. Combat Brute does the same in the round after a charge. Even without Pounce, that's 700 damage from PA alone in two rounds. The Pathfinder PA has done, what, +15 damage per PA? 120 over two rounds of full attacks. I doubt you could find 480 damage over two rounds through five feats in Pathfinder.

Power Attack is a strong feat on its own, but it is through the interplay with those feats that it becomes tremendous. Even if you added those feats to Pathfinder, however, it simply is not the same thing.


I think this is probably the exact reason why they nerfed PA in PF.

From what I've seen they've attempted to remove a lot of the uberdamage cheese both from casters and from melee.

Yeah there's no Shocktroopering- Leap-Attacking-Powerattacking-Charging-Strongarm-Bracer-wearing, gargantuan-lance-weilding frienzied berserker of DOOOM.

I don't see an issue with that. There's no orb spells either.
Power Attack in PF is more like a passive damage bonus that you stop using when you need more accuracy than a one-shot-chunky-salsa gimmick.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Combine that with a greater number of feats, weapon training, some fairly impressive high level crit-based feats and the Vital Strike line, and you've got melee characters consistenly dealing out decent damage with status effects on critical hits.

There are a lot of things to take away from PF, whether you plan on using the whole system or just picking bits out to put in your 3.X game.

In my games I use PF as the base and bring in 3.5 things as need be. If a player wants something from 3.5 source I just add it in if I think it's appropriate. Definitely go with the skill changes though, they're pretty much spot-on IMO.

[Taelas]

Nerfing melee is precisely the wrong thing to do. Also, this is not cheese. It is precisely how they are intended to work together.

A charger-build at 20 can do one thing, and that is charge, which it does very well. A wizard at 20 can break the world in half.

And yes, removing the only way for melee characters to stand out from casters is necessarily a very bad thing.

[FMArthur]

The idea was probably to make other fighting styles seem more viable by comparison. But they didn't actually fix those styles - they're still worse, and nothing, not even the simplest homebrew fixes that have been done by groups for almost 3.5's entire lifespan, was done to improve them.

Two-Weapon Fighting is still 3 feats. Defensive Two-Weapon style is still hilariously bad. Ranged combat still has a feat tax of both Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot to even begin functioning. Monk unarmed combat is still a 20-level progression of such amazing power that other classes could be given the option to trade their basic weapon and armor proficiencies for it and would generally decide not to. One-handed fighting is still unknown to designers altogether. Sword and Board is still sad, with negligable defensive effects and somehow wound up becoming less negligable in offensive use (Shield Slam, Shield Master :smallconfused:). Tripping is tougher due to CMD, smaller bonuses and being two feats now.

We never really 'had' TWF, TWD, shield style, unarmed style and one-armed combat in good ways in 3.5. But we lost Tripping, and in a system we bought because it was apparently designed to fix 3.5, we didn't gain much for the other weapon styles aside from PA getting weaker. It's still all Spirited Charge and Power Attack. At least it's now difficult for people to just Tumble around you to attack people who matter.

[true_shinken]

And yes, removing the only way for melee characters to stand out from casters is necessarily a very bad thing.
Except there is no way for melee characters to stand out from casters. Blasters outdamage ubercharges and they still have the spells to back it up. Heck, you can make a melee warlock that steals all tricks from uberchargers and has invocations to boot.
Also, using melee as a synonym of ubercharger is just plain wrong. Melee Rogues got a sizeable boost in Pathfinder, for example.

[navar100]

Warrior classes are buffed up a bit. You actually want to play a Fighter or Paladin to level 20. Fighters don't suck for wearing heavy armor and a Paladin can have a Bonded Weapon instead of Mount so they don't lose a class feature when adventures take place in mountains, swamps, or dungeons.

Sorcerers get bloodlines which provide interesting class features. I'm not enamored with all of them as a matter of personal taste, but I approve their existence.

I was skeptical to the nerfing of cleric's Turn Undead, but I've learned through experience of play the healing power of channeling is very helpful and much more useful. Clerics have to spend a feat to get the Turn Undead we know, but it's an improved Turn Undead since it no longer depends upon undead HD, replacing it with a will save.

Multi-classing and Prestige Classes are all fine, but now they are no longer no-brainers. All base classes get stuff to level 20. You get a favored class for bonus hit points or skill points. This means if you want to multi-class or especially a Prestige Class, you really, really have to want it as opposed to you'd get something better than another level in base class, like 3E Sorcerer or Fighter. The Prestige Classes in the book are fine. They aren't a bad choice; it's just that now you have a true choice instead of a weighted obviousness.

Consolidated skills and no 3E cross-classing makes things a lot easier. They still have class skills, but if a Fighter can still be really good at Perception if he wants and only be behind 3 to a Rogue's class skill Stealth. Which is a good thing. The Rogue is supposed to be mostly successful at Stealth, but the Fighter still has a good shot.

I like that Spellcraft has been made more useful. You use it to identify and create magic items. It allows for not needing every prerequisite to make an item, at +5 DC per missing prerequisite. Skill Focus (Spellcraft) is a worthy feat, especially since they boosted Skill Focus.

Humans get +2 to an ability score! It's about time they get in on the free pluses like everyone else. I'm not thrilled other races get two pluses with one minus, but I'm still glad humans are finally getting something.

[McSmack]

It's a nerf if you come from a position that the only thing melee is good for is ubercharging. Yes that specific build is less powerful than it had been. Significantly so. Instead of making one particular build really really strong they buffed up melee in general and nerfed one of the abilities that made it gimmicky.

And yes it is a gimmick -the same way making swimming pools full of poison or a ball of saphron the size of a city is gimmicky. Did Wizard's design it that way? I dunno. Realizing the failings of melee classes, I could see them taking one of melee's decent damage dealing abilities and adding in feats and abilities to buff that as opposed to reworking melee classes as a whole.

We could go back and forth about this, but I don't think we're going to change each other's minds about it.

In related news- one of my favorite things PF did was make my feats feel more valuable. Specifically for melee. Fewer filler/useless feats and better high level options. Feats are are a melee class's bread and butter, PF giving them more of them is very nice. The class archetypes are very nice too and well balanced with the core classes.

[Infernalbargain]

Nerfing melee is precisely the wrong thing to do. Also, this is not cheese. It is precisely how they are intended to work together.

A charger-build at 20 can do one thing, and that is charge, which it does very well. A wizard at 20 can break the world in half.

And yes, removing the only way for melee characters to stand out from casters is necessarily a very bad thing.

Nerfing the best build != nerfing melee in general.

[Coidzor]

Nerfing the best build != nerfing melee in general.

Actually... You do nerf melee in general by cutting the highest point it could achieve off. You lower the theoretically achieved potential of any melee build.

Also, melee in general started out pretty well in the realm of nerf swords from the getgo.

Since the ubercharger is basically just learning to hit people with his nerf sword so hard that it doesn't matter what he's hitting them with anymore.

And if you also completely ignore the example/precedent of the Tome of Battle and other ways of thinking outside of the box of melee, well...

[Hiro Protagonest]

One-handed fighting is still unknown to designers altogether.

Free hand fighter archetype says hi.

[true_shinken]

Free hand fighter archetype says hi.

Even in 3.5 we had Bladesinger, Einhander and Snowflake Wardance.

[Mojo_Rat]

I honestly sometimes wonder if ALOT ofpeople even play the same game I do. at least to level 10 ish fighters and barbarians ate often the dominant means of doing single target damage. other characters can situationally touch them but cannot do it consistently.


so I can make a fighter that is the biggest threat on the battle field due to sheer damage who can also do non combat skills due to how the skills and favored classes have changed.

is he perfect? no but slot Pf people forgetbitsva teamwork game. we do play Pf material though.

I also think anyone saying a melee warlock can out damage a Pf fighter is utterly delusional.

[Coidzor]

is he perfect? no but slot Pf people forgetbitsva teamwork game. we do play Pf material though.

What?


I also think anyone saying a melee warlock can out damage a Pf fighter is utterly delusional.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Infernalbargain]

Actually... You do nerf melee in general by cutting the highest point it could achieve off. You lower the theoretically achieved potential of any melee build.

Also, melee in general started out pretty well in the realm of nerf swords from the getgo.

Since the ubercharger is basically just learning to hit people with his nerf sword so hard that it doesn't matter what he's hitting them with anymore.

And if you also completely ignore the example/precedent of the Tome of Battle and other ways of thinking outside of the box of melee, well...

Consider Zaq's guide on truenamers.


Just because a single effective build can be made does not mean that the class actually works.

Individual melee builds do not affect how good melee builds are in general. As an analogy for the mathematically inclined, point discontinuities do not affect the integral of a function.

When we look at the tiers, the ubercharger would qualify as tier 4.

Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise
Where as the fighter is a tier 5 class

Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well
The ubercharger is highly capable of smashing face. So why isn't the fighter tier 4 when certain builds of the fighter can be tier 4?

That's because the power level of the class has to be counted from somewhere around the median of the class. After all, a commoner can become pun-pun, there's just a few more hoops they have to jump through. Since a commoner is capable of ascending, shouldn't it be tier 1?

If you're to say that pitching shocktrooper and leap attack nerfs melee because of ubercharger getting nuked, then that's on par with saying pitching CChamp nerfs truenamers because the only working build falls apart. I'm not ready to call commoners tier 1 because they can pun-pun. I'm not ready to call truenamers tier 6 because they can take actions. Likewise I'm not ready to call fighters tier 4 because of uberchargers.

Saying PA the change is a nerf to melee in general because it nukes the ubercharger build works off of the assumption that melee classes being tier 4 in general because they all have a shtick that they can do well.


And if you also completely ignore the example/precedent of the Tome of Battle and other ways of thinking outside of the box of melee, well...

I do appreciate ToB and what it does for melee and understand that there's no PF equivalent. However this doesn't hold water in a discussion of PA.

[Coidzor]

I do appreciate ToB and what it does for melee and understand that there's no PF equivalent. However this doesn't hold water in a discussion of PA.

It was a musing aside about the nature of melee in pathfinder given that it's a successor to 3.5 that nerfed the main traditional melee build it inherited from 3.5 and out-and-out ignored the alternative that did away with the paradigm of having to do that much damage to be a relevant factor on the battlefield. I thought this was pretty obvious since it didn't really have much to do with PA itself but the greater context of pathfinder in light of nerfing charging, lock-down, etc. from traditional melee. :smallconfused:

[Mojo_Rat]

What?



Be careful what you wish for.

in regards to your quote. it looks like typoed and auto correction made it gibberish.

In general though I don't wish for anything. I simply find when people talk about the game a lot of the time what they say does not correspond with anything I actually see.


there is a dpr Olympics thread on the paizo forums which I suggest you look at if you feel Pf fighters are weak.

[Infernalbargain]

It was a musing aside about the nature of melee in pathfinder given that it's a successor to 3.5 that nerfed the main traditional melee build it inherited from 3.5 and out-and-out ignored the alternative that did away with the paradigm of having to do that much damage to be a relevant factor on the battlefield. I thought this was pretty obvious since it didn't really have much to do with PA itself but the greater context of pathfinder in light of nerfing charging, lock-down, etc. from traditional melee. :smallconfused:

I'm ambitiously waiting for Ultimate Combat to see if they help out on that front. There is dazing assault though at level 11, which is very good for locking down the battlefield. At level 11, it's DC is 21, an optimized caster will have DC 24. Also strictly speaking it isn't mind-affecting.

[true_shinken]

I also think anyone saying a melee warlock can out damage a Pf fighter is utterly delusional.
Check here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10176142&postcount=125).
Also, notice I said a melee warlock can out damage an ubercharger, not a pf fighter. Of course, you do that by using eldritch claws and ubercharger tricks, but you got those and invocations.
...and the melee warlock outdamages a pf fighter without charge tricks, even.

[Ashram]

Just think: In just nine short days, all the casters of PF will be getting a significant boost by way of the new core PF book, Ultimate Magic, which also introduces the magus, A.K.A. duskblade Mk. II. This book sounds a lot like a combination of Complete Arcane, Divine and Mage with no fluff.

And in a few more months, melee characters will get Ultimate Combat, which will undoubtedly be worse than Ultimate Magic.

[FMArthur]

Just think: In just nine short days, all the casters of PF will be getting a significant boost by way of the new core PF book, Ultimate Magic, which also introduces the magus, A.K.A. duskblade Mk. II. This book sounds a lot like a combination of Complete Arcane, Divine and Mage with no fluff.

And in a few more months, melee characters will get Ultimate Combat, which will undoubtedly be worse than Ultimate Magic.

Nonsense! We will get fun and powerful scaling abilities, like features that grant +1 AB every nine levels, and the ability to spend standard actions to slightly weaken one opponent if they fail a save!

[Absol197]

This conversation about melee characters being nerfed always confuses me. In every single game I've played in or run, the melee characters always do the most damage out of any class. As a DM, I always have to find a way to keep the monsters away from the melee types, or else they die incredibly quickly.

As an example: in the campaign I finished on Saturday, they were fighting the final boss. It had a CR or 19, and the party was 15th. Even with an AC of 43 and damage reduction 10/epic, the scout/fighter/dervish was dealing on average of 80 damage a round, and the fighter/tempest was dealing nearly 150 a round, and neither was using Power Attack. Compared to the warmage/water savant who, factoring in failure abgainst spell resistance of 32, was doing on average of 40 per round, the psion who did on average of 60, and the sorcerer/sand shaper who dealt maybe 25. I had to secretly give the big bad an extra 500 hp over what it should have had for it to survive at all once the melee people finished off another baddie in the room and got to it, so that all the appropriate dramatic and story-related events could happen.

What are my groups missing that makes casters so much better than melee? I find them to be pretty comparable in most cases.

[Hiro Protagonest]

This conversation about melee characters being nerfed always confuses me. In every single game I've played in or run, the melee characters always do the most damage out of any class. As a DM, I always have to find a way to keep the monsters away from the melee types, or else they die incredibly quickly.

As an example: in the campaign I finished on Saturday, they were fighting the final boss. It had a CR or 19, and the party was 15th. Even with an AC of 43 and damage reduction 10/epic, the scout/fighter/dervish was dealing on average of 80 damage a round, and the fighter/tempest was dealing nearly 150 a round, and neither was using Power Attack. Compared to the warmage/water savant who, factoring in failure abgainst spell resistance of 32, was doing on average of 40 per round, the psion who did on average of 60, and the sorcerer/sand shaper who dealt maybe 25. I had to secretly give the big bad an extra 500 hp over what it should have had for it to survive at all once the melee people finished off another baddie in the room and got to it, so that all the appropriate dramatic and story-related events could happen.

What are my groups missing that makes casters so much better than melee? I find them to be pretty comparable in most cases.

Ah, yes, spell resistance, the bane of every caster. One of the things might be the fact that warmages are tier 4, and if the sorcerer is a blaster, that's not gonna work against the SR. My guess about your melee classes being more powerful is that the melee characters are being played by your group's optimizers. Now, make the guys who are playing melee play spellcasters, and make the guys who are playing spellcasters play melee.

[Infernalbargain]

This conversation about melee characters being nerfed always confuses me. In every single game I've played in or run, the melee characters always do the most damage out of any class. As a DM, I always have to find a way to keep the monsters away from the melee types, or else they die incredibly quickly.

As an example: in the campaign I finished on Saturday, they were fighting the final boss. It had a CR or 19, and the party was 15th. Even with an AC of 43 and damage reduction 10/epic, the scout/fighter/dervish was dealing on average of 80 damage a round, and the fighter/tempest was dealing nearly 150 a round, and neither was using Power Attack. Compared to the warmage/water savant who, factoring in failure abgainst spell resistance of 32, was doing on average of 40 per round, the psion who did on average of 60, and the sorcerer/sand shaper who dealt maybe 25. I had to secretly give the big bad an extra 500 hp over what it should have had for it to survive at all once the melee people finished off another baddie in the room and got to it, so that all the appropriate dramatic and story-related events could happen.

What are my groups missing that makes casters so much better than melee? I find them to be pretty comparable in most cases.

Why were your casters trying to deal damage?

[Absol197]

Why were your casters trying to deal damage?

The creature had Divine Rank 0, so was immune to most status-inducing effects. That hardy matters, though, as I (and my players) have found that monster save modifiers grow exponentially compared to character save DCs. Casting flesh to stone or prismatic spray at a creature that has a save modifier equal to your DC leaves you doing effectively nothing.

As for Swiftmongoose's comment, yes, one of the melee characters is played by the group optimizer. However, he generally prefers melee characters for this reason, because he can (and has) come up with dozens of ways to make such a character do godly amounts of damage, and can't get the same "oomph" from a spellcaster. The other melee characters were played by people who prefer story and roleplaying to mechanics. The spellcasters need to resort to damaging spells/powers in order to have any effect on their opponents, because otherwise it turns into this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html).

[Hiro Protagonest]

The creature had Divine Rank 0, so was immune to most status-inducing effects.

Why were they trying to affect the creature at all? This is where they should be breaking out Bull's strength, Bear's endurance, Cat's grace, and other spells to buff up the melee.

[Absol197]

Why were they trying to affect the creature at all? This is where they should be breaking out Bull's strength, Bear's endurance, Cat's grace, and other spells to buff up the melee.

All the melee people had items of those spells already, which, as you know, don't stack. All the important buffs they knew had already been used earlier in the fight, and were in effect still. Haste, bless, prayer, etc.

[Infernalbargain]

All the melee people had items of those spells already, which, as you know, don't stack. All the important buffs they knew had already been used earlier in the fight, and were in effect still. Haste, bless, prayer, etc.

So the caster's jobs were effectively already done. They contributed very significantly to the fight already. IMO, they should've just held their spells.

[Absol197]

So the caster's jobs were effectively already done. They contributed very significantly to the fight already. IMO, they should've just held their spells.

But this is exactly my point. Yes, magical support helps the fighty-types--ability increases, maneuverability and movement buffs, and others, but these things have only so much effect. Even without them, the party still would have killed the thing incredibly quickly. Yes, it would have taken a few more rounds (attacks would not have hit as often, and they would have gotten fewer attacks), but on the whole, the spellcasters were fairly useless to the battle. And this is not the only time things like this happen. So my original question of why spellcasters are considered gods while fighters and such are thought of as weaklings still stands.

[Infernalbargain]

But this is exactly my point. Yes, magical support helps the fighty-types--ability increases, maneuverability and movement buffs, and others, but these things have only so much effect. Even without them, the party still would have killed the thing incredibly quickly. Yes, it would have taken a few more rounds (attacks would not have hit as often, and they would have gotten fewer attacks), but on the whole, the spellcasters were fairly useless to the battle. And this is not the only time things like this happen. So my original question of why spellcasters are considered gods while fighters and such are thought of as weaklings still stands.

Because usually you're not fighting divine rank 0 beings. Also there's things like chain binding efreets.

[Hiro Protagonest]

But this is exactly my point. Yes, magical support helps the fighty-types--ability increases, maneuverability and movement buffs, and others, but these things have only so much effect. Even without them, the party still would have killed the thing incredibly quickly. Yes, it would have taken a few more rounds (attacks would not have hit as often, and they would have gotten fewer attacks), but on the whole, the spellcasters were fairly useless to the battle. And this is not the only time things like this happen. So my original question of why spellcasters are considered gods while fighters and such are thought of as weaklings still stands.

It's the out of combat things that make spellcasters so powerful. Warmages aren't even close to as good as other casters, they're tier 4 or something. But other casters get teleportation, scrying, and a bunch of other stuff.

And the sorcerer still could've contributed to the battle by summoning creatures rather than going for direct damage.

[Coidzor]

I'm ambitiously waiting for Ultimate Combat to see if they help out on that front. There is dazing assault though at level 11, which is very good for locking down the battlefield. At level 11, it's DC is 21, an optimized caster will have DC 24. Also strictly speaking it isn't mind-affecting.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry that this is the best counterpoint currently extant. :/

[Infernalbargain]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry that this is the best counterpoint currently extant. :/

Best found after only a cursory glance of feats. Not exactly a melee specialist, but I've looked at a few other people's number crunching on PA.

[TOZ]

I honestly sometimes wonder if ALOT ofpeople even play the same game I do.

No, they do not. As a matter of fact, no one outside your gaming group plays the same game you do. Because each group has their own adjustments and assumptions that change the game. That's the beauty of tabletop. There is no 'standard', only 'guidelines'.

[Mojo_Rat]

No, they do not. As a matter of fact, no one outside your gaming group plays the same game you do. Because each group has their own adjustments and assumptions that change the game. That's the beauty of tabletop. There is no 'standard', only 'guidelines'.


I mostly knew that it seems to make the arguments about tiers and junk useless.

[Curious]

I mostly knew that it seems to make the arguments about tiers and junk useless.

No, no it does not. We may be paying different games at each table, but the classes remain relatively the same, disregarding house-rules, so a system which allows a quick analyses of class abilities is actually quite relevant.

[cfalcon]

That's a huge nerf. :smalleek: Even with an 18 CHA at first level that's still only 2 fights in a day until one gets to about CHA 24-26 or manages to make fights be a lot shorter.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/bard.html#bardic-performance

It's basically 2+Cha+(2*Level).

Or as they put it, 4+Cha + 2 rounds for each level after 1st.



but why would you disallow Shocktrooper?

I've never allowed it. It's far superior and silly. Wildly OP compared to comparable options.

[peacenlove]

I've never allowed it. It's far superior and silly. Wildly OP compared to comparable options.

To my experiences what shock trooper does is to enforce the rocket tag game archetype from both sides. The defender, if he wins initiative, or has a decent range from the charger (most a given in games I play) can ready an action vs a charge and attack the charger with his 0 AC easily. Spears do double damage as a bonus (and there exists a feat in PF that gives to all weapons this quality, and a cheap pair of boots in MIC that does the same) and the Hold the Line feat gives you an additional AoO vs chargers.
Lastly that close to 0 AC carries until the start of the chargers turn, drawing fire from the opposition (but since the charger usually is the "tank" of the team this is actually good)

Given how many offensive ways exist to stop a charge (difficult terrain, winds if charger is flying, exhausted condition, Stand Still with reach etc) when you finally do your trick, you expect it to be successful.

Not to argue that shocktrooper is a weak feat, far from it, but it isn't (at least in my games) as gamebreaking as forums show it.

Lastly if you find Power attack enhancing feats a headache, consider adding the Elusive Target feat from complete warrior to your monsters. It requires dodge and with the dodge rewrite in PF one could argue that it negates Power attack from all enemies. There should be another ability in PF that negates power attack but it eludes me right now.

[true_shinken]

Not to argue that shocktrooper is a weak feat, far from it, but it isn't (at least in my games) as gamebreaking as forums show it.

This, so much this.
People just seem to ignore that A) You can't charge all the time and B) You'll probably die after you charge (unless you get miss-chance from somewhere else, and you won't have it at level 6)

[Infernalbargain]

It is... tolerable for rocket tag to exist in high level PvP. However, rocket tag in PvM is inexcusable and is something I very actively disallow if they creep up.