Pathfinder: What is it and why do you like/dislike it?

[Mr. Zolrane]

I've been hearing a lot about something called "Pathfinder." I gather it's a 3.5 variant of some sort, and a lot of people like it, but beyond that I don't know much about it. Can you guys explain to me what Pathfinder is as it contrasts with normal 3.5, and what it is you like/dislike about it.

[Absol197]

You are correct, it's a variant of 3.5 that is published by Paizo. After Wizards of the Coast completely dumped 3.5 in favor of 4e, Paizo took up 3.5 to keep it going, and wrote a modification in the process. I like it, but others don't. The PAthfinder SRD can be found here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/). It's got all the changes that you might care to read about. Look through the races, classes, skills, feats, and the combat maneuvers section of combat for the biggest changes.

[Curious]

Here is a link that highlights most of the differences:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890

I suggest you give it a try, it really is quite good.

[holywhippet]

Pathfinder tries to address the power imbalance of the classes as they increase in level. It doesn't do it perfectly, but non-spellcasting classes are more useful - especially the low end ones like the monk.

[Numinous]

What I like about it: basically what I liked about 3.5, with a few minor improvements.

What I dislike about it: moves far enough from 3.5 to be not compatible with it, but too little to actually fix the big problems.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

This is Pathfinder (d20pfsrd.com) - an adaptation of the 3.5 rule-set with updates, and a different path from 4e. It is published by Paizo, which I believe ran Dungeon and Dragon at one point, and is entirely OGL (as I understand it, don't quote me on that though).

I like Pathfinder because it offers new 3.5(ish) content, rather than the massive changes present in 4e. It allows me to continue playing 3.5 (as I would have done anyway) but with the support of a currently published system, rather than the "dead" 3.5 system. I also like the fact that classes now get class features, and they made some changes to the Bard (my favorite base class) to make it more effective at being a "Jack of All Trades" which is nice.

I dislike Pathfinder because it isn't always completely backwards compatible (as it claims to be) and because they nerfed a lot of spells, and some classes (for example, Bardic Music got hit (unfairly, in my opinion) with the nerf bat, and hit hard; so did Rage) and did it in such a way that abilities are now basically useless or require much more book keeping to achieve the same effect. Also, Paizo has a distinctly anti-optimization vibe (or at least gives me said vibe) which makes me (an optimizer) uncomfortable - optimization will happen no matter what you do, so punishing it (or attempting to punish it) is basically a losing battle (one with a lot of Pyhrric Victories, or if you prefer, mutual losses) and an useless expenditure of energy.

[RaginChangeling]

Pathfinder has a mixed reputation for billing itself as addressing the balance concerns of 3.5 D&D while its lead design team is basically wholly uninterested in where disparity actually comes from. They made a few across the board buffs, with the exception of the Druid who was nerfed pretty heavily, but they also made some random and seemingly senseless changes as well. You get more feats, but many old feats were split in two or outright nerfed. Skills work differently, and much better, but didn't address some of the insanity of the Diplomacy rules. Shapechanging got a much needed nerf, but also ripped the flavor out of the ability wholesale and made it impossible to look like anything but a 'generic' member of a species while giving static bonuses to your stats instead of replacing them.

The things that really tick me off about Pathfinder,

Bards got a totally unnecessary nerf in that Bardic music is now measured in rounds per day equal to bard level +3. Ditto with Barbarian Rage.

Power Attack is nearly useless, you can't choose how much to power attack for anymore and the returns are lower.

Tripping was heavily nerfed and improved Trip was split into two feats.

They only nominally changed a few spells for balance, most of them are as broken as they were in 3.5.

They didn't touch the worst of the magical items.

They decide to kludge a lot of inelegant solutions together for things, "Monk has Full BaB only in Flurries! Still 3/4ths all other times! Alchemist can't give potions to party members!"

Some of their new classes are pretty weak for no real reason. The Gunslinger especially was nearly unplayably bad in its original form, and is only slightly better now. The Cavalier is just really mediocre.

They buffed Wizards, Sorcerers and Clerics more than they buffed any of the melee classes except for Paladin.


I do like some of their stuff, the favored class system and the skills, but honestly I really dislike the rest.

[Curious]

The way I see it, the people who prefer 3.5 over Pathfinder generally don't like PF because they regard it as a kind of 'false promise', with no huge bounds or improvements in balance. That's true, to an extent, although I still think the balance is improved, but you have to remember that over balance, Paizo had to keep it backwards-compatible with 3.5.

Overall, I think Pathfinder is an improvement over 3.5 in the same way 3.5 is an improvement over 3.0; small changes that amount to it being better overall.

Edit: Okay, here's something else. I don't think the new power attack is useless. Rather, it is useless for an uber-charger build, but much better for a straight up damage-for-to-hit trade, since the ratio has increased to 1:3 for two handed weapons and 1:2 for one-handed weapons. Definitely not useless, especially if you take the fighter two-handed archetype, which increases it to 1:4 eventually. It requires different use, but it is not useless.

Also, giving class features to the Wizard and Sorceror does not a huge buff make; it just adds more flavor and utility to classes that are otherwise pretty barren. As for spells, most of the serious offenders were nerfed, and for the better, really. Certainly you can still put together a game-breaking combo from the spells that aren't nerfed, but any 3.5 magic system that resembles the original in any way is going to be like that, regardless.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

PF is essentially 3.5 with some homebrew and houserules. Most importantly, (to repeat) it has support. Even if that support is less than receptive towards the optimization community, at least it'll churn out content. Maybe one day they'll even listen to people who know the ins and outs of the system.

I'd also debate a couple of criticisms in this thread, spoilered for convenience:
- 3.5 ports over to PF pretty easily in my experience. Then again, I'm doing it from the player side. Re-doing CMB and CMD for each monster could be a pain.
- Barbarians getting their rage in rounds is often a boon, given the random length of combats. The problem is that falling unconscious can easily be an insta-kill.
- Clerics got buffed and nerfed. Check the spell list, concentration, and "channel positive energy."
- Wizard buffs are outweighed by the nerfs to the spell list. Granted, they can still rock the house with the right spell selection, but it's harder to pick out obviously overpowered ones. Except Planar Binding. They screwed the pooch on that one. Still, I'd say the changes are more than "nominal."
- PF Power Attack is much less useful in high-op, but in low-op it's actually more useful, given the higher base ratio.
- The problem with the polymorph line is that it was "iconic" to turn into anything you wanted and gain those abilities. At some point the "iconic" status is not worth it, given the trouble it causes.
- I agree with the rest. Bards got unnecessarily nerfed, there's some unnecessary kludge (just like in 3.5), tripping wasn't worth nerfing, the monk still has all the original problems, the fighter has more problems, and the biggest buff was arguably the sorcerer for some reason. Oh well. This is why one ought to mix and match.Edit: Curious: Sorcerers got bonus spells known. Bonus. Spells. Known. Tell me again that's just flavor.

[TOZ]

Edit: Curious: Sorcerers got bonus spells known. Bonus. Spells. Known. Tell me again that's just flavor.

Correction: Human Sorcerers got bonus spells known. To flavor humans as more versatile than other races.

To the OP, Pathfinder is a collection of 3.5 houserules, bound up with nice art and put on for sale.

What I don't like: Hundreds of little changes. How many people would realize that ogres and trolls can now be targeted by Hold Person due to the change in their type from Giant to Humanoid (giant)? Some of these don't matter, others are huge.

What I do like: It keeps the 3.5 ruleset in print and supported by more than just PDF publishers.

For someone like me, who can nearly quote from the 3.5 rulebook by memory, it's too much hassle to learn all the little changes. It's basically just another rules splat to mine for houserules, the same as Arcana Unearthed and all the rest.

For someone new to 3.5, it's a fine product to learn from, and keeps the 3.5 feel. It's another alternative to 4E, with a company to support it.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Correction to correction: Every sorcerer bloodline, human or no, provides bonus spells known. You can also get more bonus spells known from the APG's alternate favored class feature for humans, but that would be on top of everything else.

[Tvtyrant]

It is a great system to cherry pick from, like the Summoner with its Eidolon.

[Curious]

Correction to correction: Every sorcerer bloodline, human or no, provides bonus spells known. You can also get more bonus spells known from the APG's alternate favored class feature for humans, but that would be on top of everything else.

Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but I wasn't denying that. Yes, Sorceror get's more spells, and that's a good thing. It isn't terribly overpowered because a lot of them aren't even very good, with things like burning hands or whatnot. Yes, there are some that give excellent spells, like summon monster, but overall I don't really mind; they still can't break the game like a Wizard can, and it makes the class much more fun and flavorful. That's all I was trying to say.

[TOZ]

Correction to correction: Every sorcerer bloodline, human or no, provides bonus spells known. You can also get more bonus spells known from the APG's alternate favored class feature for humans, but that would be on top of everything else.

Apologies, I thought that was what you were referring to. I always thought the bloodline spells were just preselected parts of the same number of spells known. Nice to see they did increase spells known a tiny bit.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Ok, so from what I'm seeing on this thread, and reading on the PF SRD, it seems like a good system to pick and choose from. That's kinda my policy anyway with all things DnD.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but I wasn't denying that. Yes, Sorceror get's more spells, and that's a good thing. It isn't terribly overpowered because a lot of them aren't even very good, with things like burning hands or whatnot. Yes, there are some that give excellent spells, like summon monster, but overall I don't really mind; they still can't break the game like a Wizard can, and it makes the class much more fun and flavorful. That's all I was trying to say.Well, you did say the class features didn't make for a huge buff, and the sorcerer's class features are in fact a huge buff. The only problem is that you don't get those bonus spells known if you PrC out.

[El Dorado]

It's pretty good for DMs or players who may feel overwhelmed by the number of supplements that are available in 3.5. While the power levels of the character classes and monsters are pretty similar to 3.5, the number of source books make the system less daunting.

[BobVosh]

It is a great system to cherry pick from, like the Summoner with its Eidolon.

Biggest flop ever imo. Summoner class that really doesn't summon due to its eidolon being better than any summon.

My biggest bone to pick with PF is they seem to be really against PrC. I always liked the PrCs from 3.5.

[cfalcon]

I like it a lot. Right now I'm running 3.5 with some Pathfinder aspects. I really like that if I need to buff a class, I can just use aspects of the Pathfinder one.

Long term, I'll probably run Pathfinder with 3.5 aspects.


I don't agree with everything that they did, but most of it is inline with what I would expect from a real sequel to 3.5. Everything they are doing is open content, which is so ludicrously important that it's worth beating the fanboy drum just for that. And the things I don't like, are easy enough to houserule.

I've done a bit of their org play, and it's also very good.



Overall, I'm a fan of Pathfinder. They keep coming out with new and interesting things too!

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I dislike PF because its supposed to be a tweek that is more balanced but they nerfed things that didn't need nerfing and didn't nerf things that needed nerfing. A lot of changes seem to be to satisfy prejudices of its writers like nerfing spiked chain "because exotic weapons don't necessarily need to be superior to martial ones".

I dislike that it is different enough that it takes work to make it backwards compatable and that it is in the bitter spot of close enough to 3.5 that you assume your knowledge of the rules will cross over while being different enough that you will be proven wrong often.

I very much dislike that alot of people have bought into pathfinder being better balanced than 3.5 to the point that they run pathfinder without all the late 3.5 material that comes closer to balancing melee than PF ever will.

[Tyndmyr]

What I like about it: basically what I liked about 3.5, with a few minor improvements.

What I dislike about it: moves far enough from 3.5 to be not compatible with it, but too little to actually fix the big problems.

Well said.

I will add the additional like of providing updates for what is basically 3.5, keeping the player base for the game active and growing. That has value even if you don't play pathfinder itself much.


Edit: Curious: Sorcerers got bonus spells known. Bonus. Spells. Known. Tell me again that's just flavor.

And wizards get an item familiar that grants them limited spont casting. For both classes, these are like crack. They're absolutely fantastic upgrades removing their most significant weaknesses.

Speaking of weaknesses, hp at low levels is no longer a significant problem for either class.

[Gullintanni]

I guess the most common complaint I hear about PF is that it doesn't really address the Fighter:Linear - Wizard:Quadratic imbalance. It does make melee classes a lot more fun to play mind you...

But it actually, IMO, makes the divide worse. Wizards and Sorcerers got not irrelevant class features while most melee is still just melee. Worse, some feats, like Improved Trip, were split up into multiple feats. Combined with the fact that if you're playing Pathfinder without 3.5 content you've got a very short list of good feats to choose from, one could argue that Fighters have actually gotten worse at melee.

They're still a lot more fun to play though, which I suppose is the real issue. Paladins, for example, got a whole lot of awesome abilities that mean that while the melee role is still overshadowed by magic, their role as supplementary healers(including status ailments) can take a lot of weight off of a Clerics shoulders.

...if there's any evidence that PF doesn't do enough to balance melee and magic, mechanically speaking, it's Gate. Gate wasn't changed at all.

All told though, I do still like PF. I've never experienced the Wizard:Quadratic problem at my tables because my players have never enjoyed playing Batman. They like blasting. With all the goodies that melee got, and if you're willing to convert 3.5 content, then melee can be a whole lot of fun to play in PF. And I guess that's what I really care about :smallsmile:

[Kurald Galain]

I don't think balance is a big deal. Vocal minorities on internet forums notwithstanding, most roleplayers in the world at large aren't overly concerned with balance.

For long-term 3E players, it strikes me as problematic that lots of little things have changed between 3E and PF. For newcomers, I don't think that's an issue.

I think the best part of PF is, as Tyndmyr said, that they're keeping the player base for a classic RPG (3E) alive. Also, it seems that their organized play program is slowly but steadily overshadowing RPGA by now; this is probably a good thing because Paizo clearly cares about organized play and WOTC clearly doesn't.

[Prime32]

While melee has had some painful nerfs, some of its new options are surprisingly good if you do a little digging... (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11886)

Not sure how much that makes up for it though.

[subject42]

Worse, some feats, like Improved Trip, were split up into multiple feats. Combined with the fact that if you're playing Pathfinder without 3.5 content you've got a very short list of good feats to choose from, one could argue that Fighters have actually gotten worse at melee.

I would argue that outside of certain rarefied heights of optimization, fighters have gotten better.

Sure, feats have been split up, but you also get considerably more feats than you did in 3.5. Remember that in Pathfinder, feats accumulate at every odd level. That means that with a human fighter, you should have 22 feats by 20th level.

Beyond that, a lot of the improved-X feats have been split in half, but the "greater" variants normally grant an additional bonus that you wouldn't have had in 3.5. And since you're all but swimming in feats, it's not hard to pick up the greater variant if that's your specialty.

Additionally, the fighter has (admittedly mediocre) class features. At low levels it may just be a bonus to things like CMB and ignoring armor penalties, but at high levels your archetype may grant you things like pounce, improved evasion (that can be granted to other players), or auto-crits. Stuff like that sure can't hurt in most builds.

While I'll admit that the shocktrooper/leap attack/power attack/nipple clamp of rhino charging combination doesn't work in PF, there are some ways to boost Power Attack nicely. Two-handed fighter and furious focus are a good start.

[Gullintanni]

I would argue that outside of certain rarefied heights of optimization, fighters have gotten better.

Sure, feats have been split up, but you also get considerably more feats than you did in 3.5. Remember that in Pathfinder, feats accumulate at every odd level. That means that with a human fighter, you should have 22 feats by 20th level.

Beyond that, a lot of the improved-X feats have been split in half, but the "greater" variants normally grant an additional bonus that you wouldn't have had in 3.5. And since you're all but swimming in feats, it's not hard to pick up the greater variant if that's your specialty.

Additionally, the fighter has (admittedly mediocre) class features. At low levels it may just be a bonus to things like CMB and ignoring armor penalties, but at high levels your archetype may grant you things like pounce, improved evasion (that can be granted to other players), or auto-crits. Stuff like that sure can't hurt in most builds.

While I'll admit that the shocktrooper/leap attack/power attack/nipple clamp of rhino charging combination doesn't work in PF, there are some ways to boost Power Attack nicely. Two-handed fighter and furious focus are a good start.

This is all true...the major penalty to melee comes in the exclusion of 3.5 content. If you treat PF as a stand-alone game, then they could give you 1000 feats and it wouldn't make you any more powerful, just because there are so few exceptional feats in PF. Admittedly, if you convert 3.5 content (which I'm assuming most do) then melee's suck factor is reduced to slightly below that of 3.5.

And as I said, PF melee is just more fun to play. There's just more stuff you can do.

EDIT: Keep in mind that this opinion precludes any knowledge of PF splatbooks. If they start releasing additional content, or if they've already done so, then then limitations of standalone PF may have already been mitigated.

[Hiro Protagonest]

But it actually, IMO, makes the divide worse. Wizards and Sorcerers got not irrelevant class features while most melee is still just melee. Worse, some feats, like Improved Trip, were split up into multiple feats. Combined with the fact that if you're playing Pathfinder without 3.5 content you've got a very short list of good feats to choose from, one could argue that Fighters have actually gotten worse at melee.

Improved trip may have been split up into two feats, but tripping builds are arguably better in PF because size modifiers have been reduced, which means that the fighter can still effectively trip when facing a frost giant.

[RaginChangeling]

Improved trip may have been split up into two feats, but tripping builds are arguably better in PF because size modifiers have been reduced, which means that the fighter can still effectively trip when facing a frost giant.

Or not at all

3.5
D&D

Improved Trip [General]
Prerequisites
Int 13, Combat Expertise.

Benefit
You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed. You also gain a +4 bonus on your Strength check to trip your opponent.

If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.

Normal
Without this feat, you provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed.


Pathfinder


Improved Trip (Combat)
You are skilled at sending your opponents to the ground.

Prerequisite: Int 13, Combat Expertise.

Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a trip combat maneuver. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to trip you.

Normal: You provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a trip combat maneuver.

Greater Trip (Combat)

Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.

Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.

Normal: Creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from being tripped.

You may notice something missing in the two Pathfinder feats that was present in the singular 3.5 feat. Something that makes tripping oh so much worse in Pathfinder.

[Gullintanni]

Improved trip may have been split up into two feats, but tripping builds are arguably better in PF because size modifiers have been reduced, which means that the fighter can still effectively trip when facing a frost giant.

The solution to this problem in 3.5 is just be bigger. There's a veritable glut of ways to accomplish that, even for melee characters...but I take your meaning. Tripping builds were indeed improved. On the other hand because of the CMD mechanic, combat maneuvers became more difficult to accomplish in general...right? IIRC, there's a slight lean toward the defender in those cases.

How does that play out?



You may notice something missing in the two Pathfinder feats that was present in the singular 3.5 feat. Something that makes tripping oh so much worse in Pathfinder.

Hehehe, you're right that does suck.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Or not at all

3.5
D&D

Improved Trip [General]
Prerequisites
Int 13, Combat Expertise.

Benefit
You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed. You also gain a +4 bonus on your Strength check to trip your opponent.

If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.

Normal
Without this feat, you provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed.


Pathfinder


Improved Trip (Combat)
You are skilled at sending your opponents to the ground.

Prerequisite: Int 13, Combat Expertise.

Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a trip combat maneuver. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to trip you.

Normal: You provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a trip combat maneuver.

Greater Trip (Combat)

Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.

Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.

Normal: Creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from being tripped.

You may notice something missing in the two Pathfinder feats that was present in the singular 3.5 feat. Something that makes tripping oh so much worse in Pathfinder.

Righhht. I don't see it. You can't make a trip as part of a full attack, and it sucks up an AoO to attack an opponent after the trip. But your allies also get AoOs against the enemy.

[Gullintanni]

"If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt."

This component of 3.5 Improved Trip is not an AoO, it's a free attack.

In addition, you can trip, disarm, sunder etc. as part of a full attack action. At least in 3.5. Not sure about PF, but this should be the same.

[RaginChangeling]

Righhht. I don't see it. You can't make a trip as part of a full attack, and it sucks up an AoO to attack an opponent after the trip. But your allies also get AoOs against the enemy.


If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.

????

Thats a pretty huge thing to leave out, especially because you already split it into two separate feats.

[Hiro Protagonest]

"If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt."

This component of 3.5 Improved Trip is not an AoO, it's a free attack.

In addition, you can trip, disarm, sunder etc. as part of a full attack action. At least in 3.5. Not sure about PF, but this should be the same.

But if he provokes AoOs, you allies that threaten him also get free attacks. And let's face it, the rogue should always flank with the fighter, meaning the rogue's AoO also gets sneak attack damage.

[RaginChangeling]

But if he provokes AoOs, you allies that threaten him also get free attacks. And let's face it, the rogue should always flank with the fighter, meaning the rogue's AoO also gets sneak attack damage.

So every group now has a Rogue flanking a Fighter for every foe they face? One that conveniently stands there and lets them hit it, tying up at least two characters in combat? Besides, standing up from being knocked prone provoked AoO in 3.5, and you have limited AoOs you can make.

Not to mention the Rogue doesn't get sneak attack damage in Pathfinder because they changed when they got sneak attack for some insane balance reason.

[Gullintanni]

But if he provokes AoOs, you allies that threaten him also get free attacks. And let's face it, the rogue should always flank with the fighter, meaning the rogue's AoO also gets sneak attack damage.

This also applies in 3.5. The difference is that the character initiating the trip no longer gets a free attack if he succeeds.



Not to mention the Rogue doesn't get sneak attack damage in Pathfinder because they changed when they got sneak attack for some insane balance reason.

Flanking no longer provides SA?

[McSmack]

The things that really tick me off about Pathfinder,

Bards got a totally unnecessary nerf in that Bardic music is now measured in rounds per day equal to bard level +3. Ditto with Barbarian Rage.

Power Attack is nearly useless, you can't choose how much to power attack for anymore and the returns are lower.

They didn't touch the worst of the magical items.

They decide to kludge a lot of inelegant solutions together for things, "Monk has Full BaB only in Flurries! Still 3/4ths all other times! Alchemist can't give potions to party members!"

Bards can use their bardic music 2+Cha +2/level. Which adds up to quite a bit. Ditto for Barbarian rage. The nice thing about this is you don't have to worry about only using it for a few rounds. How many times as a Barbarian did you have to decide whether to use that rage/day or save it for another battle? Now since it's measured in rounds, you can use it more efficiently, IMO.

Powerattack stopped being a damage spike ability and became more of a passive damage increase - something you pretty much just leave on all the time. It's not bad in and of itself, as a feat; it's just not the bread and butter of a melee build anymore.

I wouldn't say they didn't touch the worst of the magic items. A lot of stuff optimizers like aren't in Pathfinder, you won't find Nightsticks or gloves that give you Cha bonus to damage, but yeah some of the classic core items are still there.

Rogues get sneak attack when flanking. Printed plain as day in the book/SRD. Don't know where you got that information.

But I agree with you on some of your points. Monk still needs work, alchemist could be better.

From reading the forums I've garnered that folks who prefer optimized campaigns dislike PF.
Those who aren't as concerned with optimization or who dislike it, tend to be in favor of the changes PF has made.

So whether it's the game for you really depends on your playstyle. In the end there is no wrong choice; just play what you like.:smallsmile:

[Mojo_Rat]

people who complain about Pf trip honestly have no understanding of how it works.

first the reason imp trip was lowered is monsters get less of a bonus for size. being large is a +1 bonus.

secondly if you use a trip weapon all of it's bonus are used for the trip attempt. this is true for any CM that uses a weapon.

so my lvl 10 monk is a tripping machine. +22 to trip unless it's massive or flying it is on it's ass. if you have allies with combat reflexes grater trip is just brutal.

finally for a lower trip chance there is ki throw. our current groups drunken monk was throwing dire apes off a cliff and constantly repositions bad guys so the rogue gets flank.


over all the changes to cm was an amazing streamline.

for reference though our group dropped all 3.5 content immediately and has never looked back.

[Infernalbargain]

I dislike Pathfinder because it isn't always completely backwards compatible (as it claims to be) and because they nerfed a lot of spells, and some classes (for example, Bardic Music got hit (unfairly, in my opinion) with the nerf bat, and hit hard; so did Rage)

Did you read the third sentence of that paragraph?


He can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + his Charisma modifier. At each level after 1st a bard can use bardic performance for 2 additional rounds per day.


Power Attack is nearly useless, you can't choose how much to power attack for anymore and the returns are lower.

While when you calc out the numbers it merely means that you can't do cheese like shock trooper + leap attack etc. If you calc it out going against CR = level monsters, PF PA comes out ahead.


They only nominally changed a few spells for balance, most of them are as broken as they were in 3.5.

The untouched one were the really egregiously broken ones like planar series. If you look at the low level spells such as grease, they are hit fairly heavily.


Alchemist can't give potions to party members!


Infusion: When the alchemist creates an extract, he can infuse it with an extra bit of his own magical power. The extract created now persists even after the alchemist sets it down. As long as the extract exists, it continues to occupy one of the alchemist’s daily extract slots. An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.

Regarding trip:


You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack.

Now sunder did get nerfed:

You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack

So trip may be done as part of a FRA.

[RaginChangeling]

Bardic music, at twentieth level, can be used for less than four minutes a day. That is a nerf no matter how you look at it.

Also, for all the people saying size modifiers are unimportant now,


Trip

You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has. Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.

Still need to get big to trip big things. And its much harder now.

[Infernalbargain]

Bardic music, at twentieth level, can be used for less than four minutes a day. That is a nerf no matter how you look at it.

It is also maintained as a free action, also they may do things like cast spells and attack while performing as they are not hampered by this little line in 3.5.


Even while using bardic music that doesn’t require concentration, a bard cannot cast spells, activate magic items by spell completion (such as scrolls), spell trigger (such as wands), or command word.

Sure, technically in 3.5 you can just have your music running all day, but you can't do anything else.

[Tyndmyr]

Bards can use their bardic music 2+Cha +2/level. Which adds up to quite a bit. Ditto for Barbarian rage. The nice thing about this is you don't have to worry about only using it for a few rounds. How many times as a Barbarian did you have to decide whether to use that rage/day or save it for another battle? Now since it's measured in rounds, you can use it more efficiently, IMO.

Never, actually. The only time I've ever taken Extra Rage was in Pathfinder, come to think of it. It's not more efficient in PF at all.

See, as a 3.5 barbarian, you've got limited rage for the first couple levels, right? But rage lasts for 3 + con rounds. And con gets boosted by rage. So, typically, it lasts for like 8 rounds. Long enough for even the worst fight. Thus, the after-effects of it do not matter.

As a PF barb, you have 4+con rounds of rage per day. Note that since 3.5 uses boosted con and PF does not, you have one round/day less rage. Now, if the PF barb actually stops using rage, fatigue kicks in, and the barb becomes next to worthless. So, in practice, it tends to get used exactly the same way as 3.5 rage. Rage until everything's dead.

Ah, you say...PF barb gets +2 rounds at each level after first? Yay. That means that at level 4, they're up to about 14 rounds/day of rage, total. The 3.5 barb with a base 16 con(not at all unreasonable) pulls in 16 rounds/day. Sure, it's in two chunks, but in PF, you're using it for the entirety of fights anyway.

Let's keep going. Level 12.

PF Barb: 29 rounds rage/day. This is a lot. Unless it's a combat-heavy day, you'll be enraged for any fight of note.

3.5 Barb: 36 rounds rage/day. Why? Greater rage boosts up the while-enraged con bonus, increasing the total quantity of rage. You will, again, be enraged in absolutely any fight worthy of the name. And, in case of endurance fights, you have the edge.

The only time PF barb really has an advantage is if the DM likes to lob lots of trivial, one/two round fights at you. Which, frankly, aren't the kind of fights you need bother with rage for.


It is also maintained as a free action, also they may do things like cast spells and attack while performing as they are not hampered by this little line in 3.5.

Sure, technically in 3.5 you can just have your music running all day, but you can't do anything else.

Meh. Burn a feat on Melodic Casting and enjoy casting while singing. Or get into any prestige class that boosts singing such as War Chanter, etc, and learn to sing as a free action. And the benefit of buff songs last five rounds after you stop singing....so, sing, then enjoy rocking out for another five rounds without refreshing. In six rounds, the fight is generally over. That doesn't even require anything in the way of additional resources.

Bards get it even harsher than barbs do, because it usually takes a whopping 1 song/fight. Somewhere around level 4, a bard is not going to need to care about # of songs/day ever again. At level 4, a PF bard can keep a song active for perhaps half of the combat rounds per day.

[Velden]

Basically:

Pro:
-Pathfinder adds more fluff to the existing classes.
Examples: The Fighter gets a bonus against fear effects based on his class level. The Sorcerer receives special qualities based on his heritage.

-Pathfinder simplifies the use of skills by merging the use of two or more skills into a single one. For example:
Spot + Listen + search=Perception
Hide + Move Silently= Stealth.

-"Class Skills" and "Cross-Class skills" cost the same, the difference is that Class skills get a +3 bonus. The limit is also the same.
Example:A 4th level fighter can have 4 ranks in Use magic Device and 4 ranks in intimidate. Being a Fighter, he also gets a +3 in intimidate checks.

-Characters get a feat at every odd level, instead of every 3 levels.

Con:

-Characters get less skills points at first level. Example:
In 3.5, a 1st level fighter would get 8 + int*4 skills points. In Pathfinder, he gets only 2+int.

-Pathfinder adds more fluff, but it doesn´t seem to solve balance issues between the core classes.

-Optimization builds got "nerfed", specially because many feats and special attacks don´t work the way it used to. Examples:
Power Attack grants a fixed damage bonus and attack penalty based on BAB. Improved Trip no longer grants a free attack on tripped opponents.

Pro/Con?:
-Combat is simplified by adding the terms "combat maneuver" and "combat maneuver defense". Example: Grapple/trip/sunder/disarm use the same "combat maneuver" value for offense and "Combat maneuver defense" for defense. Feats and special circumstances add bonuses to these checks.

-Some spells and supernatural qualities have been modified. Example:A druid´s "wild shape" now works differently based on a new spell, "Beast Shape".

-0 Level spells are free to cast, there is no limit of uses per day.

-A character gets +1 skill rank or a +1 hp per favored class it has.

-Prestige Classes got modified overall, specially regarding their Save bonuses. (at 10 level, a prestige class has a +5 on his good saves, in 3.5 it would have been +7)

Personally, I like the system. But I can understand why many people think otherwise. It´s a good change of pace, but it definetely does´t replace 3.5 with all it´s published supplements.

[Starbuck_II]

It is also maintained as a free action, also they may do things like cast spells and attack while performing as they are not hampered by this little line in 3.5.



Sure, technically in 3.5 you can just have your music running all day, but you can't do anything else.

You can attack (bow or sword). Remember you have 1 use/level at a minimum 6 rounds active (it last 5 rounds after stop).
Meaning by level 12 you should have 72rds/day in 3.5.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Con:

-Characters get less skills points per level. Example:
In 3.5, a 1st level fighter would get 8 + int*4 skills points. In Pathfinder, he gets only 2+int.

Since when did a fighter get 8+int skill ranks? And you've obviously read the PF skill rules wrong.


TABLE 4-2: SKILL CHECK BONUSES
{table]Skill|Skill Check is Equal To*
Untrained|1d20 + ability modifier + racial modifier
Trained|1d20 + skill ranks + ability modifier + racial modifier
Trained class skill|1d20 + ability modifier + racial modifier + 3[/table]
* Armor check penalty applies to all Strength- and Dexterity-based checks.

The +3 in trained class skill makes up for the lost ranks, and it actually is better then the 3.5 skills, as you can put a single rank into a class skill after level 1 and still get the extra +3.

[Tyndmyr]

Skills in PF are generally better. Well, with the exception of fly, which is basically a skill tax.

Edit: Trained class skills still get to add ranks, btw.

[Curious]

You know whats a pretty good combo? Sixteenth level Fighter, Two-handed archetype, with the vital strike chain, power attack, and furious focus. On a charge, he has no penalty to hit, and does-
8d6+2x Strength Bonus+20 PA+Misc. With no penalties to hit. Looks pretty good to me.

[Starbuck_II]

You know whats a pretty good combo? Sixteenth level Fighter, Two-handed archetype, with the vital strike chain, power attack, and furious focus. On a charge, he has no penalty to hit, and does-
8d6+2x Strength Bonus+20 PA+Misc. With no penalties to hit. Looks pretty good to me.
Vital Strike cannot be used with Charge.
So that means you overlooked the rules.

[Curious]

Vital Strike cannot be used with Charge.
So that means you overlooked the rules.

Dammit. Teach me to not read the rules closely enough. :smallannoyed:

[Wagadodo]

One thing nice about the Pathfinder Fighter is that if you decide to take the Weapon Focus feats in the weapon you are using. You use the power attack feat at 20th lvl with 0 bonus for strength with out Furious Focus feat you would still have +20 to hit before all other modifers. This is with the Base fighter, and not any of the other variants.

[Velden]

Since when did a fighter get 8+int skill ranks? And you've obviously read the PF skill rules wrong.

The +3 in trained class skill makes up for the lost ranks, and it actually is better then the 3.5 skills, as you can put a single rank into a class skill after level 1 and still get the extra +3.

Ok, I did exagerate. You don´t get more skills per level, but at first level there is a difference.
As far as I remember, in 3.5 a fighter starts with (2+int)*4 skill points to invest, which is the same as saying 2*4 + int*4, at least in the case I mentioned.
[http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm]

It´s true, the +3 makes up for the "lost ranks", but only if I were to maximize.

At 1st level [3.5] the no-race fighter with 10 int would get (2+0)*4 skill points. He could choose to invest the points in Climb and Intimidate. His Climb and intimidate checks would get a +4.

At 1st level [Pthfndr]the no-race fighter with 10 int would get 2 skill points.
He could choose to invest the points in Climb and Intimidate. Because both are class skills, he also gets a +3 in such skills. He ends up with a +4 on both checks, just like his 3.5 version.

The problem lies if the 3.5 player doesn´t want to invest his points in only Climb and intimidate, perhaps he wants to invest 4 points in Intimidate and 1 point in Craft, Climb and Ride. He has 8 points to invest in different skills, while his Pathfinder counterpart only has 2.

This is only considering a 1st level game. In later levels, as you already said, the fighter makes up for the difference. By simply spending 1 rank in his class skills he gets a +4 in his checks, while his 3.5 counterpart would still be limited to +1 rank=+1 to check.

[cfalcon]

It´s true, the +3 makes up for the "lost ranks", but only if I were to maximize.

Right. That's the loss. You lose a bit of customization at 1st level. You certainly gain it back at the later levels.

Lets assume a Human Fighter with an Int of 12. In 3.5, he'll have 4*4=16 skill points. He can spend up to 4 in any one spot. If he maxes out 4, he'll have +4 to each of those- assuming they are class skills. If he put them all to CROSS class skills though, for whatever reason, he would have +2 to each of 4 skills. His total plusses from skills could be up to +16, or as little as +8.

The Pathfinder fighter has 4 skill points. If he puts them to class skills, he'll have +4, same as the 3.5 fighter. Unlike the 3.5 fighter, that's his limit: he can't split it up. If he was to put them in cross class skills, he would have a +1 to each of 4 skills. His total plusses from skills could be up to +16, or as little as +4.

If he chose fighter as his favored class, he could opt for an extra skill point as well.

So, at first level, the Pathfinder fighter is pretty much the same or worse, skill-wise.

Now lets look at 2nd level.

The 3.5 fighter has 4 more skill points. He could fill another class skill to the 4, giving him 5 maxxed skills at +4s, and an effective total of +20. Or, he could divy them up some more. He could add to his cross class skills as well, but he couldn't get a bonus- if he assigned 5 ranks to a cross class skill, his bonus would remain +2 until 3rd level, when he could raise it to +3. His total plusses from skills is now +20, or as little as +8.

The Pathfinder fighter has 4 more skill points. He could put them each into a class skill, which means his second level is about as good as his first, skill wise, and far superior to 3.5. He could put them into cross class skills as well. If he puts them all into class skills, he'll be at +32, much more than the 3.5 fighter. If he puts them all into cross class, he'll be at +8, and have the same +2 to them as the 3.5 fighter. If he does a mix of these, he'll also be much better off than the 3.5 fighter.

By third level, the Pathfinder system clearly pulls ahead. You have a free +3 in anything you ever bother to train, and while that's equivalent at 1st level, it's simply more at all other levels. Your cross classes aren't halved: at 10th level, you could have 10 ranks in stealth, while a rogue would be at 13 for the same investment of 10.

I hold that the Pathfinder system is probably a bit TOO generous when it comes to handing out skill points.

In any event, it greatly reduces the skill differences between the classes, and no one appreciates that more than the fighter. It doesn't take very high levels to do this overtake either: level 2 is more, and level 3 is way more.

[subject42]

EDIT: Keep in mind that this opinion precludes any knowledge of PF splatbooks. If they start releasing additional content, or if they've already done so, then then limitations of standalone PF may have already been mitigated.

The Advanced Player Guide and Ultimate Combat help with the options issue. Additionally, most adventure paths have a feat or two in them that get posted to the PFSRD.

Take a look through the SRD feats at some point. Combat Patrol is crazy-weird and some of the other book actually make half-orcs interesting.

It's not first party, but the tacitly-endorsed-by-Paizo Psionics Unleashed from Dreamscarred Press helps a lot here, also.

[Bobikus]

I looked at it, and it had some good stuff, but our group didn't see too much of a point in playing it. For groups with tier 1 characters, a few house rules and a couple homebrew classes such as Frank&K's tome Monk/Fighter evened up the gap a lot more than PF, and without t1 classes in the group, Tome of Battle's classes were fun enough to have competitive melee at higher level.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Did you read the third sentence of that paragraph?



He can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + his Charisma modifier. At each level after 1st a bard can use bardic performance for 2 additional rounds per day.

As a matter of fact, I did. You see, I like Bards. I like Bards quite a lot. Now, if you don't mind, lets take a look at some things.



Bardic Music
Once per day per bard level, a bard can use his song or poetics to produce magical effects on those around him (usually including himself, if desired).

So, rather than be limited to 9+2(L-1) rounds per day, I get L uses per day (where L equals your Bard level and assuming a Charisma of 20). Furthermore:



Starting a bardic music effect is a standard action. Some bardic music abilities require concentration, which means the bard must take a standard action each round to maintain the ability.

Those that do not (including Fascinate, Inspire Courage, Suggestion, etc.) require a free action to maintain, just as they are in Pathfinder. And frankly, with Melodic Casting allowing one to cast while performing, and with Inspire Courage requiring a free action to maintain (therefore allowing one to continue acting in combat, which is where Inspire Courage is going to be used) that all Bardic Musics in Pathfinder require only a free action to maintain isn't that much of a boost.

However, what little boost this provides to Bards is soundly eliminated by the limit on uses of Bardic Music. If I can put up four Inspire Courages a day and still have 16 uses left, I'm more likely to use Inspire Competence out of combat, or Fascinate, or Suggestion, which grants me more options. In addition, Fascinate and Suggestion are now almost useless, since their effects are limited to a maximum (again, assuming 20 Charisma) of 38 rounds per day (which would use all of my Bardic Music for the day) which means I can only provide a distraction for my party for 3 minutes 48 seconds, as opposed to a virtually unlimited amount of time in 3.5, and at the cost of essentially crippling myself for the day, where Bardic Music is concerned. In 3.5 I was more free to use these abilities than I will ever be in Pathfinder.

This nerf (and it is undeniably a nerf, on balance) to Bards, you must remember, is also a nerf to the whole party, whom the Bard supports. If I can't create that distraction, or provide the Fighter with a solid +4 to attack and damage, or increase one (or more) ally's hit dice, then they cannot fight as effectively as they could previously (in 3.5).

So, in all, yes, yes I have read the third sentence of that paragraph.

[Endarire]

I like Pathfinder because it gives me inspiration for homebrewing a better system.

I dislike Pathfinder because it seems to disregard why 3.5 is as it is. If Paizo had made Tome of Battle classes and psionic classes core, I'd be more for it. (Factotums would also be a welcome inclusion.)

I also dislike paying 'again' for the material. I own 3.5 and memorized the most important parts. The 3.5 and PF SRDs are free.

There's also no clear, consolidated, official list of what changed. I'm going by fans who've compiled lists, and it's easy to misjudge something and 'forget' or 'ignore' how it works now.

[Gullintanni]

The Advanced Player Guide and Ultimate Combat help with the options issue. Additionally, most adventure paths have a feat or two in them that get posted to the PFSRD.

Take a look through the SRD feats at some point. Combat Patrol is crazy-weird and some of the other book actually make half-orcs interesting.

It's not first party, but the tacitly-endorsed-by-Paizo Psionics Unleashed from Dreamscarred Press helps a lot here, also.

That's good. I do like PF as a system...I do prefer it to 3.5, I just love the extra content I get out of the Completes et. al. and I haven't got the patience to convert that content over to PF. Character creation already takes too long. Makes me miss AD&D :smallamused:

[tcrudisi]

Why I dislike Pathfinder? Well, I started playing it at the same time as another system. I was trying to decide between those two for which system I would go with. After a few sessions, I realized that nothing had really changed from 3.5. The casters were still all-powerful compared to the melee classes. I wasn't an optimizer in 3.5, so it was extremely frustrating to me to sit down at a table as a melee class and basically be useless. PF promised balance, it delivered nothing. I chose the other system and walked away for good from PF.

Why I would have liked it? Let me use a hypothetical example. Let's say 3rd edition never existed. Instead, Pathfinder had come out in it's place. In that example, I would have loved PF. It was certainly a huge upgrade over 1e and 2e, made more sense from design perspectives, and the classes have potential. The problem is that it just wasn't different enough from 3.5.

I gave PF a fair shake. I tried it for a few sessions and I just couldn't get into it. For disclosure, I did have a horrible experience with 3.5 right before trying PF. A new group was formed which I was a member of. One of the players was building towards Pun-Pun (the old version, the level 11 or 12 one). After a few sessions I mentioned to him that there was a character build eerily similar to his called Pun-Pun that was all-powerful. He knew; that's what he was working towards. I left that session and never came back. Seriously - who creates Pun-Pun? Sheesh. "Theoretical" optimization, my butt. So that's why balance was important to me when I tried PF. The balance was a lie, so I haven't gone back to PF.

[Hornstien]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the way that the feats are written allow you to make trips on the move? And in moving while tripping you still get an attack on the target that is tripped? I'll be the first to admit that I don't know half as much as I should know having been playing for over six years but I don't think that was possible in the original 3.5 feat.

That is at least what I like to do when playing a trip build. Run by tripping and allow my party to come up behind and finish the poor schmuck off while I move on to the next standing target. And if everyone has the feat that allows you to take a move action before and after their attack, and they wield pole-arms, then this could get nasty quick!

[Tetsubo 57]

For me, Pathfinder is an improvement over 3.5 and what 4E should have been.

The Dreamscarred Press book Psionics Unleashed alone justified PF to my mind.

I have recently become disenfranchised with PrCs. I much prefer the full 20 level built philosophy of PF.

[Hazzardevil]

Core itself, Isn't that bad, in fact i think it's quite balanced, I'm told though that they keep making replacements rogues and things that are exactly the same with more class features added on.
So I'm told.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Core itself, Isn't that bad, in fact i think it's quite balanced, I'm told though that they keep making replacements rogues and things that are exactly the same with more class features added on.
So I'm told.

Those would be the archetypes in the advanced player's guide. They're sets of ACFs.

However, those are more for things like if you play a rogue, but want to be an acrobat and have no use for trapfinding, 'cause you didn't put ranks in search and disable device.

[Tyndmyr]

Core itself, Isn't that bad, in fact i think it's quite balanced, I'm told though that they keep making replacements rogues and things that are exactly the same with more class features added on.
So I'm told.

It is no more balanced than 3.5. Wizards are still ludicrous.

Especially capstone abilities. It's like they entirely abandoned the idea that high level balance is desirable at all.

Consider one ability of the diviner:

You can always act in the surprise round even if you fail to make a Perception roll to notice a foe, but you are still considered flat-footed until you take an action. In addition, you receive a bonus on initiative checks equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum +1). At 20th level, anytime you roll initiative, assume the roll resulted in a natural 20.

Ok, with a nat 20+10 based solely on your class, and automatically going in the surprise round....it's basically a "you always go first, no matter what". It is...ludicrously powerful. Sure, you could do this in 3.5, provided you were polymorphed into a dire tortoise, kept up foresight and a contingent celerity...but this required some heavy splatbook diving. This is core PF stuff. Straight out of the wizard class.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

So you're saying Core PF is just as broken because of a level 20 capstone on a specialization that isn't that great otherwise (in Core PF anyway) which you can get from 3.5's Foresight, Shapechange, or Divine Oracle. I'm not following.

Lots of spells - mostly the standard low-level 'batman' lineup - got nerfed. Casting defensively is a pain. Outside of the Planar Binding line (yeah, I know, they should have fixed that) it's hard to break the game. Pathfinder definitely made strides towards balance; they didn't do enough, but they definitely made progress.

[balistafreak]

So you're saying Core PF is just as broken because of a level 20 capstone on a specialization that isn't that great otherwise (in Core PF anyway) which you can get from 3.5's Foresight, Shapechange, or Divine Oracle. I'm not following.

Well, not that it's as broken. It's just that Core PF claims to "fix balance issues" then makes an OP class more so. Perhaps the capstone isn't breaking anything, but the fact that it's strictly a buff and not a nerf is counter to their claim, and therefore annoying to us players.


Lots of spells - mostly the standard low-level 'batman' lineup - got nerfed. Casting defensively is a pain. Outside of the Planar Binding line (yeah, I know, they should have fixed that) it's hard to break the game.

More tricks than the Planar Binding line remain - I think divinations are still as annoyingly good and encounter breaking/circumventing as they were, in terms of gathering intelligence. It is true that the low "Batman" spells got nerfed, but IIRC the medium/high level crowd-controllers are still unchanged: I think Solid Fog and Stinking Cloud where two cited.


Pathfinder definitely made strides towards balance; they didn't do enough, but they definitely made progress.

My personal counterpoint is that "basic" melee (cough Fighter Monk cough) got worse or were not improved as much as the casters, through a variety of initially subtle but rapidly apparent nerfs or initially good-looking but actually insufficient buffs. (For example, removed free attack on Improved Trip, Monk maintains inability to flurry/fast move.)

I don't play Fighters or Monks, and I still don't. Paladins and Rangers, the "half-caster" melee classes, though, got huge buffs through useful class features, which makes me very happy.

This isn't going to make any sense, my belief is that there is now more "available balance" than there used to be in 3.5, due to the massive improvement of several classes. The potential for imbalance is still just as high, however.

[subject42]

Those would be the archetypes in the advanced player's guide. They're sets of ACFs.

He may also be talking about stuff like the Ninja in Ultimate Combat, which is basically just Rogue++.

[Jude_H]

It is confusing to me that PF keeping some of the problems of 3e is a reason for people to favor 3e to PF.

[balistafreak]

It is confusing to me that PF keeping some of the problems of 3e is a reason for people to favor 3e to PF.

The reason being that 3rd Edition has more existing material, if not current support. If two things have the same problems but one has more material to work with to try and work around those problems...

Also, there's the issue of perceived honesty, of Pathfinder claiming "to fix balance issues" and, at least in the eyes of the many, failing to deliver or even do the opposite.

[RaginChangeling]

It is confusing to me that PF keeping some of the problems of 3e is a reason for people to favor 3e to PF.

3e has things, like Shock Trooper and Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian or the Tome of Magic/Tome of Battle/Magic of Incarnum books that help to lessen a lot of the flaws that are found solely in core. Pathfinder by itself has much fewer character building options, and almost all of them fall into the same trap of being a partial/full vancian caster or a purely martial character without any of the options later 3.5 splatbooks offered.

[Tyndmyr]

So you're saying Core PF is just as broken because of a level 20 capstone on a specialization that isn't that great otherwise (in Core PF anyway) which you can get from 3.5's Foresight, Shapechange, or Divine Oracle. I'm not following.

It's an example. And you'll note that I did just point out how it's done in 3.5. Those ways require resources. This is just a freebie.


Lots of spells - mostly the standard low-level 'batman' lineup - got nerfed. Casting defensively is a pain. Outside of the Planar Binding line (yeah, I know, they should have fixed that) it's hard to break the game. Pathfinder definitely made strides towards balance; they didn't do enough, but they definitely made progress.

No, a lot of spells did not get nerfed. A few spells got nerfed. The vast majority of spells are exactly the same. The fact that they nerfed the low level spells, while casters were weakest, and left the high level stuff alone, where casters are strongest, speaks volumes about the balance they created.

Let's look at other alternative options:

You play a sorc. You now have a larger HD(and almost certainly hp for favored class), negating one of your classical weaknesses. What's the other weakness? Lack of spells? No worries, you get to pick a bloodline for free. It gives you spells known in addition to handy abilities. This is a flat power increase. There is no balance here. Also, infinite cantrips are fun.

Or, you play a wizard. You also get more hp. Infinite cantrips. You can get an item familiar, which gives you a spont spell 1/day. Without using a slot. This is like the entire point of MotAO, which is one of the better PrCs in 3.5. Losing a familiar is no longer that big of a deal. Specialization is even more awesome. You can still use spells from the banned school. In addition, you now gain a list of freebie powers depending on what you specialized in. If you don't feel like specializing, that's fine too. There are bonuses for that. Free metamagic, in fact. In 3.5, you actually had to work for reducers. In PF, you get them as a class feature.

Oh, and just in case an item familiar isn't your thing, you still have the regular varieties. They even replicated the hummingbird from Dragon Mag(+4 init). Yay for making ridiculous TO accessible to all!

[Doug Lampert]

Sure, feats have been split up, but you also get considerably more feats than you did in 3.5. Remember that in Pathfinder, feats accumulate at every odd level. That means that with a human fighter, you should have 22 feats by 20th level.

22 is "considerably more" than 19?

It is more, but if we're talking about noticable numbers of feats being split in two then you're down substantially.

[Prime32]

You play a sorc. You now have a larger HD(and almost certainly hp for favored class), negating one of your classical weaknesses. What's the other weakness? Lack of spells? No worries, you get to pick a bloodline for free. It gives you spells known in addition to handy abilities. This is a flat power increase. There is no balance here. Also, infinite cantrips are fun.You play a human sorc, and get +20 spells known on top of that.

[cfalcon]

3e has things, like Shock Trooper and Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian or the Tome of Magic/Tome of Battle/Magic of Incarnum books that help to lessen a lot of the flaws that are found solely in core. Pathfinder by itself has much fewer character building options, and almost all of them fall into the same trap of being a partial/full vancian caster or a purely martial character without any of the options later 3.5 splatbooks offered.


Shock Trooper and Spirit Lion Totem are probably not intended to be as good as they are. Tome of Battle definitely is.

Since I've never allowed those three (and will definitely never allow the first two), Pathfinder is a step up. One of the bigger problems in 3.5 is having to pick and choose crazy nonsense to make a physical guy worth playing. The Pathfinder physical characters have merit baseline, which is the correct way of handling problems. When you screw up and make the first version of D&D to punish fighters for being high level by unable to make their full cycle of attacks, the solution is not one tiny option (that's supposed to be one of many) that winds up giving Pounce away freely. It's to offer something to fix or address the mechanic.

[Tyndmyr]

You play a human sorc, and get +20 spells known on top of that.

Yeah, that just gets ludicrous, really. As if human casters weren't already ridiculously common due to the value of a feat.

[cfalcon]

The +spell known per level for human sorcerer and the +1/4 evo point for half elven summoners are too good. Paizo is far from perfect. Hell, even the Falcata is too good, and that's just a one handed melee weapons whose only power is generally doing damage.

My real problem with the 1 spell per level (which does have some limits, by the way- I think it has to be one lower than max) is that it gives a lot of flexibility to an archetype that is supposed to be inflexible in that one area- to the point where other races of sorc become poor by comparison. You do, of course, pay for this privilege by not having one extra hit point or skill point per level, but that's normally a deal you are totally willing to make.

Generally I think that the options listed by race in the APG are a mistake. Less than half are at the level where you would seriously consider them versus hit point or skill point: the remainder are LOLNO or definite picks.

[Infernalbargain]

No, a lot of spells did not get nerfed. A few spells got nerfed. The vast majority of spells are exactly the same. The fact that they nerfed the low level spells, while casters were weakest, and left the high level stuff alone, where casters are strongest, speaks volumes about the balance they created.

Let's look at other alternative options:

You play a sorc. You now have a larger HD(and almost certainly hp for favored class), negating one of your classical weaknesses. What's the other weakness? Lack of spells? No worries, you get to pick a bloodline for free. It gives you spells known in addition to handy abilities. This is a flat power increase. There is no balance here. Also, infinite cantrips are fun.

Or, you play a wizard. You also get more hp. Infinite cantrips. You can get an item familiar, which gives you a spont spell 1/day. Without using a slot. This is like the entire point of MotAO, which is one of the better PrCs in 3.5. Losing a familiar is no longer that big of a deal. Specialization is even more awesome. You can still use spells from the banned school. In addition, you now gain a list of freebie powers depending on what you specialized in. If you don't feel like specializing, that's fine too. There are bonuses for that. Free metamagic, in fact. In 3.5, you actually had to work for reducers. In PF, you get them as a class feature.

Oh, and just in case an item familiar isn't your thing, you still have the regular varieties. They even replicated the hummingbird from Dragon Mag(+4 init). Yay for making ridiculous TO accessible to all!

Take a good look at what things put classes into tier 1-2.


Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.


Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

The class abilities that are granted are not world breaking abilities. The fact that wizards are tier 1 is not determined by their initiative bonus. It is not determined by you being able to shoot a free force missile 3+int / day. What makes them tier 1 is binding , scry & die, etc. PF did not actually make casters any better at being tier 1-2. They made them better at being tier 3, but not better at being tier 1-2. Sure some of them get some mild defenses (capstones excluded), that makes it infinitesimally harder to go after. The source of their power is in the spell list, which did not improve.


Yeah, that just gets ludicrous, really. As if human casters weren't already ridiculously common due to the value of a feat.

Having played sorcerers, the additional spells known is needed IMO. While the +1 per level is indeed too much on top of the bloodline, +1/2 per level works out so that they aren't constantly overshadowed by the party wizard. Is there honestly any reason to play a 3.5 sorc over a 3.5 wiz? Sure spont casting is nice, but it doesn't matter much when you can only cast 3 spells.

[cfalcon]

In 3.5, I find sorcerers to be very very strong. However, I do agree that their spell list limits them. Mid levels, I find them much more powerful than wizards, as they are much more likely to have a good spell (or at least a pretty good spell) to cast more than once, where the wizard MIGHT have the BEST spell, but he probably only has one.


In the game I'm running now, I allow sorcerers to memorize one spell, from a spell book, just like a wizard would. It's taken away from their spells known, and they can change it out daily. When they gain a new spell level, they have to pick something to make it permanent, and then the variable slot moves to the newest level. I think it's of one level lower than their max, I can't get to the forum I posted it on (or my campaign docs) at the moment. I hope to address the issue of needing one really good spell that way. Dunno if it's too good or anything, it might be.


The problem with the human sorc thing in Pathfinder is that it's too good compared to the other options. You don't want to be an elven sorcerer, nor do you want to be a human sorcerer with one extra hit point per level. You definitely want that spell. That's the hallmark of an ability that is too good.

[Infernalbargain]

In 3.5, I find sorcerers to be very very strong. However, I do agree that their spell list limits them. Mid levels, I find them much more powerful than wizards, as they are much more likely to have a good spell (or at least a pretty good spell) to cast more than once, where the wizard MIGHT have the BEST spell, but he probably only has one.


In the game I'm running now, I allow sorcerers to memorize one spell, from a spell book, just like a wizard would. It's taken away from their spells known, and they can change it out daily. When they gain a new spell level, they have to pick something to make it permanent, and then the variable slot moves to the newest level. I think it's of one level lower than their max, I can't get to the forum I posted it on (or my campaign docs) at the moment. I hope to address the issue of needing one really good spell that way. Dunno if it's too good or anything, it might be.


The problem with the human sorc thing in Pathfinder is that it's too good compared to the other options. You don't want to be an elven sorcerer, nor do you want to be a human sorcerer with one extra hit point per level. You definitely want that spell. That's the hallmark of an ability that is too good.

Aye, that's why I rule it down to 1/2 per level.

[Aron Times]

The only thing I like about Pathfinder is the sorcerer. Specifically, the human sorcerer. 29 bonus spells known over the 3.5 version, plus actual class features.

Among the many things I dislike about Pathfinder, the worst would be Paizo's anti-intellectual, anti-optimization vibe.

That is all.

[Tyndmyr]

Take a good look at what things put classes into tier 1-2.

And in PF, the wizard remains very solidly tier 1. You might be able to argue that the sorc actually increases to tier 1, due to the increased amount of options available to him. I'm not sure that this is the case, as the wizard is arguably still notably more powerful....but it's tough.


The class abilities that are granted are not world breaking abilities. The fact that wizards are tier 1 is not determined by their initiative bonus. It is not determined by you being able to shoot a free force missile 3+int / day. What makes them tier 1 is binding , scry & die, etc.

And here's the thing. Gate exists, planar binding exists, scrying...well now, even MORE scrying options exist....they are not shorted on options.

They simply get additional options for no resources expended on top of that.


PF did not actually make casters any better at being tier 1-2.

No, that makes them better at being tier 1-2. Why is the wizard in 3.5 a higher tier than the sorc? They cast off the same list, do they not? It's because the wizard can have a greater variety of spells, and is thus more versatile.

Therefore, giving the sorc more spells translates to a direct increase in power, as measured by the tier system.


They made them better at being tier 3, but not better at being tier 1-2. Sure some of them get some mild defenses (capstones excluded), that makes it infinitesimally harder to go after. The source of their power is in the spell list, which did not improve.

Not improving would make them tier 1-2. What they were in 3.5. Staying the same does not make them drop to tier 3.

And you're wrong. The spell list DID improve. The PF SRD has 32 9th level spells(not counting third party spells). The 3.5 SRD has only 24. The only reason that PF is at all less broken than 3.5 is a simple lack of splatbooks, something they are attempting to change. Ultimate Magic is coming out, what, this weekend? That's spell list improving guaranteed.


Having played sorcerers, the additional spells known is needed IMO. While the +1 per level is indeed too much on top of the bloodline, +1/2 per level works out so that they aren't constantly overshadowed by the party wizard. Is there honestly any reason to play a 3.5 sorc over a 3.5 wiz? Sure spont casting is nice, but it doesn't matter much when you can only cast 3 spells.

There is. Sure, the wizard is a higher tier overall, but higher tier does not mean no reason to play.

More importantly, boosting the top tiers while the melee types are pretty much unchanged in term of tier does nothing good for balance at all.

[cfalcon]

How is Paizo anti-intellectual?

"Optimization" is generally a design flaw. In an RPG you are of course expected to pick powerful, useful, and flavorful powers. If there is a clear winner, then you have failed at design. Paizo's elimination of optimization nonsense such as Shock Trooper and Spirit Lion whatever follow exactly what I have been doing the whole time: taking out obviously overpowered things so that the game doesn't degenerate into being about them.

If you want to be a powerful knight, a very valid build for you should be Fighter 20. If some wuxia pounce phasedoor ninja is teleporting all around you, your last thoughts are "well, clearly THIS is absurd". In Pathfinder, Fighter 20 is ok. And there's no 13-classed monkey mocking him.

[Grommen]

It is confusing to me that PF keeping some of the problems of 3e is a reason for people to favor 3e to PF.

I don't quite get the PF is more broken arguements myself.

No game is perfect. All the problem spells I've seen have been modified. But you still need a DM to rule on things. They did not reinvent the wheel, just greased it.

In all honesty I had more problems with the Palidian in the group than the full casters. And I'm not totally sure that it was the fault of the game, or the player over powering his own character and myself not catching it in time.

In any case I still like the Pathfinder version of D&D.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I don't quite get the PF is more broken arguements myself.

No game is perfect. All the problem spells I've seen have been modified. But you still need a DM to rule on things. They did not reinvent the wheel, just greased it.

In all honesty I had more problems with the Palidian in the group than the full casters. And I'm not totally sure that it was the fault of the game, or the player over powering his own character and myself not catching it in time.

In any case I still like the Pathfinder version of D&D.

Here, here!

[Aron Times]

How is Paizo anti-intellectual?

"Optimization" is generally a design flaw. In an RPG you are of course expected to pick powerful, useful, and flavorful powers. If there is a clear winner, then you have failed at design. Paizo's elimination of optimization nonsense such as Shock Trooper and Spirit Lion whatever follow exactly what I have been doing the whole time: taking out obviously overpowered things so that the game doesn't degenerate into being about them.

If you want to be a powerful knight, a very valid build for you should be Fighter 20. If some wuxia pounce phasedoor ninja is teleporting all around you, your last thoughts are "well, clearly THIS is absurd". In Pathfinder, Fighter 20 is ok. And there's no 13-classed monkey mocking him.
I'm not talking about their changes to the system. I'm talking about how they treat optimization-inclined posters in their official forum. When someone points out something broken, the usual response from the Paizo people is that it's not a problem if you use your "common sense" and that it's irrelevant because it's mathcraft and not "actual gameplay."

Which is a huge cop out way of dismissing a valid argument.

[cfalcon]

Tier is an arbitrary and easily dismissed concern. What tier is a king? He controls wizards, right? Is he tier 0?

The tier definitions are more about what a character is ultimately capable of, using only class features. It implicitly ignores stuff like Leadership, and campaign specific things like playing a prince or a destined hero. It also generally assumes a high level of play: yes, a 20th level wizard is supposed to be more "powerful" than a 20th level fighter. That's obviously intended, and it's one of the reasons we play the game. That doesn't tell you who is going to win in a fight, however. Putting these guys in a 1v1 arena is such a bad idea that not even Blizzard does crap like that, and in a campaign the world is generally so rich that class features are a small but flavorful part of it.


Another interesting note is the Pathfinder org play caps at level 12. I don't think the level of play nearing demigodhood is expected to be subject to the same level of balance as is, say, level 8.

[Seerow]

How is Paizo anti-intellectual?

"Optimization" is generally a design flaw. In an RPG you are of course expected to pick powerful, useful, and flavorful powers. If there is a clear winner, then you have failed at design. Paizo's elimination of optimization nonsense such as Shock Trooper and Spirit Lion whatever follow exactly what I have been doing the whole time: taking out obviously overpowered things so that the game doesn't degenerate into being about them.

If you want to be a powerful knight, a very valid build for you should be Fighter 20. If some wuxia pounce phasedoor ninja is teleporting all around you, your last thoughts are "well, clearly THIS is absurd". In Pathfinder, Fighter 20 is ok. And there's no 13-classed monkey mocking him.

You don't need a 13-classed monkey mocking him, the baseline Cleric or Druid is doing it, just like in 3.5. Possibly the Wizard as well, if he cares about it.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not talking about their changes to the system. I'm talking about how they treat optimization-inclined posters in their official forum. When someone points out something broken, the usual response from the Paizo people is that it's not a problem if you use your "common sense" and that it's irrelevant because it's mathcraft and not "actual gameplay."

Which is a huge cop out way of dismissing a valid argument.

Eh, I wasn't going to get into that pet peeve. I'm glad I didn't end up beta testing for them. Probably would have ended up lighting people on fire.

Cfalcon, it's really not. It's descriptive of power in terms of options per class, and it applies throughout the levels entirely. I suggest reading JaronK's guide.

And yes, it's fairly trivial in PF for a wizard to obliterate pure melee types.


Pathfinder org play capping at level 12 is irrelevant to the whole thing. The classes, as printed in the books, go to 20. All 20 levels should work.

[DeltaEmil]

It also generally assumes a high level of play: No, it does not. One might not agree or like the tier system that JaronK devised, but it does not claim or assume such a thing.

[MeeposFire]

No, it does not. One might not agree or like the tier system that JaronK devised, but it does not claim or assume such a thing.

In fact about the only thing it does assume when you compare classes side by side is that they are at equal levels of optimization. So the monk should be as optimized (in terms of effort) as the wizard and if you do so the monk is way behind.

[cfalcon]

You don't need a 13-classed monkey mocking him, the baseline Cleric or Druid is doing it, just like in 3.5. Possibly the Wizard as well, if he cares about it.

Can you show me how a Pathfinder Cleric is totally better than a Pathfinder Fighter?

Or, for that matter, a druid?

If your argument is that at high level they have powerful spells, that is a point I will concede. But I'm more talking about, can you punch stuff harder?

[cfalcon]

A wizard is "tier 1" at first level?

"Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party."


His very DEFINITION of tier 1 mentions "high levels".

Can a level 1 wizard do "absolutely everything"? Can it do "absolutely everything" a level 1 barbarian can? A level 1 fighter? Is it better than these classes at hitting stuff in melee?



The game does work to 20 levels. Eventually, wizards are more powerful. The question of "how much more powerful is right" is the better one to be asking. The game is *trying to model that high level spells make casters command more power than noncasters*. That's really part of the selling point.

What Paizo has done is removed much of the overlap, much of the underbudget overpowered trickery, and yes, even nerfed some high level spells. Pretty much everything has a save. Many things can be shrugged off a round later. Save or dies aren't. Etc.

[Seerow]

Can you show me how a Pathfinder Cleric is totally better than a Pathfinder Fighter?

Or, for that matter, a druid?

If your argument is that at high level they have powerful spells, that is a point I will concede. But I'm more talking about, can you punch stuff harder?

Punch stuff harder? Probably not. Punch stuff hard enough to be relevant while still having 3/4 of your spells left over to do other **** the Fighter cannot? That's a point that shouldn't even require demonstration.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Can you show me how a Pathfinder Cleric is totally better than a Pathfinder Fighter?

Or, for that matter, a druid?

If your argument is that at high level they have powerful spells, that is a point I will concede. But I'm more talking about, can you punch stuff harder?

Alright, let's say both of these guys, a human cleric and a human fighter, have this ability set: 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11.

The fighter goes 18 (16+2) str, 15 dex, 14 con, 13 int, 12 cha, and 11 wis.

The cleric goes 16 wis, 15 cha, 16 (14+2) str, 13 con, 12 dex, 11 con.

Now let's say they're both level six. The cleric can bring his ability scores higher than the fighter's using bull's strength, bear's endurance, and cat's grace. Now the cleric has proficiency with his deity's weapon. Let's say he worships Gorum, so he rains proficiency with a greatsword.

Now, the fighter has an advantage in combat, but let's say the cleric also casts bless. He now gets a +1 on attack rolls. That brings his combat ability up to that of the fighter's. Now, he can also cast enlarge person on the fighter, and reduce person on himself. Hello +2 to AC and attack for -1 damage.

It's pretty obvious who wins, if the fighter isn't using pounce or shock trooper shenanigans.

[cfalcon]

In that example it's the fighter, cause he sure was wailing on the cleric over those rounds that he was buffing!

Also note that the fighter would likely prefer an 18 in Strength, as he has less attribute dependence on other stats, compared with the cleric.

Sarcasm aside, the cleric going nova with buffs on himself (for some reason, instead of the fighter) likely would allow him to achieve a bit more damage for one encounter.


Now, he can also cast enlarge person on the fighter, and reduce person on himself. Hello +2 to AC and attack for -1 damage.

I don't even understand this. Why is the cleric blowing all of his spells? Enlarge and Reduce are full round actions to cast, and can be difficult to get off in combat. The fighter also has a lot of feats. Is he enlarging the fighter as an offensive cast?

I suspect that, at 6th level, a cleric would be able to take a fighter in some arena situation, but it wouldn't be by doing this. More realistically, in an actual combat scenerio, the cleric would only have all the time in the world to buff endlessly if they knew they were going to fight something- and his buffs would, unsurprisingly, be better spent on the fighter, not himself. He's gimping the party by buffing his weak baseline instead of the fighter's mighty self.


So the fighter punches stuff harder than the cleric. This doesn't say anything about end game balance, but it does say if that if you want to punch stuff, fighter is gonna be better at it.

[Curious]

Falcon, the main issue isn't that wizards and clerics and druids and every other full spellcaster is better at fighting than the fighter (though they are), it's the fact that they can do so much more than just fight. They can teleport you to the other side of the world, they can erect castles overnight, they can control enemies and charm diplomatic opponents, and everything else they can think of. That's what the tier system measures, and it's exactly why the wizard and cleric will always be better than melee.

[cfalcon]

Falcon, the main issue isn't that wizards and clerics and druids and every other full spellcaster is better at fighting than the fighter (though they are)

Please demonstrate the bolded.


, it's the fact that they can do so much more than just fight.

This I concur with.


They can teleport you to the other side of the world,

Should they be penalized for this? Teleport is often not the best of in-combat spells (it is unparalleled for leaving combat, of course). When your party uses the wizard to move across vast distances... well, what you have done without the wizard? Many games (not all) would have had you simply hire an NPC wizard to teleport you. In this case, this mindbendingly powerful trick is really a ticket on United: it's nice to fly first class, but coach will get you there just as quickly.


they can erect castles overnight

Can this happen in Pathfinder? I assume we are discussing the use of Fabricate here, correct me if I'm missing a thing.


, they can control enemies and charm diplomatic opponents, and everything else they can think of. That's what the tier system measures, and it's exactly why the wizard and cleric will always be better than melee.

Sure, that's obviously intended. What Pathfinder has done, is removed the ability of a wizard and cleric and druid to melee better than the fighter. The other stuff is obviously supposed to be like that, and it has been since the 70s pretty much. I mean, why QQ about that? Paizo wasn't supposed to change that, or it wouldn't be D&D any more.

[subject42]

This isn't going to make any sense, my belief is that there is now more "available balance" than there used to be in 3.5, due to the massive improvement of several classes. The potential for imbalance is still just as high, however.

This is pretty much true.

It used to be like this:

Monk -----------> Fighter ----------------------------------------> Wizard

Now it's kind of like this:

---> Monk ---> Fighter --------------------------> Wizard


Full casters are still indisputably at the top, but it's certainly harder to completely screw up a full martial character.


The only full caster class that's definitively less broken than it was before is the Druid, and that's mostly a function of Wildshape getting curbstomped.

[Infernalbargain]

<stuff>

You missed my point 100%. I am not arguing that PF wiz / sorc have changed tiers. They have not. What I am doing is pointing out that is that it is particular aspects of wizards that make them tier 1 rather than the whole. Consider the Pathfinder Tiers thread that cropped up earlier. Some people gave thought to the fact that possibly druid dropped down to tier 3. While I think they have not, it is not the fact that they are a full caster with full access to their list that makes them tier 1. It is the fact that all druid builds have access to critical features that are tier 1 defining features.

I propose a thought experiment. Using 3.5 rules of specialization, suppose we have a focused specialist wizard who bans conjuration, transmutation, and divination (putting aside 3.5 restriction against banning divination), is such a wizard tier 1? Doubtful. Would throwing on the PF boosts to wizards bump them back up to tier 1? No. Would they even impact whether or not wizards were tier 1? Doubtful.

That is what I mean by pathfinder doesn't make them any better at being Tier 1. Pathfinder doesn't give them more Tier 1 defining features, but rather it gives them more tier 3 defining features.

[Starbuck_II]

I propose a thought experiment. Using 3.5 rules of specialization, suppose we have a focused specialist wizard who bans conjuration, transmutation, and divination (putting aside 3.5 restriction against banning divination), is such a wizard tier 1? Doubtful. Would throwing on the PF boosts to wizards bump them back up to tier 1? No. Would they even impact whether or not wizards were tier 1? Doubtful.

That is what I mean by pathfinder doesn't make them any better at being Tier 1. Pathfinder doesn't give them more Tier 1 defining features, but rather it gives them more tier 3 defining features.

Actually, you no longer are banned from casting prohibited schools in pathfinder. So yes that does make them better.

[Sillycomic]

Alright, let's say both of these guys, a human cleric and a human fighter, have this ability set: 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11.

The fighter goes 18 (16+2) str, 15 dex, 14 con, 13 int, 12 cha, and 11 wis.

The cleric goes 16 wis, 15 cha, 16 (14+2) str, 13 con, 12 dex, 11 con.

Now let's say they're both level six. The cleric can bring his ability scores higher than the fighter's using bull's strength, bear's endurance, and cat's grace. Now the cleric has proficiency with his deity's weapon. Let's say he worships Gorum, so he rains proficiency with a greatsword.

Now, the fighter has an advantage in combat, but let's say the cleric also casts bless. He now gets a +1 on attack rolls. That brings his combat ability up to that of the fighter's. Now, he can also cast enlarge person on the fighter, and reduce person on himself. Hello +2 to AC and attack for -1 damage.

I think you're playing this cleric very wrong... seriously. He's casting Bless when Prayer would work better? He's purposely enlarging the fighter for a minus to AC?

This just proves that action economy, spell selection and optimization wins D&D... not that the cleric is better than the fighter.

All right, let's go with your situation though. Assuming average rolls for everything, will a cleric beat a fighter using your spell selection?

Thought exercise in how the fight would go:

Cleric
AC 17
HP 40

Fighter
AC 19
HP 53

(Ac assumes just the best armor characters can wear and Dex. For cleric that is a breastplate and Fighter fullplate. No reason to give them both Amulets of Natural armor, cause at level 6 they both have the same starting gold, and anything the cleric can do with that starting gold to boost his AC, the fighter can as well)

(HP assumes favored class for each character and average roll per level. For Cleric with a D8, that is 4 per level + con modifier + favored class bonus, for fighter that is d10, 5 per level + con modifier + favored class bonus)

They'll both use a mundane greatsword (again, buying a better greatsword doesn't hurt this exercise, cause if the Cleric can get a +2 holy greastsword, so can a fighter... starting wealth optimization isn't at play here)



Initiative: Fighter rolls 10 (d20) +2 Dex modifier for 12.
Cleric rolls 10 (d20) +1 dex modifier for 11.

Fighter goes first.

Fighter charges in and power attacks! 10 (d20) +6 BAB +4 Strength +2 charging - 2 Power attack.

Total is 20, beats the Cleric's AC.

Damage: 2d6 (7) + Pathfinder power attack of 6 + Strength bonus of 6. 19 points.

Cleric has 21 HP left.

Cleric takes 5 ft step and casts Bless.

Second round:

Fighter takes 5 foot step and full attacks. Power attack.

First attack 10 (d20) +6 BAB +4 Strength -2 Power Attack -1 Bless
Total of 17 hits the cleric.

Second Attack 10 (d20) +1 BAB +4 Strength -2 Power Attack -1 Bless
Total of 12 does not hit the cleric

Damage: 2d6 (7) + Power Attack of 6 + Strength bonus of 6. 19 points.

Cleric has 2 points left.

Cleric takes 5 foot step and casts Bull's Strength. +4 to Strength. STR is now 20.

Round three

Fighter takes 5 foot step and full attacks. Power attack.

First attack 10 (d20) +6 BAB +4 Strength -2 Power Attack -1 Bless
Total of 17 hits the Cleric

Damage: 2d6 (7) + Power Attack of 6 + Strength bonus of 6. 19 points.

Cleric is dead without ever having dealt a single point of damage to the fighter.

Flawless victory! I hope you were kidding when you said it was obvious who would win this fight. Or maybe you were secretly rooting for the fighter? Having your cleric enlarge an enemy would mean even your cleric is sure that the fighter is going to win.

You should use Command instead of Bless to force the Fighter to run away. It will take him at least 2 rounds to come back and you can use those precious rounds in order to do your buffing so that you can go Nova on the fighter.

I still think at that point it's a question of feat/spell selection as well as optimization at 6th level. The cleric has access to things such as Divine Favor, Prayer and Magic Vestment while the Fighter can take dodge, weapon training and Overhand Chop.

At level 6 it would be a fun fight to see, and I can see either one winning, or coming very close to it. Certainly once the fight was over neither opponent would say, "Well, that was pretty easy."

Unless it was this fight...

[Infernalbargain]

Actually, you no longer are banned from casting prohibited schools in pathfinder. So yes that does make them better.

But that doesn't matter if you remove the problem spells. And adding problem spells is something that PF did not do. Which is my point.

[navar100]

It is no more balanced than 3.5. Wizards are still ludicrous.

Especially capstone abilities. It's like they entirely abandoned the idea that high level balance is desirable at all.

Consider one ability of the diviner:

You can always act in the surprise round even if you fail to make a Perception roll to notice a foe, but you are still considered flat-footed until you take an action. In addition, you receive a bonus on initiative checks equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum +1). At 20th level, anytime you roll initiative, assume the roll resulted in a natural 20.

Ok, with a nat 20+10 based solely on your class, and automatically going in the surprise round....it's basically a "you always go first, no matter what". It is...ludicrously powerful. Sure, you could do this in 3.5, provided you were polymorphed into a dire tortoise, kept up foresight and a contingent celerity...but this required some heavy splatbook diving. This is core PF stuff. Straight out of the wizard class.

Oh horrors a player character is powerful at 20th level.

[Sinfonian]

Perhaps it's a holdover from my time spent playing 2E, but I never really liked PrCs all that much. You either lagged behind as a multi-class, made serious compromises to dual class, or stuck with your original as far as you were going to go.

In 3.5, they were more or less mandatory for several classes, giving everything that a level in a base class and more. Most caster PrCs were stellar examples of this, since the base classes (aside from druid) didn't have much or any class features to miss by PrC'ing out, there was no opportunity cost. (Curmudgeonly person that I am I still think every one of them should have either lost one or more CL or had other costs, similar to Archmage)

In Pathfinder, they really do look they they want you to see taking all 20 levels of your base class as a real option. PrCs look to have real costs for the most part, where you actually will feel like you're missing out on something by taking levels in another class.

I understand that the multiclassing system of 3.5, including PrCs, is a strong point for the system, able to pull off concepts unthinkable in prior editions. Not particularly a big deal, in my opinion. Just my personal preference on that, though I understand why others would think differently.

[Curious]

Please demonstrate the bolded.



This I concur with.



Should they be penalized for this? Teleport is often not the best of in-combat spells (it is unparalleled for leaving combat, of course). When your party uses the wizard to move across vast distances... well, what you have done without the wizard? Many games (not all) would have had you simply hire an NPC wizard to teleport you. In this case, this mindbendingly powerful trick is really a ticket on United: it's nice to fly first class, but coach will get you there just as quickly.



Can this happen in Pathfinder? I assume we are discussing the use of Fabricate here, correct me if I'm missing a thing.



Sure, that's obviously intended. What Pathfinder has done, is removed the ability of a wizard and cleric and druid to melee better than the fighter. The other stuff is obviously supposed to be like that, and it has been since the 70s pretty much. I mean, why QQ about that? Paizo wasn't supposed to change that, or it wouldn't be D&D any more.

1) Off the top of my head? Glitterdust, grease, solid fog, near any cleric buff spell, control spells like iron wall. . . The list goes on. Pathfinder did nerf some of the real problem spells, but there are still plenty left that work just fine to utterly destroy combat encounters.

2) It is a problem, and it comes back to versatility again. I believe a fellow poster said it best, "the problem is that of qualitative vs quantitative abilities." Wizards get hundreds of qualitative abilities, the use of which can't really be rated in a game system. A fighter, meanwhile, gets nothing but quantitative abilities. His numbers might get bigger, but he's still only able to do one thing well, while the wizard can do a thousand.

[SPoD]

Can a level 1 wizard do "absolutely everything"? Can it do "absolutely everything" a level 1 barbarian can? A level 1 fighter? Is it better than these classes at hitting stuff in melee?

"Hitting stuff in melee" is not an end in and of itself, though. It is a method for achieving an end, and that end is, "killing enemies." A 1st level wizard can kill enemies as well as a 1st level barbarian, maybe even better. Sleep alone can take out whole groups of enemies in one action, something the barbarian can't do.

Saying that a barbarian is as good as a wizard because he's better at hitting stuff is like saying that Bob is better at math than Alice because he's really good at doing long division quickly. Maybe it's true, but it doesn't matter because Alice is holding a calculator. Being the best at a substantially inferior methodology doesn't make you better or even equal, it makes you worse.

What matters is results, and the wizard will come out on top every time, at every level, unless they are forced to hit against their one limit of times-per-day. And considering I've never once played a game in any edition where the party wouldn't stop adventuring for the day the moment the wizard's player said, "Guys, I'm out of spells," that's not much of a limit at all.

[Grommen]

{{scrubbed}}

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

It's an example. And you'll note that I did just point out how it's done in 3.5. Those ways require resources. This is just a freebie.You have to specialize in Divination. At least before Ultimate Magic comes out, that's a cost.

No, a lot of spells did not get nerfed. A few spells got nerfed. The vast majority of spells are exactly the same. The fact that they nerfed the low level spells, while casters were weakest, and left the high level stuff alone, where casters are strongest, speaks volumes about the balance they created.I was curious about this, anyway, so I'll take a look through all of the high level (5-9) PF spells and do an analysis in a later post. For now, I'm skeptical of this claim, just because polymorph was half the problem IMO.

Let's look at other alternative options:

You play a sorc. You now have a larger HD(and almost certainly hp for favored class), negating one of your classical weaknesses. What's the other weakness? Lack of spells? No worries, you get to pick a bloodline for free. It gives you spells known in addition to handy abilities. This is a flat power increase. There is no balance here. Also, infinite cantrips are fun.I agree, the sorc got a buff, and the human favored class benefit from APG (+1 lower level spell known per level) is ridiculously good. I guess they figured he should compete with the wizard, if not the rest of the lineup.

Or, you play a wizard. You also get more hp. Infinite cantrips. You can get an item familiar, which gives you a spont spell 1/day. Without using a slot. This is like the entire point of MotAO, which is one of the better PrCs in 3.5.I don't know about you, but my wizards usually don't have the entire spell list in their spellbook. Seems to me like a better version of Alacritous Cogitation.

Losing a familiar is no longer that big of a deal. Specialization is even more awesome. You can still use spells from the banned school.Which basically helps for contingency, and... ? I'm seriously asking; I might be making a PF wizard soon.

In addition, you now gain a list of freebie powers depending on what you specialized in. If you don't feel like specializing, that's fine too. There are bonuses for that. Free metamagic, in fact.At 8th level, you can reduce one spell level worth of metamagic (one +1), and it goes up one per two levels from there. By level 20, when this feature is as broken as it's going to get, you can... quicken one spell and empower another, once. Again, you pay for it by not specializing in something better. Better yet, these features all depend on your wizard level, so you can't PrC out. This is basically what you get in lieu of a PrC.

In 3.5, you actually had to work for reducers. In PF, you get them as a class feature.So, "taking a feat" = "working hard." If it's a competition of "who makes it harder to reduce metamagic costs," all Paizo has to do is neglect to re-do the Incantatrix, and they're set.

Oh, and just in case an item familiar isn't your thing, you still have the regular varieties. They even replicated the hummingbird from Dragon Mag(+4 init). Yay for making ridiculous TO accessible to all!Not to split hairs, but hummingbird seems PO to me.

[Mr. Zolrane]

How is Paizo anti-intellectual?

"Optimization" is generally a design flaw. In an RPG you are of course expected to pick powerful, useful, and flavorful powers. If there is a clear winner, then you have failed at design.

You wouldn't mind terribly if I sig'd this would you?

[TOZ]

{{scrubbed}}

*stitches you with the thread*

Were you talking about me? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10973616&postcount=10) :smallwink:

[Kalaska'Agathas]

How is Paizo anti-intellectual?

"Optimization" is generally a design flaw.

I'm sorry, but might you explain this statement? Optimization will happen in any case, assuming choices (of any sort, even Power Attack v. Weapon Focus) are available. And I thought that a Role Playing Game was primarily about choices (in creating, advancing, and playing your character) - would you disagree with this supposition? If you do not disagree, then mustn't Optimization be simply a function of generating a character, making choices which best fit the goals you have for that character, given a certain set of options?


In an RPG you are of course expected to pick powerful, useful, and flavorful powers. If there is a clear winner, then you have failed at design.

Then how do you propose to offer choices (as you imply by saying "...you are of course expected to pick powerful, useful, and flavorful powers." (emphasis this author's) without having "...a clear winner," as you say? Because if all of the choices are equally valid for achieving your ends, what mechanical differences are there? And if I am expected to pick powerful, useful, and flavorful powers, then what is wrong with choosing Battle Jump, Power Attack, and Leap Attack over Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword)? The first three are undeniably more powerful and useful (to the end of killing one's opponent) than the latter three, and frankly someone who leaps through the air, swinging with abandon at their opponent seems to me more flavorful than someone who simply hits really well with a Hand and a Half sword.


Paizo's elimination of optimization nonsense such as Shock Trooper and Spirit Lion whatever follow exactly what I have been doing the whole time: taking out obviously overpowered things so that the game doesn't degenerate into being about them.

Where do you draw the line, then? I think it is quite clear that a Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian with Shock Trooper, Power Attack, Battle Jump, and Leap Attack is more powerful, more useful, and more flavorful than a Fighter with Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword), and Dodge. You say that a player is expected to pick powerful, useful, and flavorful powers, and yet you propose eliminating options that are just that as "overpowered" and I am forced to ask, why? How is it a degeneration that the game becomes about a set of characters who are unique and uniquely capable to face the challenges presented? What makes the choices of the Barbarian's Player less valid than the Fighter's? That the Barbarian is mechanically better at dealing HP damage to enemies (which is ostensibly the goal of both characters)?

[cfalcon]

Off the top of my head? Glitterdust, grease, solid fog, near any cleric buff spell, control spells like iron wall. . . The list goes on

Grease is weaker than in 3.5, being that if someone doesn't move, they don't have to make a reflex save each round. In fact, they never have to make a second reflex save if they can pass the acrobatics check.

Glitterdust, anyone who is blinded gets a save every round until they clear the blindness.

Solid Fog halves speed instead of reducing it to 5.

Wall of Iron is unchanged. That being said, I don't feel it's as unbalanced as the others, being that it is a higher level.

I definitely don't feel that the cleric buff spells are out of line, at all. Remember, these have durations- they don't last all day.


I am not disputing that spellcasting is a good option. What I am pointing out is that there are MANY nerfs to spells that were too good, such that their effectiveness is reduced substantially in some cases.



Wizards get hundreds of qualitative abilities, the use of which can't really be rated in a game system. A fighter, meanwhile, gets nothing but quantitative abilities. His numbers might get bigger, but he's still only able to do one thing well, while the wizard can do a thousand.

But that's not a problem. One's a wizard.


"Hitting stuff in melee" is not an end in and of itself, though.

Yes and no. It's the forte of the fighter types to be best at fighting. They deal a lot of damage over the course of the day.

If you make a fighter in D&D, you are signing up to punch stuff pretty much constantly in combat. You will sometimes do some tactically interesting things, and you can definitely be not terrible with a bow while putting most of your feats as melee, or not terrible in melee while being a very strong archer. But you won't be dropping crowd control, you won't be turning rocks into lava, and you won't be teleporting around. One of your friends should be focusing on doing that stuff- and if no one takes your job, then all the damage either happens slower, or happens with a limited resource (spell slots). Actually having the luxury to be the one lining up the damage, even if you are fueled by cleric and wizard buffs, and kept up by a heal spell, is still contributing. That's one of the thing Paizo does right: if you choose that role, you will be ok at it, and the casters won't take that away from you by wildshaping or whatever.



And considering I've never once played a game in any edition where the party wouldn't stop adventuring for the day the moment the wizard's player said, "Guys, I'm out of spells," that's not much of a limit at all.

When adventuring, you are marching through a pretend game world. Often, you can go nap in a rope trick. But many times, you will have to do something that very day. If that's NEVER happening, then I would posit that it probably should.



You wouldn't mind terribly if I sig'd this would you?

I'd be honored.



I'm sorry, but might you explain this statement?

"Optimization" isn't just the act of selecting stuff that's cool and powerful for your character. A game system that requires or permits it, or that rewards you for it in excess of those who do not indulge, is failing at one of its core goals: choices that matter. When there becomes a "best" way to build a character, that's a problem. Yes, there will always be a character who is "best", but if you don't have really OP stuff, it won't be by a mile, or the "right" way to play.

The designers of a game have it as a goal to give you a bunch of options. It isn't to make a multiple choice test. The more important or relevant optimization is, the more the devs have failed.


frankly someone who leaps through the air, swinging with abandon at their opponent seems to me more flavorful than someone who simply hits really well with a Hand and a Half sword.

That is a matter of opinion, of course. The second is a master of his weapon, the first, a master of movement.


Where do you draw the line, then?

In my personal games? If something has application that seems generally useful, but it probably wasn't mean that way. If something seems really underbudget. If everyone who is supposed to do that job wishes that they had that. If people start wanting to take just a level or two of some class to reach some really important class feature. Shock Trooper has like three things that it does. One doesn't make much sense: you can somehow trade away your AC bonus, in some cases worse than an unarmored commoners, in order to pump up your damage. That's the broken one. Everyone who wants to charge takes that feat, and when it goes off, it's ludicrous. It lets you have your power attack cake and eat it too. Pounce is another issue. If your game needs pounce, then everyone should get pounce. If your game doesn't need pounce, then you shouldn't give it to a small subset of barbarians, such that everyone who isn't in that set is really wishing for it (or going and grabbing pounce via one of the other ways).

In the case of Paizo, I'm not quite sure where they are drawing the line. At some point, there will be power creep. There already has been. Debateably, the whole game was power creep, but given that mostly we all wanted more class features, especially for fighters, barbarians, monks, rogues, paladins, and rangers, I think that stuff was ok. But the power creep seems, thus far, to be muted. There's not some bizarre feat tucked in the back of a book that every melee must have, or that multiplies your effectiveness by a truck ton.

So essentially, the line seems to be about the same power level as Core. I'm happy with that.

[Nero24200]

Sure, that's obviously intended. What Pathfinder has done, is removed the ability of a wizard and cleric and druid to melee better than the fighter. The other stuff is obviously supposed to be like that, and it has been since the 70s pretty much. I mean, why QQ about that? Paizo wasn't supposed to change that, or it wouldn't be D&D any more.

So some overpowering options are okay as long as they are different from what the martial characters get?

Paizo did claim several times that their intent was to balance spells (hence why some spells were hit hard with a nerf bat). And well...what's wrong with changing something? Why should we keep something just because "it's been like that since the 70's". In the 70's the casters gained levels alot more slowly and melee could move and attack - so why are they different?

[Hazzardevil]

He may also be talking about stuff like the Ninja in Ultimate Combat, which is basically just Rogue++.

Yes, that was what I meant.

TBH, the wizard isn't Tier 1 just yet in Pathfinder, he simply doesn't have enough spells yet. It won't be long before he is though.

[Infernalbargain]

Yes, that was what I meant.

TBH, the wizard isn't Tier 1 just yet in Pathfinder, he simply doesn't have enough spells yet. It won't be long before he is though.

He's tier 1. The really obnoxious stuff is still there. Simulacrum, binding series, gate, wish, etc. Of course with the nerfs to the low level spells, fixes by banning particular spells is reasonably doable without gutting the entire list.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I just wish the Witch would finally bridge the gulf from 3 to 1. I don't want to break the game in half, but there are just certain things I really want to be able to do.

[Aron Times]

One thing that many 4e haters like to complain about is that the system offers far fewer choices than 3.5 and Pathfinder. What they neglect to mention is that most of the choices are on par with each other. Yes, there are stuff that are obsoleted by the power creep in newer books, but for the most part, the difference in power between a Core-only 4e fighter and a DDI fighter is much smaller than the difference between a Core 3.5 fighter and an ubercharger.

So while 4e offers fewer choices, a larger portion of those choices are worth taking. Compare this to 3.5, and to a lesser extent, Pathfinder, where most options are traps. Magic Missile? An iconic D&D spell that's awesome in 1e, 2e, and 4e, but horrible in 3e/3.5/PF because monster HP scales too quickly for it to catch up. Fireball? Easily outdamaged by Haste several times over. I could go all day...

[Sucrose]

One thing that many 4e haters like to complain about is that the system offers far fewer choices than 3.5 and Pathfinder. What they neglect to mention is that most of the choices are on par with each other. Yes, there are stuff that are obsoleted by the power creep in newer books, but for the most part, the difference in power between a Core-only 4e fighter and a DDI fighter is much smaller than the difference between a Core 3.5 fighter and an ubercharger.

So while 4e offers fewer choices, a larger portion of those choices are worth taking. Compare this to 3.5, and to a lesser extent, Pathfinder, where most options are traps. Magic Missile? An iconic D&D spell that's awesome in 1e, 2e, and 4e, but horrible in 3e/3.5/PF because monster HP scales too quickly for it to catch up. Fireball? Easily outdamaged by Haste several times over. I could go all day...

...What does this have to do with the topic of what Pathfinder is? You seem to very much be emphasizing talking about 4E over the actual topic.

Regardless, basically any style choice in 3.5 is a good choice, given sufficient system mastery and access to splatbooks. Since 3.5 permits a wider range of possible character types, this makes 3.5 more flexible than 4E for a person with said system mastery. The Linux to 4E's Mac, if you will.

I do not know if this remains true in Pathfinder. Never played it.

Now, it is true that certain things are always more powerful than certain other things, given equal amounts of opt-fu. However, given that there are many ways within 3.5 to represent similar concepts, it's fairly easy to get most of the characters on par with one another, even if one character concept could be played as an arcane godling and the other could be played as a poorly-trained fistfighter.

[Jude_H]

Sidestepping the whole balance argument (mostly because that has never been a problem for me in an RPG):

The one thing I really like about Pathfinder is the amount of support it gives its existing classes, in place of creating new ones. Every class option in the Player's Guide has a variety of class abilities to choose from, then the APG added a bunch of variants to all the existing classes and added a few new ones that are mostly fairly distinct. Then Ultimate Magic added a bunch of options to all the existing classes, even the ones in APG. Compared to WotC 3e, where a huge number of classes were just rehashes of concepts already covered by a base class, this is very appealing to me.

The Samurai, Ninja, and a few of the PrCs look like they're starting to go in the WotC direction, but the amount of support the core classes have already had (on top of feats and spells) rivals 3e, but without the library of books needed to access it.

[cfalcon]

So some overpowering options are okay as long as they are different from what the martial characters get?

Generally yes. It should come as a surprise to no one that martial options are balanced differently than spell casting options, with different strengths and weaknesses.


Paizo did claim several times that their intent was to balance spells (hence why some spells were hit hard with a nerf bat). And well...what's wrong with changing something? Why should we keep something just because "it's been like that since the 70's". In the 70's the casters gained levels alot more slowly and melee could move and attack - so why are they different?


Variable XP charts did not exclusively punish casters. While I definitely houserule stuff so that melee can still move and attack, remember that the total number of attacks you can make with a sword has definitely gone up over the years as well. I definitely consider the move - standard => one attack feature of 3.5 (3.0 had haste, 2ed and 1ed had no restrictions) to be a failure, and one that should be corrected. Paizo has made movements in this direction with feat chains such as Vital Strike. I personally think that it's too hefty a chain, but the intention is there.



Why should we keep something just because "it's been like that since the 70's".

Because that is this game. If you make a game where wizards are really mages, then you made a ton of other games there. Or a game with no damned wizards. You have Conan, Iron Heroes, World of Warcraft, WotC's new game, and a million other things that actually make a game that is balanced. D&D is a fantasy world simulator. Yes, the folks who manipulate reality with their mind have advantages over trained warriors, under certain circumstances. You don't have to think that's the best way of doing stuff, but it's probably older than you, and there's plenty of other systems written with that mentality- many of them exact derivatives of 3.0 or 3.5. Largely, that question has been answered. If you want a game where all the classic spells exist but are useless, I don't know if there's much interest in that.

[SanguinePenguin]

As someone who has complete quit 3.5, I feel I should comment here.

Back when 3.0 came out and simplified everything that has gone disastrous in 2nd edition AD&D, I was grateful. The complicated web of confusing weapon build and things I can no longer remember were all removed. The result was a streamlined system that was much simpler, much more elegant, and much more fun. (Some may disagree, but whatever...)

Pathfinder is an improvement and a streamlining of 3.5. It isn't a drastic overhaul. It DOES help imbalances. It DOES NOT right imbalances. I fail to understand the people who say it does not fix enough. If you want that, there is a system: it's called D&D 4.0. There, everything is equal; everything is the same. There is very little, if any, imbalance. Yet, most if not all of the people here decrying Pathfinder would lambast 4.0 at the drop of a hat. {Scrubbed}

It seems there is a clever trend in these systems - convolute things until things are so complicated that you need to streamline. Then release an update with everything cut to bare (and "improved") and sell. Then release update book complicated the system until unbearable... repeat. The PF core book is huge, cheap and almost entirely online. Unlike 4th edition, where every week a new book detailing a few extra abilities is released, Paizo and Pathfinder is much more reasonable about their updates. It is a worthwhile investment.

[Jude_H]

Frankly, if you want your 2/3rds-Vampire-elf Druid/Ninja that defeats all enemies instantly, well stick with 3.5.
That's ridiculous.

I mean, the multiclass penalties alone would slow down enemy defeatage by at least 70%.

[Curious]

That's ridiculous.

I mean, the multiclass penalties alone would slow down enemy defeatage by at least 70%.

Good thing there are no multi-class penalties in Pathfinder!

[Nero24200]

@cfalcon

I still fail to see how just being old automatically means that we should keep these elements. There are far better ways of representing certain elements of the game without needed to use mechanics that have been around for a while purely because they have been around for a while. Things change over time for a reason.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} This is a bit of a fallacy. I don't like PF, that doesn't mean I like 4th Edition or the slew of race/class hybrid builds that are seen more in theory than in play. I fail to see how having a heavy emphasis on roleplay automatically makes pathfinder more appealing.


The PF core book is huge, cheap and almost entirely online. Unlike 4th edition, where every week a new book detailing a few extra abilities is released, Paizo and Pathfinder is much more reasonable about their updates. It is a worthwhile investment.Even though they are now releasing splatbook after splatbook just as Wotc did? Although admittedly a bit down the line the staff have already mentioned looking forward to "2nd Edition". Remember that Paizo are a company - their primary goal is to make money. That means that if they feel they need to reboot the game to keep their profits up they will - just like every other gamming company.

[Tyndmyr]

You have to specialize in Divination. At least before Ultimate Magic comes out.

No, you don't. Every specialization provides new abilities. So does being a generalist. That's all the choices, and each of them is buffed.

Plus, the cost of specializing is lower than ever.

[SanguinePenguin]

This is a bit of a fallacy. I don't like PF, that doesn't mean I like 4th Edition or the slew of race/class hybrid builds that are seen more in theory than in play. I fail to see how having a heavy emphasis on roleplay automatically makes pathfinder more appealing.

In principle, in doesn't; from what I see on this site though, it does. From my experience, it just seems to be the case that a smaller fraction of people obsessed with having a powerful character build seem to have migrated to PF. They hate PF; I'm fine with that.

Honestly, I only see the following logical reasons not to like PF:
1) Imperfect backwards-compatibility - for whatever reason, this is important to the person and they don't like having to convert things. As a DM who makes up everything new and on the fly, I frankly don't care in the least about this, but I could see why someone would.
{Scrubbed}
3) It no longer has the X, my favorite class or race! - that's fine and legitimate, but then cite that as the reason, not other things that are just made up...
4) Not enough has changed that I want to learn new rules - fair enough, but that is obviously a personal preference. If that is the case, then why would anyone hate the game so much that you post about how much you hate it in forums?

These complaints may be true, but in my experience, I disagree:
1) They didn't balance at all! or They imbalanced things more! - playing PF, I COMPLETELY fail to see this. Playing a PF fighter is FUN. Playing a 3.5 fighter is simply not as as fun. Admittedly, I haven't done it all, but so far, I have more fun designing and playing characters in PF than in 3.5. If things are still as imbalanced, it just doesn't feel that way on the ground level. That's what really matters.

Honestly, the following complaints do not seem legitimate to me:
1) A desire not to invest in new books - with the SRD you wouldn't really need to.
2) They balanced a little, but they didn't balance enough - if this is your real complaint, then 4th edition is for you. Complete balance. If you play 3.5 and say this is the problem, you must not really care about balance.

{Scrubbed}


Even though they are now releasing splatbook after splatbook just as Wotc did? Although admittedly a bit down the line the staff have already mentioned looking forward to "2nd Edition". Remember that Paizo are a company - their primary goal is to make money. That means that if they feel they need to reboot the game to keep their profits up they will - just like every other gamming company.

I agree completely that they are starting to that. As I said:


It seems there is a clever trend in these systems - convolute things until things are so complicated that you need to streamline. Then release an update with everything cut to bare (and "improved") and sell. Then release update book complicated the system until unbearable... repeat.

I'm not trying to say Paizo isn't doing that. I'm saying that the original book(s) has a ton of stuff. Much of the new content is added to the srd or free off their website. I agree that since they want to make money, they will ultimately go the other route. Still, it seems more honest (so far) then trying to sell Martial Power 17.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Okay, after reading this thread and voraciously devouring a good-sized chunk of the PFSRD, and while I haven't reviewed all the changes (that will take... time.) I'm really liking the overwhelming majority of what I'm seeing. I especially like what they did with the Ranger. The Skirmisher archetype is perfect for a Ranger player I'll be DMing in the fall, and I think he'll be excited to use it. Paladins and Fighters look good too; a big improvement over their predecessors. The PF Fighter is better, and has honest to God class features without being super-bookkeepy which is a common problem with a lot of homebrew Fighter rebuilds I've come across.

I like that they combined a bunch of skills, though I'm having a difficult time figuring out what was merged into what. Could someone provide me with a comprehensive list of combined skills?

As for things I'm not liking? I don't like what they did with Rage and Bardic music. Limited rounds per day is kinda fail. Also, the "Fly" skill is dumb.

Things I'm unsure about:

Does the Cavalier suck as bad as I think it does? It seems like a fighter with fewer bonus feats (which is bad, seeing how feat-taxy it seems to be), and less practical class features... heh, Fighters have class features now. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside:smalltongue:

Is the PF Monk actually any good? He seems... like he might be good... but so did the 3.5 Monk when I first saw it... I know, I was young and naive, cut me a break. But yeah... is this new Monk... good?

Overall, the system I end up with for the fall will likely be a mish-mash of 3.5 (I like 3.5 Bardic Music and Rage better, though Rage needs some help in any case), PF (for well, basically everything else, so far) and my rampant homebrew tomfoolery. I love me some tomfoolery.

[Curious]

The Cavalier is not that terrible, around tier 4-5, but it isn't anything special, and the mounted combat focus is limiting.

The PF monk is better. . . But it is still tier 5, and still doesn't have class features that synergise worth a damn. However, several of the archetypes introduced in the APG and now UM are quite good, and a moderately optimized monk can be a solid tier 4. It still doesn't go any further though.

[Curious]

EDIT: Huh, the boards slapped down a second one.

[Mr. Zolrane]

The Cavalier is not that terrible, around tier 4-5, but it isn't anything special, and the mounted combat focus is limiting.

The PF monk is better. . . But it is still tier 5, and still doesn't have class features that synergise worth a damn. However, several of the archetypes introduced in the APG and now UM are quite good, and a moderately optimized monk can be a solid tier 4. It still doesn't go any further though.

I see. Do you think giving the PF Monk best BAB would help him at all?

[RaginChangeling]

I see. Do you think giving the PF Monk best BAB would help him at all?

It would help of course, but it doesn't fix the fundamental issue of a class dually focused on movement and full attacks. Not to mention all the other random stuff they get.

Giving it some way to get pounce would help a lot more. Or Flurry as a standard action.

[tyckspoon]

I see. Do you think giving the PF Monk best BAB would help him at all?

Not much; he basically already has it for most relevant things except feat qualification. Flurry of Blows uses full BAB for its attacks, and Combat Maneuvers do as well starting from level 3. It'd be a much more elegant change to just give him full BAB, but it wouldn't do much to his mechanical strength.

The one thing I'd actually do is the other half of the most basic and most suggested Monk fix: Flurry on a Standard action or Charge attack. For the Pathfinder version, just add it to the Ki point uses. Spend 1 Ki point, get an extra Flurry attack or Flurry despite not getting a full-round attack. It's not perfect, but it would give the Monk a decent position as a mobile skirmisher who can use his expanded movement range and Acrobatics skill training and still deliver some pain.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Not much; he basically already has it for most relevant things except feat qualification. Flurry of Blows uses full BAB for its attacks, and Combat Maneuvers do as well starting from level 3. It'd be a much more elegant change to just give him full BAB, but it wouldn't do much to his mechanical strength.

The one thing I'd actually do is the other half of the most basic and most suggested Monk fix: Flurry on a Standard action or Charge attack. For the Pathfinder version, just add it to the Ki point uses. Spend 1 Ki point, get an extra Flurry attack or Flurry despite not getting a full-round attack. It's not perfect, but it would give the Monk a decent position as a mobile skirmisher who can use his expanded movement range and Acrobatics skill training and still deliver some pain.

Yeah, honestly, conditional BAB, to me, is kinda weird. I'll probably just houserule that he has Best BAB 24/7. Certainly, you're correct that he basically already has it for everything but feat qualification, but y'know it's feat qualification. Feats are nice. The ki point in exchange for a flurry on a non-full round attack is appealing... also, that idea got my gears turning for some other cool ki-based techniques, in addition to ki point=Flurry on stanard action. Tell me what you guys think.

Rushing Flurry:
At 4th level, the monk gains the ability to spend 1 ki point to, on a charge attack, perform a Flurry and deal 2 points of extra damage per hit. This bonus increases by 2 for each four monk levels you have above 4th, at a maximum of 10 at level 20.
Aerial Flurry:
At 8th level, the monk gains the ability to spend 1 ki point to leap and attack an enemy in midair and perform a Flurry. The monk takes no damage from the subsequent fall. This ability can be used to strike at enemies up to 20 ft above the monk and 5 ft away horizontally. These distances increase by 20 ft and 5 ft respectively for each four monk levels you have above 8th, for a maximum of 80 ft and 20 ft respectively at Level 20
Rising Flurry:
At 12th level, the monk gains the ability to spend 2 ki points to perform a Flurry on an adjacent enemy and launch them 10 ft into the air with each hit. The target takes damage from the subsequent fall, but the monk does not. The height launched increases by 5 ft for each four monk levels you have above 12th, for a maximum of 20 ft at level 20.
Meteor Finish:
At 16th level, the monk may choose, on any successful attack during an Aerial Flurry or Rising Flurry to spent 1 ki point to end the Flurry with a powerful downward slam that sends the target rocketing toward the ground. The target is knocked prone, and takes double the normal damage from the fall.

[navar100]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

You just invalidated your whole argument with the Stormwind Fallacy.

The desire and ability to roleplay a character personality has no correlation whatsoever to the desire and ability to create a character of a particular game mechanics awesomeness.

----

Re: Cavalier

The Cavalier player in my group was real excited to play it, but after playing the first 4 levels he's sick of it. He doesn't like needing to wear heavy armor for class abilities, at least not without having the armor training Fighters get so they don't suck for wearing it. He's really annoyed he spends most of the time without his horse, thus not being able to use class and feat abilities, because we're in mountains and dungeons a lot. Pathfinder giving Paladins the option of Bonded Weapon instead of Bonded Mount is the best thing they did for the class, even more so than improving Smite Evil, for precisely this reason. He's debating with himself now whether to bring in a new character (there is a legitimate roleplay reason out excuse for his Cavalier) or just multiclass.

[Mr. Zolrane]

You just invalidated your whole argument with the Stormwind Fallacy.

The desire and ability to roleplay a character personality has no correlation whatsoever to the desire and ability to create a character of a particular game mechanics awesomeness.

I wouldn't call his statement a full-on Stormwind Fallacy. The Stormwind Fallacy states that good RP and mechanical usefulness are mutually exclusive, or failing that, that there in an inverse correlation between the two. What Sanguine was saying, I believe, is that many hyper-optimizers will create improbable, cheesed out characters without taking into account the RP implications thereof.

[Sillycomic]

The desire and ability to roleplay a character personality has no correlation whatsoever to the desire and ability to create a character of a particular game mechanics awesomeness.

Actually I would disagree with this statement.

First of all, this isn't the stormwind fallacy.

Secondly, it's not the game mechanic's awesomeness that's at play here, but the ease of fitting archetype characters into the game.

With 3.5 to create certain builds the only way to do it was to pour over splatbooks until you finally came across a sometimes absurd build of race A, template 4, class X, Class Y and a dip in class R with a substitution of classfeature J with F.

With Pathfinder... you just play a human fighter with the two weapon fighting archetype, choose your feats as usual... and play.

Both systems allow you to role play as much or as little as you want and optimize as much or little as you want, but one system lets you do it without having to spend 20 hours of your day trying to find the right combination of how things fit together to make your character work the way you intend it to.

[cfalcon]

Also, the "Fly" skill is dumb.

It is HELLA dumb sir.


Does the Cavalier suck as bad as I think it does?

Probably not. Cavaliers can be pretty fierce. You understand that if a 10th level Cavalier issues a challenge, which he can do 4 times a day, he gets a +10 to all melee damage on each and every attack, until the challenged opponent is unconscious or dead or the combat ends right? There's an additional thing that every order gets, but that's the baseline that ALL orders get.


Is the PF Monk actually any good? He seems... like he might be good... but so did the 3.5 Monk when I first saw it... I know, I was young and naive, cut me a break. But yeah... is this new Monk... good?

It is, in fact, much better. There's not as much stuff to overshadow him, and the ki pool is actually cool. There's also a lot of extra monk plugins. But I can't really answer your question.

Note that the new Bardic music, while limited in use, is very strong because it doesn't require you to run around full time singing as much. Overall I would say the bard is stronger. Still, such a sharp restriction on performances is disconcerting, I will agree. I can't just import the PF bard into my 3.5 games because of that.

[krai]

The fact that gold changed value is my only big problem. Gold seems to have been arbitrary lost its value and it makes it confusing if you are used to the 3.5 prices on items.

[LordBlades]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Stormwind fallacy again. Optimization is not the opposite of roleplay. It's just that some people want to play characters that are good at what they do.


2) They balanced a little, but they didn't balance enough - if this is your real complaint, then 4th edition is for you. Complete balance. If you play 3.5 and say this is the problem, you must not really care about balance.

I think it has more to do that balancing stuff out was one of the main promises Paizo made when they started working on Pathfinder. They failed in that regard almost completely and instead of admitting it they did their best to silence the voices calling it out.

[tcrudisi]

I think it has more to do that balancing stuff out was one of the main promises Paizo made when they started working on Pathfinder. They failed in that regard almost completely and instead of admitting it they did their best to silence the voices calling it out.

I agree with this statement. Ultimately I chose 4e because it was balanced. I tried PF because it promised balance. If PF had delivered on that promise, I might very well be playing PF right now instead of 4e. Or, just as likely, I would be playing both equally. Instead, I tried PF, realized they really didn't fix anything (or, perhaps more appropriately, they did not fix nearly enough to suit me), and left PF behind forever.

I could see myself eventually going back and playing 3.5 some years down the road, even though my final experience with it was enough to make me almost hate the system (seriously, guy who played Pun-Pun? Why? WHY?!). But I can't imagine myself ever playing PF again. If I'm going to play an unbalanced system, I'm at least going to play what I consider to be the original and better of the two.

[oxybe]

as others said: pathfinder failed to fix the issues inherent to 3.5 and instead inherited them. a lot of subsystems are tweaked/streamlined and some spells have been nerfed, but the same issues exist.

and while 4th ed has it's own share of issues, they are quite minor compared to the ones i found with 3.5 and i find the system superior. it regretfully didn't catch on in my area like i hoped it would but i still don't have a problem finding players for it.

when i heard about PF and that people thought the alpha/beta sounded promising, i though "alright, i'll grab it when it comes out and see if paizo can actually fix the issues without totally scrapping the system". i didn't look up the alpha/beta myself but i was willing to give them (paizo) the benefit of the doubt.

i bought the book, looked at it, read it cover to cover and i was left with a large volume of disappointment.

i still play it on wednesdays, but not because the i find rules to be any good... it's entirely the group that makes the experience fun and engaging even though the rules do nothing to fix the issues that lead me away from 3.5 in the first place.

[Mojo_Rat]

I scanned the last page and thought I would address the commentary of cavaliers and monks.

first for cavaliers they are a good leader class with 4 sp and the teamwork feats and banner. if theyvget a chance to actually use the mounted stuff challenge and lance is basically a save or die effect that many bad guys cannot even save vs. I was I'n a group where the falling cavalier fed his wolf spider climb and fly potions. we ended before he got a chance at a pass wall item. they are a solid class.


monks require ALOT of system mastery, if you have it they can be amazing. there is nothing like choking out the BBEG I'n a sleeper hold because the party wizards dispelled the spells preventing it. if you understand the system they are a great class but without it it can be frustrating.

[Grommen]

@cfalcon

Even though they are now releasing splatbook after splatbook just as Wotc did? Although admittedly a bit down the line the staff have already mentioned looking forward to "2nd Edition". Remember that Paizo are a company - their primary goal is to make money. That means that if they feel they need to reboot the game to keep their profits up they will - just like every other gamming company.

Pathfinder RPG was launched two years ago? Perhaps a year and a half right? In that time they have turned out a DM book (with useful DM'ing information), a players book (with a lot of good stuff), and a second Beastiary. They will soon publish their 3rd splat book of options. That is it in since the launch of the core RPG.

In a similar amount of time Wizards kicks out a new core book every month. Their up to what. PHB III or IV. They did the same with 3 and 3.5. You had the PHB, then the complete XXX for every class, PHBII, Unearthed Arcana, Exalted Deeds, Vial darkness, Ghost walk, o ya and the ever dreaded Tome of Battle.

I'm sure eventually they will produce a Pathfinder 2nd edition If trends continue it seems that editions change when I fill up my milk crate with books. I'm only half way their with the Pathfinder so we have a wile should the trend continue.

Now Pazio's game world is expanding at the rate of the cosmos. I've lost track of what is available. And wile it's good stuff, I don't have the money to keep up, nore can I burn up that much information at the rate they are producing it. At the current pace we play (once a week for a few hours) we'll never come close to completing all the adventure paths, let alone tap all the source books.

[subject42]

They failed in that regard almost completely and instead of admitting it they did their best to silence the voices calling it out.

Paizo didn't handle that situation very well. However, given that there was some epic-level trolling happening on the player side, I don't think many companies would have handled it very well either.


I'm a little perplexed about the level of Pathfinder-rage on this forum. It's interesting, because everyone here will admit that they at least tried to patch some of the glaring issues. Some things may not have been fixed to the degree that everyone wanted, but some things aren't as busted as they used to be. That should be a net (small) gain.

There's some argument on whether they made some things more broken or not, but so far the only two arguments I've seen in that regard are**:


"Shock trooper/Leap attack/Power Attack/Bounding Assault/Lion Totem Barbarian isn't there, so melee is broken"
"CMB/CMD makes melee maneuvers unusable"


The first half of the first statement is true, but there's only so much you can do in core, as well.

The second statement requires a lot of math to prove one way or the other, and I've yet to see anything definitive either way. One thing I have seen, however, is that most people who "prove" that CMB/CMD makes maneuvers unusable tend to not include bonuses from class features, feats, or weapon enhancements.




When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.



**This is a big thread, and threads like this are always big. I may have missed another argument.

[gourdcaptain]

First off, people who claim that the system's bad because Shock Trooper or whatever isn't in, we've had three big player books so far. One's a rehash of core, mostly, which didn't have those in 3.5e. The APG has a few nice things in that direction (Mobile Fighter, Beast Totem Barbarian). Ultimate Magic is a magic based book and isn't the appropriate one. Let's at least wait until Ultimate Combat.

Second, for the record, my favorite way to play a PF monk is to take the Psychic Fist PrC and use hustle/psionic lion's charge for swift action movement to generate opportunities for flurry. The Psionics Unleashed material is good, admittedly it's third party (sort of, I've heard Paizo asked them to do it, so it might be more second party).

[navar100]

Last game I was pleasantly reminded that despite the Power Attack change, it's actually not so bad within the framework of Pathfinder. Power Attack, at our 3rd level, allows for -1 to hit and +2 to damage. Unlike 3E, that +2 is for wielding a weapon one-handed. Two-handed weapons get +3 damage.

That is a big deal. Sure, two-handed weapon fighting no longer dishes out the big boomba damage of Power Attacking for 12 of 3E, but it does mean that two-handed weapon fighting is no longer the only means of being a warrior. The fighters in my group went the two-weapon fighting route. Power attacking allows them +2 damage for each weapon, for a net +4. That adds up, and they are having a blast. The paladin also uses Power Attack, and he wields a shield. He prefers the defense of the shield over using a two-handed weapon. He's happy when he gets his Smite damage, and really likes the class features.

The change to Power Attack made other fighting styles viable. Two-handed weapon fighting still has its goodies. It does get extra damage from Power Attack. You get more Strength damage. You get more base weapon damage. Barbarians are still going to like it. Two-handed weapon fighting with charge is just no longer the be all/end all of playing a dedicated warrior or else you are The Suck. Perhaps that is what Paizo was trying to accomplish. Dedicated warrior class features and spell nerfing were important to lower the gap between warriors and spellcasters, but within the realm of warriors it was necessary to ensure not every warrior fights the same way because that's all that's effective.

I too was annoyed about the Power Attack nerf at first. Witnessing it in action, now I'm ok with it.

[Gnaeus]

The second statement requires a lot of math to prove one way or the other, and I've yet to see anything definitive either way. One thing I have seen, however, is that most people who "prove" that CMB/CMD makes maneuvers unusable tend to not include bonuses from class features, feats, or weapon enhancements.


*Shrugs*

Its really difficult to PROVE either way. It depends a LOT on campaign assumptions. In the games I play in, if you can't trip monsters of equal or greater CR, you can go home, you are not able to help. Ericgrau seems to play in games where you are much more likely to be fighting things 2 CR below. His "proofs" fail to be meaningful in my game. My "proof" doesn't mean anything in his.

But while we are talking about what gets omitted when discussing whether CMD/CMB does or does not make maneuvers unusable, don't forget the stealth nerf. In the 3.5 game in which I play, everything we fight is un-trip/grappleable by a human. BUT our chain tripper is never a human in any fight where it matters. In the process of nerfing polymorph, PF made it range: personal (as well as higher level). So the combo of polymorphing your buddy into a (flying) battlefield control machine is no longer viable. This doesn't really hurt wizards, they have plenty of tricks anyway. But it is a kick in the pants for melee in high-op high cooperation play.

[subject42]

In the process of nerfing polymorph, PF made it range: personal (as well as higher level). So the combo of polymorphing your buddy into a (flying) battlefield control machine is no longer viable. This doesn't really hurt wizards, they have plenty of tricks anyway. But it is a kick in the pants for melee in high-op high cooperation play.


Unless I'm reading the wrong spell, Polymorph (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/polymorph) has range of "creature touched".

Is there a different spell in the polymorph school that got hit with that restriction?

[Gnaeus]

Unless I'm reading the wrong spell, Polymorph (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/polymorph) has range of "creature touched".

Is there a different spell in the polymorph school that got hit with that restriction?

But that spell only mimics "Alter Self". Medium Humanoid, +2 Str.

To duplicate (in a not as good fashion) what the 3.5 spell does, you need to move up to Giant Form. Level 7. Large Giant. + 6 Str. Range Personal.

Even Greater Polymorph, the level 7 spell, doesn't do the trick of turning you into a large, high Str weapon user.

[Doug Lampert]

Yeah, honestly, conditional BAB, to me, is kinda weird. I'll probably just houserule that he has Best BAB 24/7.

3.0 did something similar. Instead of flurry monks got iteratives based on a wierd "monk only" progression that was different from everything else and used only their monk level.

In both cases the mechanical effect is to cripple multiclassing a monk and whacking things with a greatsword.

If you are a monk/whatever and want to attack with anything BUT your flurry you suddenly don't get full BAB for the monk levels.

Presumably they're worried that if monks gave "true" full BAB they'd be too good a dip class or something.

[MeeposFire]

3.0 did something similar. Instead of flurry monks got iteratives based on a wierd "monk only" progression that was different from everything else and used only their monk level.

In both cases the mechanical effect is to cripple multiclassing a monk and whacking things with a greatsword.

If you are a monk/whatever and want to attack with anything BUT your flurry you suddenly don't get full BAB for the monk levels.

Presumably they're worried that if monks gave "true" full BAB they'd be too good a dip class or something.

Well they got the weird BAB and flurry on top of that (extra attack with all attacks at a -2). Still your point is on the mark.

[subject42]

But that spell only mimics "Alter Self". Medium Humanoid, +2 Str.

To duplicate (in a not as good fashion) what the 3.5 spell does, you need to move up to Giant Form. Level 7. Large Giant. + 6 Str. Range Personal.

Even Greater Polymorph, the level 7 spell, doesn't do the trick of turning you into a large, high Str weapon user.


I see you argument now. In one of my games, we got around that by polymorphing the fighter into a gorilla, which effectively acted as bull's strength + quickened enlarge parson. It's definitely not as good as the old polymorph, though.

On the same note, Polymorph has always been a problem, no matter what anyone has tried to do with it. Didn't it get so bad that one of WotC's "Living ${Campaign_Setting}" groups banned it outright?

[jmelesky]

Presumably they're worried that if monks gave "true" full BAB they'd be too good a dip class or something.

PF tied BAB progression to HD across the board. So d10 HD gets full BAB, d8 gets 3/4, etc. Which, i think, overall was a good systemic smoothing.

But, of course, it meant they had to either give monks a d10 HD to give them full BAB, or give them a 3/4 BAB. They opted to do the latter, then put an inconsistent hack in to give them full BAB for Flurry only.

Not the best outcome, but it was somewhat inevitable given how they got there.

[oxybe]

here is my list of issues with 3.5 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9548763&postcount=28)

pathfinder failed to address a large amount of them in that:

-non-casters, especially fighters, still don't get much non-combat love. barbarians get a little bit, but not enough since it's powered off their Rage. i do like how they the expanded the rogue.

-still not liking the skill system. too many skills, though the consolidation is nice and not enough skill points to go around. the usefulness of skills also suffers in the mid-late game thanks to the versatility of spells.

it also still has the old CraPPer "RP" skills that would be better served by simply being in the character's background rather then shoved between their adventuring skills

-non-casters are still too reliant on magic items (all characters to some extent, really) for additional options.

-they still feel like the old confined "i hit it with my sword / charge > fullattack > fullattack > fullattack > repeat"

-casters still have WAY too many options available. yes they nerfed some of the spells but casters still have too many ways to have a go at virtually any problem.

-the binary win/lose spells have been nerfed but at low levels, it's still swingy enough that it doesn't matter if Glitterdust allows a save at every round: you're (either PC or monster) still going to be ****ed for those few rounds, and the early game HP is low enough that you only life a few rounds.

-spellcasters still have the better options when compared to non-casters. why jump/climb when you can fly?

-early game HP is still too low for my liking. a wizard with 14 con & 8 HP is still dogmeat when you consider that a 14 str guy wielding a longsword 2-handed (or a 16 str one-handing it) deals 7.5 damage on average.

-i've yet to play the really high level play in PF but at level 9 it's quickly becoming a game of "casters are being really awesome" and we're currently not optimizing. heck, i'm playing an evoker and staying clear of some of the more traditionally borked spells.

-i'll admit they've cleaned up some of the subsystems, but it still doesn't seem make them more palatable unless you've actually invested in them.

-still don't like the multi-classing in the game

[Gnaeus]

I see you argument now. In one of my games, we got around that by polymorphing the fighter into a gorilla, which effectively acted as bull's strength + quickened enlarge parson. It's definitely not as good as the old polymorph, though.

On the same note, Polymorph has always been a problem, no matter what anyone has tried to do with it. Didn't it get so bad that one of WotC's "Living ${Campaign_Setting}" groups banned it outright?

Yes, but the 2 big problems with it were:
1. Gaining access to abilities meant for monsters only via some wierd rare monster usually through a knowledge check

Or
2. Wizard can use it to outfight a fighter in melee. Especially bad because it allowed him to ignore his 4 str, 10 dex, 10 con in favor of the stats of the form.

Pathfinder clarified which abilities you can get, and increased the list with higher level spells (This is good, I like this)
Pathfinder changed replacing your stats into a static bonus, giving meleers (Druids) a reason to have good stats. (This is good, I like this).

But then they made most of the Form of line personal. When really, turning your BSF into a giant is good team play, the kind of thing a Wizzy SHOULD be doing. My party members NEVER complained when I turned the tripper into a troll. Sometimes they complained when I DIDN'T.

[Curious]

A lot of people here are complaining that fighters are still stuck in the ole' full attack->full attack->full attack rut, and that has a certain truth in it. However, several of the archetypes are awesome for breaking things like that apart. For instance, I am currently playing a level 16 Dawnflower Dervish with the Dervish Dance feat, two-weapon fighting line, and the improved trip line. With the special abilities of the class, my standard tactics are to zip through my enemies with my boosted speed, tripping and slashing them up like fools. Whenever I need to focus fire, it's pretty easy to jump up to some guy, avoiding his AoO with acrobatics, and get the equivalent of a full attack while still having move left to zip away. It's incredible fun, and I never stay in one place more than a turn.

[LordBlades]

2. Wizard can use it to outfight a fighter in melee. Especially bad because it allowed him to ignore his 4 str, 10 dex, 10 con in favor of the stats of the form.



That's somewhat of a pseudo-issue IMHO. It was very true in 3.5 (there was little that could outfight a CoDzilla or a polymorphed gish), but removing this option had little impact on the wizard/fighter power ratio, because caster were still left with the tools to solve encounters in ways that made fighters feel useless. AOE battlefield control (solid fog, black tentacles, cloudkill, wall of x etc) is not ally friendly. As a fighter you could either stand back while the wizard is solving the encounter, or go into melee with the bad guys and die with them.

Taking 10 nukes from a country that has 100 does very little to affect it's overall power level.

[Gnaeus]

That's somewhat of a pseudo-issue IMHO. It was very true in 3.5 (there was little that could outfight a CoDzilla or a polymorphed gish), but removing this option had little impact on the wizard/fighter power ratio, because caster were still left with the tools to solve encounters in ways that made fighters feel useless.

It is less about power ratio, and more about niche protection. If you are fighting some monster who has SR 1000, and +1000 to all saves, ray deflection and spell/energy immunities, and the tank grins and says, its ok, I can fight this one, and the wizard responds by turning into a better tank than the tank, it is more than unbalanced, it is insulting. The tank has a crummy job. He should at least be among the best at doing his crummy job.


AOE battlefield control (solid fog, black tentacles, cloudkill, wall of x etc) is not ally friendly. As a fighter you could either stand back while the wizard is solving the encounter, or go into melee with the bad guys and die with them.

Which is why being able to use high powered buffs on your fighter is a good idea from a design standpoint. The way PF changed the polymorph line, it now makes more sense to turn your fighter into a giant, than to turn yourself into a giant.....except that the personal range means that you can't.
My favorite AOE battlefield control device is making our tripper huge. It works as well as many equal level spells, and it is a ton more fun for him.

[Nero24200]

In that time they have turned out a DM book (with useful DM'ing information), a players book (with a lot of good stuff), and a second Beastiary. They will soon publish their 3rd splat book of options. The main book, a DM guide, two bestiery's, an Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, their setting book redone to PRPG and several different "X of Golarion" books. That's 6 books in total before setting-specific material. Not a horde of books, but not a small number either.


In a similar amount of time Wizards kicks out a new core book every month. Their up to what. PHB III or IV. They did the same with 3 and 3.5. You had the PHB, then the complete XXX for every class, PHBII, Unearthed Arcana, Exalted Deeds, Vial darkness, Ghost walk, o ya and the ever dreaded Tome of Battle. Someone else doing something doesn't justify the act. If someone on the other end of the world murders someone in cold blood and gets away with it am I therefore justified in doing the same?*

Considering the number of times Paizo staff themselves have critised WotC on their forums (Paizo's forums) I would expect them not to perform similer marketing techniques and use "they did it as well" as justification.

Minor note, why is TOB dreaded? It's well accepted on this forum at least and the major argument against on the PF forum (it's too powerful) was the main reasoning behind boosting the power of every core class.

Back to main topic though - My main issues with PF comes from that fact that many of the changes are quite small and don't actually fix any issues I have, but in some cases add many more. Some of the design choices just don't sit well with me either.

The monk's probably a good example. Only a small percentage of the people on the PF feedback forums wanted to keep BAB as it is. Many (myself included) wanted full-BAB for the monk. It was refused because it "messes with too many mechanics". So it seems off when a pseudo-full-BAB is in introduced instead which is in many ways worse - the monk can't gain the benifit of full-BAB while moving and having two different BAB progressions messes with even more mechanics.

Another was the skill system. Whilst skeptical at first of the skill point system I've grown to like the idea. But the actual skills themselves still need work (like Perception being the everyman skill while many other skills are rarely taken) and some skills are just useless (Looking at you Fly). If the consolidation was better I'd be more ready to accept the skills as is.

But I've given enough examples to get my view across. They were too scared to rock the boat when Pathfinder could have been so much better if they did.

[MeeposFire]

My biggest problem with many of their classes is that they did not learn on e of the big lessons of Tome of Battle-being effective using a standard action should be the standard not an exception. Case in point the PF monk still cannot use its mobility advantage in conjunction with its main attack feature of flurry. Even when they do give classes a way out it usually involves daily abilities which is incredibly backwards. They need more encounter based mechanics not dailies. One of the big reasons that warrior classes get the shaft is that they need to stand still to be effective whereas casters can move and be dynamic (hence why pounce was so prized in 3.5 but was not that big of a deal for ToB characters since they did not need it as much).

I understand that the designers may not like the mechanics behind ToB but they at least could have learned the lessons from that book. Instead they create the vital strike feat line which is expensive and not even that good.

[Kalebold]

The main book, a DM guide, two bestiery's, an Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, their setting book redone to PRPG and several different "X of Golarion" books. That's 6 books in total before setting-specific material. Not a horde of books, but not a small number either.
.

Which is the rate they said they were going to release books from the very start that being 3 none setting specific hardback books a year (Year 1 was Bestiary, Core rulebook and Gamesmastery guide. Year 2 being Bestiary 2, Advanced players guide and Ultimate magic and year 3 starting with Ultimate Combat.

[John Campbell]

I like that they combined a bunch of skills, though I'm having a difficult time figuring out what was merged into what. Could someone provide me with a comprehensive list of combined skills?

Lessee...

Spot + Listen + Search == Perception
Hide + Move Silently == Stealth
Disable Device + Open Lock == Disable Device
Jump + Tumble + Balance == Acrobatics
Diplomacy + Gather Information == Diplomacy
Decipher Script + Speak Language + Forgery == Linguistics

Concentration and Use Rope are no longer skills; they're handled by other mechanics now.

Fly got added.

I think that's all of the changes.


As for things I'm not liking? I don't like what they did with Rage and Bardic music. Limited rounds per day is kinda fail.
I don't know about Bards - I frankly don't care about Bards - but Pathfinder's rage mechanic, if you actually look at the way it works rather than just comparing theoretical rounds/day numbers cherry-picked from the levels at which 3.5 theoretically gets more than PF, is way better for the Barbarian than 3.5's.

See, 3.5 limits rounds per day of rage, too, and the 3.5 limit is not, despite what the anti-PF crowd would have you believe, always higher than Pathfinder's limit. But moreover, 3.5 also sharply limits uses per day, and makes those uses fixed-size blocks. That means that a lot of the rounds of rage that 3.5 theoretically gives you are actually just going to be lost, whereas in Pathfinder, lacking any limitations on uses per day or duration of rages beyond the raw rounds/day, the number you're given is really and truly the number you get, and you have much more flexibility in how you use those rounds. And, no, you do not need to turn your rage on and off during a fight for that advantage to be real and meaningful.

As a concrete example, say we've got two Barbarians, one 3.5 and one Pathfinder, both with a 16 base Con. At 1st level, the 3.5 Barbarian gets one use of rage per day, for 8 rounds. The Pathfinder Barbarian gets 7 rounds of rage per day, with no limit on how it's divided up. So the 3.5 Barb is getting a whole round more rage than the PF Barb... in theory.

In practice... well, our two Barbarians run into a combat encounter, and fly into their rages, as Barbarians are wont to do. They rage until everything is dead. This is only rarely going to take 7 or 8 rounds... usually something more like 4 or 5. So, call it 5 rounds later, everything is dead and the Barbarians end rage. The 3.5 Barbarian has just used up his only use of rage for the day, and can't do it against until the next day, despite still having 3 of those theoretical 8 rounds of rage left. The Pathfinder Barbarian has used up 5 of her 7 rounds, and still has 2 left that she can use in the next fight if she wants. Or, since that probably won't last through a whole fight and will cut out early and leave her fatigued for half a fight, she can just burn them here and there for utility boosts to Strength. Door needs forcing? Big rock needs moving? So not worth burning an eight-round block of rage on, especially when it's the only one you get for the day. But burning a single round of seven, especially when you don't have enough left to get you through a whole fight... yeah, maybe. A few of the rage powers add non-combat uses for rage, too.

Oh, and then let's go on to 2nd level. The Pathfinder Barbarian gets 2 more rounds of rage. The 3.5 Barbarian gets... bupkis. PF Barb is up to 9 rounds/day of rage, putting her a round ahead of the 3.5 Barb, who is still at theoretically 8 rounds. And that 9 rounds of rage is probably enough to last all the way through two fights, and the PF Barbarian has no restrictions on using it that way, whereas the 3.5 Barbarian still has a hard limit restricting him to raging in only one fight per day.

3rd level, PF Barb gets two more rounds of rage, bringing her up to 11, which puts her three rounds ahead of the 3.5 Barb's theoretical limit, and providing almost certainly enough rounds to rage through two fights, while the 3.5 Barb is still limited to only one.

At 4th level, the 3.5 Barbarian finally gets his second use/day of rage, doubling his nominal total rounds, putting that imaginary number temporarily ahead of the PF Barb's real number again, and finally letting him use rage in a second fight, like the PF Barbarian has been doing for a couple levels now.

Oh, and the 3.5 Barbarian is not only restricted in how many times per day he can rage, he's also restricted to only one rage per fight, and those rages are still fixed-length. He may theoretically have 16 rounds of rage now, but he still can't rage more than 8 rounds per fight. The PF Barbarian has only 13 rounds of rage, but she's really got 13 rounds, and can use them however she wants. In those rare fights that last more than 8 rounds, on Round 8, the 3.5 Barbarian hits the wall. Rage ends, he's done. Fatigued for the rest of the fight. Even if he's still got the second rage on tap, it doesn't matter, because he can't touch it until the next encounter. The PF Barbarian, on the other hand, can just keep right on going, until she burns every single round of rage she gets.

At 5th level, the PF Barbarian gets more rage, and the 3.5 Barbarian doesn't. At 6th level, she gets more rage and he doesn't and she passes him again. At 7th level, she widens the gap. 8th level, the 3.5 Barbarian finally gets his 3rd rage (the PF Barbarian, of course, has been able to rage through 3 fights, maybe even 4, for a couple levels now) and more theoretical (and, again, "theoretical" means "not really") rounds of rage (24) than the PF Barbarian has (21).

Con boosters have probably come into play by now, or will soon, so the raw rounds number gets trickier to figure, because it depends on how the individual Barbarian spends money. In theory, 3.5 benefits more from boosted Con, because the Con only gets figured into the PF Barbarian's total once, where it's multiplied by rages/day for the 3.5 Barbarian. But because it's adding to theoretical length of rages, not number of rages, it mostly just means that more of the 3.5 Barbarian's theoretical rounds will actually be wasted because the fight's over.

And the flip side of that is that Con is less important for the PF Barbarian. Because the bulk of her rage comes from that inevitable +2 per level, not from multiplying Con modifier as with 3.5, the PF Barb suffers less from a low Con. A PF Barbarian with a 10 Con has only 4 rounds less rage at level 20 than one with an 18 Con, whereas the 3.5 Barbarian has 24 less, and, for much of his career, individual rages that are too short to guarantee lasting through a fight. The 10 Con PF Barbarian is also just plain ahead of the 10 Con 3.5 Barb from beginning to end... except at 1st level, where the 3.5 Barbarian gets 1 more round, and 4th and 20th, where they're tied.

But leaving aside Con modifiers, the PF Barbarian passes 3.5 again at 10th level, only for Greater Rage and then the 3.5 Barb's 4th rage use to tie them up again at 11th and then put him permanently ahead in imaginary numbers from 12th on out.

Of course, by that point, the total rounds number doesn't really matter anymore, even by the dubious logic by which it ever did, because both systems just give enough. That the 3.5 Barbarian is still restricted in uses per day and in the duration of an individual rage matter more, but with his 5th rage use and Greater Rage and Con boosting stretching his rage duration, that's less of a disadvantage, too. That disadvantage never goes away entirely, though, because while the uses-per-day limit ends up high enough to get you through every fight in most days, it's never high enough to allow casual use of rage for random Strength-enhancing... and the 3.5 Barbarian's lack of rage powers means that he can't use it for some of the utility purposes that PF can anyway, like jumping hella high or getting so angry that she can see in the dark.

So, basically, the only metric by which uses/day is better than rounds/day is nonsense, and for half the 1-10 levels the 3.5 Barbarian isn't even on top by that metric.

You want a real drawback to the PF Barbarian, try this: In PF, rage ends when you lose consciousness. This means all the HP you got from the boosted Con go away, which means that somewhere in the level 5-10 range, depending on your Con and which negative HP rule you're using, you reach a point where there is no longer any negative HP buffer for a raging Barbarian. You get dropped while raging, you don't go down and eventually bleed out if you don't get stabilized and healed in time, you just die.

There's a feat in the APG to fix that, but that's another feat, and the Barbarian isn't the Fighter. I haven't been able to fit it into my build, and due to my levels being mostly Ranger and ACFs pulled from 3.5 splats, I'm actually getting more feats than a 3.5 Fighter, almost as many as a PF Fighter. I probably could fit it in if I tried a little harder, but I'm playing a half-orc, so I've got that racial feature which gives the cleric a round to fix me between my hitting negatives and my actually going down (and dying), so it's been lower-priority than MOAR DAKKA.

(And of course, that negative HP buffer was never any too big to begin with. The last time I got dropped while raging, it was a crit from a giant Power Attacking with a Huge x3 spear, and I went from 27 HP to negative 50-some-odd even before figuring in the loss of my rage HP, so I'd have been just plain dead regardless. Fortunately, the cleric had just gotten raise dead, and the lost levels can be restored now.)

[subject42]

Decipher Script + Speak Language + Forgery == Linguistics

This particular gem really makes things strange. If my DM and I read the rules right, taking a rank in Linguistics automatically makes you learn a new language. I make a con-artist/tent revivalist cleric character for a game who ended up speaking something like 13 languages by level 12, just because I wanted him to be good at forgery.

[cfalcon]

That is correct.

However, you should never have had to spend so damned many skill points to forge something.

But I agree, and do not like that much. I would have preferred some ranks only cost half a skill point.

[subject42]

However, you should never have had to spend so damned many skill points to forge something.

We were trying to break into the supreme bank vault of the Dwarven Inquisition, right in the middle of The Mountain Home.

Forgery gets harder when you're trying to do that.


"So what languages do you speak?"

"Common, Elven, Dwarven."

"That's it? Aren't you the master linguist?"

"Well there's High Dwarven, Low Dwarven, Old Dwarven, Middle Dwarven, Orthodox Dwarven, Standard Sign Dwarven, Trade Dwarven, Dwarven Gumbo, Dwarven Creole..."

"I GET THE POINT".

[Luckmann]

Since this is the biggest ongoing Pathfinder thread, I'd like to ask a general question, if I may. I hope this is acceptable; if it is not, say so and I'll start up a thread next time (or this time, if no-one can or don't feel like answering the question).

Reading on the "Secrets" of the Loremaster, the "Applicable Knowledge" secret grants the effect of "Any one feat". Now, the first time I read this, I figure that sure, neat, an extra feat. But after re-reading it, it says "Any one feat".

Is it just me or.. would this allow me to bypass prereqs. for that feat? If so, Applicable Knowledge went from "Neat" to "God yes".

[Ashram]

Since this is the biggest ongoing Pathfinder thread, I'd like to ask a general question, if I may. I hope this is acceptable; if it is not, say so and I'll start up a thread next time (or this time, if no-one can or don't feel like answering the question).

Reading on the "Secrets" of the Loremaster, the "Applicable Knowledge" secret grants the effect of "Any one feat". Now, the first time I read this, I figure that sure, neat, an extra feat. But after re-reading it, it says "Any one feat".

Is it just me or.. would this allow me to bypass prereqs. for that feat? If so, Applicable Knowledge went from "Neat" to "God yes".

RAI: You'd have to qualify for the feat, naturally.
RAW: Says nothing else, so yes, if you want to take it out of context, ANY feat.

[John Campbell]

This particular gem really makes things strange. If my DM and I read the rules right, taking a rank in Linguistics automatically makes you learn a new language. I make a con-artist/tent revivalist cleric character for a game who ended up speaking something like 13 languages by level 12, just because I wanted him to be good at forgery.

Yeah, we've had similar weirdness with our rogue. Though due to the nature of our campaign - we've been hopping between alternate Primes, kind of Sliders-style - we've actually needed all those extra languages, because, unlike Sliders, everyone doesn't mysteriously speak EnglishChondathan.

I've just been communicating in Orcish, regardless of whether or not my target speaks it. (They never do. I've been literally the only orc-blood in any world we've been to since we got plotted off Faerûn... though I left quarter-orcs behind on a couple of them.) It's a really good tongue for the universal language of Intimidate checks...

[navar100]

As for the buffs wizards and sorcerers got, that's a good thing.

D6 hit points is not OMG spellcasters are now more Tier 1 than EVAR! They're not going to be in melee any more than usual, but it is nice to be able to survive one more arrow or failing a save vs fireball. Yes, yes, I know about Protection From Arrows and Resist Energy and whatever other spell. No spellcaster automatically knows/has the the exact spell needed to save himself let alone the day all the time every time. The extra hit points are nice and not need be so squishie.

Class features other than spell are cool. They're cool for their own sake of what they can do but also cool to help differentiate between spellcasters. Sorcerer bloodlines provide out of the box roleplaying hooks. You can seek out your birthright, embody your birthright, or even have Bloodline Wars. School specialization means something other than extra spells. Still being able to cast a forbidden school spell is a bone. Spellcasters are entitled to cast good, useful, powerful spells.

What I also like about spellcaster class features is that going into a prestige class is no longer an easy choice. Wizards give up capstone specialization ability if they're willing to wait until mid level to get most of their specialization goodies. Sorcerers give up bloodline abilities and bonus spells known. These matter. You really, really have to want a Prestige Class. That secondguessing is the balance of choice. If the choice is not troublesome and you take a Prestige Class without a second thought or care, hooray and good for you. You're going to have fun and not regret the road not taken.

I'm playing a Sorcerer with arcane bloodline. Some of its special abilities rely on metamagic. For the game's sake I like the metamagic feats well enough, but as a player I'm not fond of them. For my own taste I'd rather cast a 5th level spell than an Empowered 3rd level. However, the arcane bloodline is what most fit my character concept in terms of game mechanics, so I'm going to force myself to utilize metamagic. I will have the fun in trying it out. Sculpt spell will become useful because I want to cast Rainbow Blast eventually and not always have it be a line. At high level I'm going to love a Sculpted Prismatic Spray into a 40ft radius or four 10ft cubes hitting the bad guys and keeping my party members fighting them free and clear I couldn't have as a normal cone. I will be using Empower Spell. Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement has its uses. Empowered Rainbow Blast allows my 5th level spells known be non-attacks, like Teleport. The bloodline inspires my game mechanics fun.

[TOZ]

My biggest problem with many of their classes is that they did not learn on e of the big lessons of Tome of Battle-being effective using a standard action should be the standard not an exception.

Even going the other direction, making more people rely on full-round actions, would have been preferable to leaving it as is. They had the opportunity to change every spell at once, and could easily have made all but a few of them full-round actions to cast, preventing casters from being able to walk away and then cast their spell. But they didn't.

[LordBlades]

It is less about power ratio, and more about niche protection. If you are fighting some monster who has SR 1000, and +1000 to all saves, ray deflection and spell/energy immunities, and the tank grins and says, its ok, I can fight this one, and the wizard responds by turning into a better tank than the tank, it is more than unbalanced, it is insulting. The tank has a crummy job. He should at least be among the best at doing his crummy job.

The real issue here is that casters have several ways of making non-casting melee irrelevant. Turning into a better fighter is just one of them. Pathfinder addressed this but did little about the others: battlefield control and being able to summon/bind something that's more powerful than the fighter and expendable (you don't need to expend resources for healing/status removal).




Which is why being able to use high powered buffs on your fighter is a good idea from a design standpoint. The way PF changed the polymorph line, it now makes more sense to turn your fighter into a giant, than to turn yourself into a giant.....except that the personal range means that you can't.
My favorite AOE battlefield control device is making our tripper huge. It works as well as many equal level spells, and it is a ton more fun for him.

I don't think there should be any debate whether the wizard should buff himself for melee, or the fighter who has better HP, BAB and melee oriented feats. I say should because somebody thought it would be fun to make some awesome personal range spells that completely offset said fighter's advantages (like Divine Power or the Bite of X series).

In my group at least the problem has never been 'should I buff myself or the fighter?' but rather 'should I play a fighter and need the wizard to spend an action to buff me, or should I play a gish that can buff himself and free the wizard's action to cast a battle-winning spell?'

[warmachine]

To me, Pathfinder is D&D 3.5 with house rules. What I do like is:-

You can afford to not completely suck at cross-class skills, such as Perception.
Druid is no longer ridiculously powerful out of the box.
Setting feels like something from the Renaissance rather than the Dark Ages but that's probably just me.

However, the real reason to bother with Pathfinder is Paizo's Adventure Path line. I'm playing the Curse of the Crimson Throne series and it's the quality of adventure that D&D should have.

[Ecalsneerg]

I would play Pathfinder if it was offered, because it's 3.5. Of course, I'm unwilling to buy for it, and go the the trouble of converting existing games... because it is 3.5. It just isn't different enough. As was said earlier, the balance issues come down to the powerful classes having 90 nukes, rather than 100.

However, do I use the races and feat progression as house rules? Hells yeah.

[jmelesky]

Even going the other direction, making more people rely on full-round actions, would have been preferable to leaving it as is. They had the opportunity to change every spell at once, and could easily have made all but a few of them full-round actions to cast, preventing casters from being able to walk away and then cast their spell. But they didn't.

I agree with this sentiment. Make 1 round the default casting time beyond, say, 2nd level spells (because wizards are still quite squishy at the early levels). Make summon spells 2 rounders (perhaps increase the duration a bit to compensate there). Add a metamagic feat to speed up 1 round casting to 1 standard action (+1 or +2 levels?). Addend Quicken to include reducing 2 round casting times to 1 round.

It would certainly change the nature of combat.

[LordBlades]

I agree with this sentiment. Make 1 round the default casting time beyond, say, 2nd level spells (because wizards are still quite squishy at the early levels). Make summon spells 2 rounders (perhaps increase the duration a bit to compensate there). Add a metamagic feat to speed up 1 round casting to 1 standard action (+1 or +2 levels?). Addend Quicken to include reducing 2 round casting times to 1 round.

It would certainly change the nature of combat.

Such things would also require a serious revamp of concentration as to make spellcasting possible vs non-retarded opponents(that will attack you to mess up your spellcasting).

Otherwise either:
a) casting time reducing feats will become a feat tax
or
b) the optimization level at which a caster is almost immune to attacks will become the minimum optimization level that will allow using casters in combat.

[jmelesky]

Such things would also require a serious revamp of concentration as to make spellcasting possible vs non-retarded opponents(that will attack you to mess up your spellcasting).

I'm not sure it would require a serious revamp, so much as rolling back the changes to Concentration: it was removed as a skill and added as a caster check in certain cases, but if it goes back to being a skill, you can add skill points to it, etc.

So wizards start needing to cast defensively (Concentration check, but not a hard one), they start relying on sword-and-board fighter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/saving-shield-combat) abilities (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/covering-defense-combat) to keep them safe, and suddenly the team balance of power has shifted.

It makes it very difficult to build a gish, though, if that's a concern.

Hm. I'll have to give it some non-brainstormy thought, but it might be a workable way forward, balance-wise.

[Mojo_Rat]

To me, Pathfinder is D&D 3.5 with house rules. What I do like is:-

You can afford to not completely suck at cross-class skills, such as Perception.
Druid is no longer ridiculously powerful out of the box.
Setting feels like something from the Renaissance rather than the Dark Ages but that's probably just me.

However, the real reason to bother with Pathfinder is Paizo's Adventure Path line. I'm playing the Curse of the Crimson Throne series and it's the quality of adventure that D&D should have.

the technology base of dnd has never bees dark ages. it has been renaissance since the games inception. though ALOT of people don't seem to realize it. golarion is more obviously I'n this time frame though.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Lessee...

Spot + Listen + Search == Perception
Hide + Move Silently == Stealth
Disable Device + Open Lock == Disable Device
Jump + Tumble + Balance == Acrobatics
Diplomacy + Gather Information == Diplomacy
Decipher Script + Speak Language + Forgery == Linguistics

Concentration and Use Rope are no longer skills; they're handled by other mechanics now.

Fly got added.

I think that's all of the changes.


I don't know about Bards - I frankly don't care about Bards - but Pathfinder's rage mechanic, if you actually look at the way it works rather than just comparing theoretical rounds/day numbers cherry-picked from the levels at which 3.5 theoretically gets more than PF, is way better for the Barbarian than 3.5's.

See, 3.5 limits rounds per day of rage, too, and the 3.5 limit is not, despite what the anti-PF crowd would have you believe, always higher than Pathfinder's limit. But moreover, 3.5 also sharply limits uses per day, and makes those uses fixed-size blocks. That means that a lot of the rounds of rage that 3.5 theoretically gives you are actually just going to be lost, whereas in Pathfinder, lacking any limitations on uses per day or duration of rages beyond the raw rounds/day, the number you're given is really and truly the number you get, and you have much more flexibility in how you use those rounds. And, no, you do not need to turn your rage on and off during a fight for that advantage to be real and meaningful.

As a concrete example, say we've got two Barbarians, one 3.5 and one Pathfinder, both with a 16 base Con. At 1st level, the 3.5 Barbarian gets one use of rage per day, for 8 rounds. The Pathfinder Barbarian gets 7 rounds of rage per day, with no limit on how it's divided up. So the 3.5 Barb is getting a whole round more rage than the PF Barb... in theory.

In practice... well, our two Barbarians run into a combat encounter, and fly into their rages, as Barbarians are wont to do. They rage until everything is dead. This is only rarely going to take 7 or 8 rounds... usually something more like 4 or 5. So, call it 5 rounds later, everything is dead and the Barbarians end rage. The 3.5 Barbarian has just used up his only use of rage for the day, and can't do it against until the next day, despite still having 3 of those theoretical 8 rounds of rage left. The Pathfinder Barbarian has used up 5 of her 7 rounds, and still has 2 left that she can use in the next fight if she wants. Or, since that probably won't last through a whole fight and will cut out early and leave her fatigued for half a fight, she can just burn them here and there for utility boosts to Strength. Door needs forcing? Big rock needs moving? So not worth burning an eight-round block of rage on, especially when it's the only one you get for the day. But burning a single round of seven, especially when you don't have enough left to get you through a whole fight... yeah, maybe. A few of the rage powers add non-combat uses for rage, too.

Oh, and then let's go on to 2nd level. The Pathfinder Barbarian gets 2 more rounds of rage. The 3.5 Barbarian gets... bupkis. PF Barb is up to 9 rounds/day of rage, putting her a round ahead of the 3.5 Barb, who is still at theoretically 8 rounds. And that 9 rounds of rage is probably enough to last all the way through two fights, and the PF Barbarian has no restrictions on using it that way, whereas the 3.5 Barbarian still has a hard limit restricting him to raging in only one fight per day.

3rd level, PF Barb gets two more rounds of rage, bringing her up to 11, which puts her three rounds ahead of the 3.5 Barb's theoretical limit, and providing almost certainly enough rounds to rage through two fights, while the 3.5 Barb is still limited to only one.

At 4th level, the 3.5 Barbarian finally gets his second use/day of rage, doubling his nominal total rounds, putting that imaginary number temporarily ahead of the PF Barb's real number again, and finally letting him use rage in a second fight, like the PF Barbarian has been doing for a couple levels now.

Oh, and the 3.5 Barbarian is not only restricted in how many times per day he can rage, he's also restricted to only one rage per fight, and those rages are still fixed-length. He may theoretically have 16 rounds of rage now, but he still can't rage more than 8 rounds per fight. The PF Barbarian has only 13 rounds of rage, but she's really got 13 rounds, and can use them however she wants. In those rare fights that last more than 8 rounds, on Round 8, the 3.5 Barbarian hits the wall. Rage ends, he's done. Fatigued for the rest of the fight. Even if he's still got the second rage on tap, it doesn't matter, because he can't touch it until the next encounter. The PF Barbarian, on the other hand, can just keep right on going, until she burns every single round of rage she gets.

At 5th level, the PF Barbarian gets more rage, and the 3.5 Barbarian doesn't. At 6th level, she gets more rage and he doesn't and she passes him again. At 7th level, she widens the gap. 8th level, the 3.5 Barbarian finally gets his 3rd rage (the PF Barbarian, of course, has been able to rage through 3 fights, maybe even 4, for a couple levels now) and more theoretical (and, again, "theoretical" means "not really") rounds of rage (24) than the PF Barbarian has (21).

Con boosters have probably come into play by now, or will soon, so the raw rounds number gets trickier to figure, because it depends on how the individual Barbarian spends money. In theory, 3.5 benefits more from boosted Con, because the Con only gets figured into the PF Barbarian's total once, where it's multiplied by rages/day for the 3.5 Barbarian. But because it's adding to theoretical length of rages, not number of rages, it mostly just means that more of the 3.5 Barbarian's theoretical rounds will actually be wasted because the fight's over.

And the flip side of that is that Con is less important for the PF Barbarian. Because the bulk of her rage comes from that inevitable +2 per level, not from multiplying Con modifier as with 3.5, the PF Barb suffers less from a low Con. A PF Barbarian with a 10 Con has only 4 rounds less rage at level 20 than one with an 18 Con, whereas the 3.5 Barbarian has 24 less, and, for much of his career, individual rages that are too short to guarantee lasting through a fight. The 10 Con PF Barbarian is also just plain ahead of the 10 Con 3.5 Barb from beginning to end... except at 1st level, where the 3.5 Barbarian gets 1 more round, and 4th and 20th, where they're tied.

But leaving aside Con modifiers, the PF Barbarian passes 3.5 again at 10th level, only for Greater Rage and then the 3.5 Barb's 4th rage use to tie them up again at 11th and then put him permanently ahead in imaginary numbers from 12th on out.

Of course, by that point, the total rounds number doesn't really matter anymore, even by the dubious logic by which it ever did, because both systems just give enough. That the 3.5 Barbarian is still restricted in uses per day and in the duration of an individual rage matter more, but with his 5th rage use and Greater Rage and Con boosting stretching his rage duration, that's less of a disadvantage, too. That disadvantage never goes away entirely, though, because while the uses-per-day limit ends up high enough to get you through every fight in most days, it's never high enough to allow casual use of rage for random Strength-enhancing... and the 3.5 Barbarian's lack of rage powers means that he can't use it for some of the utility purposes that PF can anyway, like jumping hella high or getting so angry that she can see in the dark.

So, basically, the only metric by which uses/day is better than rounds/day is nonsense, and for half the 1-10 levels the 3.5 Barbarian isn't even on top by that metric.

You want a real drawback to the PF Barbarian, try this: In PF, rage ends when you lose consciousness. This means all the HP you got from the boosted Con go away, which means that somewhere in the level 5-10 range, depending on your Con and which negative HP rule you're using, you reach a point where there is no longer any negative HP buffer for a raging Barbarian. You get dropped while raging, you don't go down and eventually bleed out if you don't get stabilized and healed in time, you just die.

There's a feat in the APG to fix that, but that's another feat, and the Barbarian isn't the Fighter. I haven't been able to fit it into my build, and due to my levels being mostly Ranger and ACFs pulled from 3.5 splats, I'm actually getting more feats than a 3.5 Fighter, almost as many as a PF Fighter. I probably could fit it in if I tried a little harder, but I'm playing a half-orc, so I've got that racial feature which gives the cleric a round to fix me between my hitting negatives and my actually going down (and dying), so it's been lower-priority than MOAR DAKKA.

(And of course, that negative HP buffer was never any too big to begin with. The last time I got dropped while raging, it was a crit from a giant Power Attacking with a Huge x3 spear, and I went from 27 HP to negative 50-some-odd even before figuring in the loss of my rage HP, so I'd have been just plain dead regardless. Fortunately, the cleric had just gotten raise dead, and the lost levels can be restored now.)

Thank you sir, this post was tremendously helpful. I copied basically the whole thing down and saved in in a Works document.


This particular gem really makes things strange. If my DM and I read the rules right, taking a rank in Linguistics automatically makes you learn a new language. I make a con-artist/tent revivalist cleric character for a game who ended up speaking something like 13 languages by level 12, just because I wanted him to be good at forgery.

Yeah... I may houserule that languages are a little tougher to get, especially because in my setting there are fewer of them than in standard 3.5 or PF.



What I also like about spellcaster class features is that going into a prestige class is no longer an easy choice. Wizards give up capstone specialization ability if they're willing to wait until mid level to get most of their specialization goodies. Sorcerers give up bloodline abilities and bonus spells known. These matter. You really, really have to want a Prestige Class. That secondguessing is the balance of choice. If the choice is not troublesome and you take a Prestige Class without a second thought or care, hooray and good for you. You're going to have fun and not regret the road not taken.


Another good point. While I still think the arcanists could have done with some quality time behind the woodshed with the nerfbat, at least they now have something to lose if they prestige.


Make 1 round the default casting time beyond, say, 2nd level spells (because wizards are still quite squishy at the early levels). Make summon spells 2 rounders (perhaps increase the duration a bit to compensate there). Add a metamagic feat to speed up 1 round casting to 1 standard action (+1 or +2 levels?). Addend Quicken to include reducing 2 round casting times to 1 round.

It would certainly change the nature of combat.

I don't know if I agree with every word of that, but there are some good ideas there. I'm not in favor of giving all melee pounce, but I would be in favor of making many spells full round actions. The only trouble with that, however, is that it makes life difficult for you if you focus on line spells, like Lightningbolt.


I'm not sure it would require a serious revamp, so much as rolling back the changes to Concentration: it was removed as a skill and added as a caster check in certain cases, but if it goes back to being a skill, you can add skill points to it, etc.

So wizards start needing to cast defensively (Concentration check, but not a hard one), they start relying on sword-and-board fighter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/saving-shield-combat) abilities (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/covering-defense-combat) to keep them safe, and suddenly the team balance of power has shifted.

It makes it very difficult to build a gish, though, if that's a concern.

Personally I see the existence of gishes in general to be a design flaw, so I wouldn't miss them one bit. But yeah, that's a good idea overall.


the technology base of dnd has never bees dark ages. it has been renaissance since the games inception. though ALOT of people don't seem to realize it. golarion is more obviously I'n this time frame though.

True, true. The Renaissance flavor is preferable anyway. Still, I have my issues with Golarion, mainly the doubling down on the basically mandatory evil for most of the "monster" races. Maybe I've read too much Goblins and Start of Darkness, but I find such ideas rather abhorrent. That's probably why in the setting I'm working on, people are divided more by politics and ideology than by race (though that's not to say there's not some overlap between them). One faction, for example, is primarily dwarves and goblins.

[Hale]

This also applies in 3.5. The difference is that the character initiating the trip no longer gets a free attack if he succeeds.

Flanking no longer provides SA?

Flanking does provide Sneak Attack. In fact in Pathfinder you can Sneak Attack more things (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue#TOC-Sneak-Attack) than you could in 3.5 (e.g. Undead and Constructs). Things that are immune to being flanked, however, cannot be Sneak Attacked with a flanking attack.

And to address the discussions earlier about Improved Trip, whether or not Bards are underpowered or if Monks are still bad or whatever -- many of these were made in comparison to 3.5.

Pathfinder is not a 3.5 addendum. It started out as one (according Paizo.com) but quickly became it's own system. The following is taken from the intro pages of the Pathfinder Core book:

"...the first draft was designed as a series of house rules for the 3.5 version of the world's oldest roleplaying game. In the fall of 2007, with a new edition of that game on the horizion, it seemed only natural that some gamers would prefer to stick with the rules they already owned. It also made sense that those same gamers would like some updates to their rules, to make the game easier to use and more fun ti play. When design of this game first began, compatibility with existing products was one of the primary goals, but we also wanted to make sure that all of the classes, races, and other elements were balanced and fun to play...as the rules grew in size, it became apparent that the changes were growing beyond a simple update into a full-fledged rules system. So while the Pathfinder RPG is compatible with the 3.5 rules, it can be used without any other books."

So yes, Wizard/Sorc spells are nerfed when compared to 3.5 but they now have bloodlines or arcane focus. Bardic performance is nerfed to 3.5 but they get seven (7) special abilities at level 1! Each class has been changed from 3.5, weaker in some areas and stronger in others. Don't be surprised when fighters out DPS wizards and monks kick ass. My experience is this: everything in Pathfinder is awesome now. The formerly crappy classes (paladin, sorc, monk) and the formerly crappy monsters (they even released a sourcebook for Pathfinder called Misfit Monsters Redeemed (http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG/paizo/pathfinderChronicles/v5748btpy8gnj) where they make sucky monsters not suck.

They come out with new content frequently but not before having open "beta tests" of some of the new concepts (which are free to download to anyone), where players can pretest new classes (e.g. the Ninja / Gunslinger / Samurai for their next book) and post their feedback. Pathfinder is a community driven system which is another reason why I like it.

Our group made the change from 3.5 after many years to 4th, then back to 3.5 and finally to Pathfinder. It's not like a board game or MMO (like 4th was to us), nor is it like 3.5 for dummies. It's a refined version of essentially everything from 3.5, so maybe 3.75 would be a more fitting title. Don't skim through the SRD and expect things to mesh well with 3.5, they aren't designed to. They're designed to mesh well with Pathfinder, and, more than 3.5 did, they do.

And really, in terms of compatibility, Pathfinder is as compatable as 3.5 when it comes to older content. We're playing Dark Sun Pathfinder, converting the 3.0 rules provided from Athas (http://athas.org/) to work for our game. And for the record, in Dark Sun, Bards definitely don't suck.


I would play Pathfinder if it was offered...

Also the official SRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) contains everything Paizo has published thusfar, from the Core to the Advanced Players guide to adventure booklet monsters -- all available for free.

[SanguinePenguin]

I wouldn't call his statement a full-on Stormwind Fallacy. The Stormwind Fallacy states that good RP and mechanical usefulness are mutually exclusive, or failing that, that there in an inverse correlation between the two. What Sanguine was saying, I believe, is that many hyper-optimizers will create improbable, cheesed out characters without taking into account the RP implications thereof.

My argument was definitely not a Stormwind Fallacy (although apparently it was interpreted that way by nearly everyone). It actually seems that the point I was trying to make was entirely missed, probably due to my crass delivery (for which, I apologize). My point was concerning solely a personal preference with which I design my characters versus how some other people design their characters. I was not attempting to say anything whatsoever about the superiority of any one method versus any other.

Method X) When I design a character, I first come up with the identity of the character, personality, motivations, etc. I then determine race/class that fits the identity. I then choose skill, feats and abilities that go along with the identity. Of what is left, I do optimize. Since I don't start optimizing until this point, I generally know of ways that I could make the sheet more effective, but then they wouldn't be my character.

Method Y) When some people design a character, they go the other way, they design the combat potential and optimize the class, choose the race to bolster this maximally, then come up with the identity. I want to stress that there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing this. It most certainly does not mean you cannot role-play. In fact, I used to do this, but my preferences simply changed.

The reason I am bringing this up, is that, in 3.5, when my character designed through method X is in a party with one or more characters designed by method Y, I simply do not enjoy the game much. This is not at all because I feel these people cannot role-play, they can. It is certainly not because they did anything objectively wrong. It is because my character, having not been designed from start to finish to be optimized, cannot compete on a mechanics level with these characters. My character is ineffective and the game is less enjoyable for me. In the past, this meant my preferred character design method was incompatible with theirs. In order to play the game, I would either have to use their method (where I am generally less satisfied with the ultimate character), grin and bear it (which I can't stand doing) or wait until I encounter a group where coincidentally no one seems intent on doing this (which I what I generally did).

Now, the main reason I love Pathfinder... In Pathfinder, I have yet to have this problem. There are three ways to take this:

1) Pathfinder does not afford as much ability to optimize characters to the point of rendering mine ineffective: In which case I think this is a huge boon of the system. However, this is the point I was trying to make: if you generate characters by method X, and have previously not enjoyed a game asmuch because your character was rendered ineffective by a heavily optimized build in the party, then I encourage you to play Pathfinder, because I have had luck with it.

2) By happenstance, a smaller fraction of people who prefer optimization methods play Pathfinder or 3) By happenstance, I've only encountered games where this is the case: I find these harder to believe, but if so, I hope I stay lucky and continue to find games that I enjoy.

Again, there is nothing bad about people generating their characters though method Y (honestly, one could more easily super-logically argue that my method of generating characters is objectively inferior because it results in scenarios where I fail to enjoy an otherwise good game), there is just a clash between our styles of generating characters.

[Seerow]

It may not be Stormwind Fallacy, but there being a playability difference between Method X and Method Y is definitely -some- form of fallacy.

There are precious few concepts you can come up with in D&D3.5 that can't be optimized to some degree, especially when taking into account flavor is mutable.

Sure, if your idea of Method Y is "My character is a Fighter specialized with his Ancestral Sword he inherited from his Grandfather" and then start making the character based around the character as a Fighter, he won't compete. If you take that same description, and make a Warblade, or some other mechanical concept (I could see it as a Psiwar||Warmind, or Kensai/Exotic Weapon Master, etc), you can make it work and be able to keep up with others in the group.


Unless the people going with Method X are saying "I am playing the Cheater of Mystra" or other similar builds, then contriving a backstory to fit that, you shouldn't notice a huge discrepency between the two methods, assuming similarly competent optimizers. It sounds to me like you had a larger issue of simply not being as good at optimizing your concepts as others in the group than anything else.

[Curious]

Something I've noticed on the Paizo forums is a lot of people with a similar stance to Sanguine have a rather 'elitist' attitude. They seem to regard all optimizers as min-maxers and thus inherently worse at enjoying a game. Not trying to insult the Paizo boards, but it is something that I see fairly often there.

[Hale]

Since this is the biggest ongoing Pathfinder thread, I'd like to ask a general question, if I may. I hope this is acceptable; if it is not, say so and I'll start up a thread next time (or this time, if no-one can or don't feel like answering the question).

Reading on the "Secrets" of the Loremaster, the "Applicable Knowledge" secret grants the effect of "Any one feat". Now, the first time I read this, I figure that sure, neat, an extra feat. But after re-reading it, it says "Any one feat".

Is it just me or.. would this allow me to bypass prereqs. for that feat? If so, Applicable Knowledge went from "Neat" to "God yes".

Eh, I trudged through a few old forum posts namely located here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/78007-loremaster-applicable-knowledge.html) and I'd agree with one of the posters there.

CRGreathouse: "Even if you allow a character to take a feat they don't qualify for through this ability, though, they can't use it until they qualify. It doesn't have the "Even if you don't meet the prerequisites" language that, for example, the monk bonus feats have."



Something I've noticed on the Paizo forums is a lot of people with a similar stance to Sanguine have a rather 'elitist' attitude. They seem to regard all optimizers as min-maxers and thus inherently worse at enjoying a game. Not trying to insult the Paizo boards, but it is something that I see fairly often there.

That's something that I think could be true for any forum -- people posting online tend to have an elitist attitude. However I'd say that Paizo posters (myself included) have more of a "we all know how this game is supposed to be played, so just play it and have fun" when presented with nit-picky questions or problems usually postulated by min-maxers. Sure, the Loremaster ability mentioned above does say "any one feat" without any further description, but I think we'd all agree that a sort of "so long as you meet the prerequisites" is intended.

For the record, I'm not calling you a min-maxer Luckmann, that's a good question. Another of the same flavor is how Pathfinder barbarians at level 17 are no longer tired after rage. And since rage is measured in rounds instead of times per day, and barbarians have "once per rage" abilities, any intelligent (or min-maxing) lvl 17+ barbarians drop out and back into rage at the start of each turn (they can begin and end rage as a free action), thus refreshing their "once per rage" goodies.

[SanguinePenguin]

Sure, if your idea of Method Y is "My character is a Fighter specialized with his Ancestral Sword he inherited from his Grandfather" and then start making the character based around the character as a Fighter, he won't compete. If you take that same description, and make a Warblade, or some other mechanical concept (I could see it as a Psiwar||Warmind, or Kensai/Exotic Weapon Master, etc), you can make it work and be able to keep up with others in the group.

If I want to play a fighter, and someone else plays a warblade (I honestly hate ToB, so I won't go into that), the fighter is effectively worthless - that is exactly the point I am making. In Pathfinder, that doesn't happen unless very poor decisions are made. You could say that the first poor decision I made was playing a fighter, but then that is limiting my creativity - perhaps I want combat feats. In Pathfinder, fighters are good. I enjoy playing them.

Ignoring the tier system and such, on the ground level, when they are in the game, they function well at what they do and they don't get glossed over. In pathfinder, naturally, there are builds that result in poor characters who can't do much, but my issue with 3.5 is that many, many builds result in ineffective characters.

If you mean to say, "you are just not good at optimizing 3.5 characters." I disagree, but I suppose that is a fine accusation. The fact remains: no matter what character class I choose in Pathfinder it doesn't feel like the character is worthless. The same is simply not true in 3.5. I say this is a huge merit of Pathfinder and, honestly, the biggest problem they fixed.


Something I've noticed on the Paizo forums is a lot of people with a similar stance to Sanguine have a rather 'elitist' attitude. They seem to regard all optimizers as min-maxers and thus inherently worse at enjoying a game. Not trying to insult the Paizo boards, but it is something that I see fairly often there.

I am NOT saying anything like that. I said explicitly that I am the one who has trouble enjoying the game when optimization is the focus of other players. The optimizing strategy is generally incompatible with my style of designing characters. I don't think there is anything wrong with min/maxing even, that is fine for those who enjoy it. I also am not trying to say that someone who optimizes or someone who min/maxes can't role-play. I only am saying that their method are incompatible with my character designs and reduce my enjoyment of the game.

[Seerow]

If I want to play a fighter, and someone else plays a warblade (I honestly hate ToB, so I won't go into that), the fighter is effectively worthless - that is exactly the point I am making. In Pathfinder, that doesn't happen unless very poor decisions are made. You could say that the first poor decision I made was playing a fighter, but then that is limiting my creativity - perhaps I want combat feats. In Pathfinder, fighters are good. I enjoy playing them.


1) Fighters suck in Pathfinder too. Don't fool yourself. They may be better than a 3.5 fighter, but that doesn't say a lot. Honestly, I'd take a 3.5 Fighter over a PF Finder, despite the PF Fighter's extra class features, simply because the extra feat options in 3.5 means you have a chance of making something worthwhile and useful.

2) In your last post, you claimed that the difference was coming from how you made your characters. That by coming up with a concept first then building it, your character was weaker than someone making a build, then making a backstory. This is frankly pure bull****. You can choose not to go Warblade, despite its flavor being identical to that of the Fighter, and be weaker, but that has nothing to do with you coming up with your concept first, and everything to do with you knowingly making a choice to go with a weaker option.

[SanguinePenguin]

1) Fighters suck in Pathfinder too. Don't fool yourself. They may be better than a 3.5 fighter, but that doesn't say a lot. Honestly, I'd take a 3.5 Fighter over a PF Finder, despite the PF Fighter's extra class features, simply because the extra feat options in 3.5 means you have a chance of making something worthwhile and useful.

2) In your last post, you claimed that the difference was coming from how you made your characters. That by coming up with a concept first then building it, your character was weaker than someone making a build, then making a backstory. This is frankly pure bull****. You can choose not to go Warblade, despite its flavor being identical to that of the Fighter, and be weaker, but that has nothing to do with you coming up with your concept first, and everything to do with you knowingly making a choice to go with a weaker option.

1) In my experience, fighters are a fine choice in Pathfinder. You can think they are awful, but I enjoy playing them - in Pathfinder, but not in 3.5. I have absolutely no idea what "extra feat options" you are referring to in 3.5, but from what I have seen, PF fighters have more class abilities (obvious fact, as 3.5 fighters have none), feats (fact) and the feats they have to choose from give more reasonable options and customization paths that make them more fun to play (this is, of course, my opinion).

2) I disagree with you here, but it would be utterly pointless in trying to refute your belief that I am bad at making characters. I also disagree that a warblade character and a fighter character have the exact same flavor so that one can be seamlessly moved to the other with no identity lost or gained, but again, it would be pointless to argue with you over that. These are beside the point: I am happier with the outcome of my building characters in Pathfinder using my method than the results in 3.5. Whether you accept my belief that this is because of the clash with optimization that happens when I build my characters that I mentioned earlier or if you want to believe that it is because I am so awful at designing characters that only Pathfinder can make them feel less bad: still a feature of Pathfinder - harder to make crappy characters.

[Seerow]

1) In my experience, fighters are a fine choice in Pathfinder. You can think they are awful, but I enjoy playing them - in Pathfinder, but not in 3.5. I have absolutely no idea what "extra feat options" you are referring to in 3.5, but from what I have seen, PF fighters have more class abilities (obvious fact, as 3.5 fighters have none), feats (fact) and the feats they have to choose from give more reasonable options and customization paths that make them more fun to play (this is, of course, my opinion).

2) I disagree with you here, but it would be utterly pointless in trying to refute your belief that I just suck at making characters. I also disagree that a warblade character and a fighter character have the exact same flavor so that one can be seamlessly moved to the other with no identity lost or gained, but again, it would be pointless to argue with you over that. These are beside the point: I am happier with the outcome of my building characters in Pathfinder using my method than the results in 3.5. Whether you accept my belief that this is because of the clash with optimization that happens when I build my characters that I mentioned earlier or if you want to believe that it is because I suck so much at making characters that only Pathfinder can handle the crappiness of my characters: still a feature of Pathfinder - harder to make crappy characters.

I posted to argue your claim that having a character concept before the mechanics was resulting in weaker characters. I don't care about whether you think Pathfinder is less likely to result in a bad character, though I do find you continue reitterating this, then also asserting you aren't bad at making characters in 3.5. If you had said you found it was easier to make PF characters from the start, we wouldn't be having this discussion. This discussion only came about after you asserted that people who optimize make a mechanical build first, and a character second, which harms your game play.

My point was that your characters sucking had nothing to do with you picking a concept first. Most optimizers do pick a concept first, then set about optimizing it. Why? Because it's more fun that way. Any schmuck can google a TO build that will destroy a game. There's no fun in that for anyone. They don't just say "What would be the most powerful thing I can possibly run" they say "Okay what do I want to run? Yeah, okay, that sounds good. Now how can I optimize that to make it not suck?" It sounds like you do the first half of this, but not the second. So in the end, you suck, then you blame it on the optimizers for making a stronger build, rather than you failing to optimize your concept.

As for better options in 3.5, feats in Pathfinder actually lost value compared to 3.5 core. That's a really low bar to fall below. Many feats got split up, others got reduced in effectiveness. Some of them may have been made better, but I haven't heard of a lot of shining examples.

On the other hand, in 3.5 there are a number of decent feats. For 3 feats he can deal a ton of damage, and with the rest of his feats he can pick up extra utilities like control. A 3.5 fighter with all sources will have more damage and control than anything a PF fighter is capable of. I'd agree a PF Fighter beats a Core 3.5 Fighter hands down, but given access to Weapon Styles, Tactical Feats, and things like Robilar's Gambit, Karmic Strike, and Stand Still, I'd much rather be playing a 3.5 Fighter.

[Jude_H]

So in the end, you suck, then you blame it on the optimizers for making a stronger build, rather than you failing to optimize your concept.
Why should a player have to optimize to feel useful?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Why should a player have to optimize to feel useful?

Mainly, it depends on the majority. If one character is overpowered, it needs to be toned down. But if one character is underpowered, it needs to be optimized.

[RaginChangeling]

Why should a player have to optimize to feel useful?

Why shouldn't they? If they want to play a simple small town butcher, and have a ton of ranks in Profession(Butcher) and Skill Focus (Butcher) should they still be as useful in combat as the guy who picked up Quicken and Empower spell? Not taking dodge is optimization, not taking 20 skill focuses is optimization. What line do you draw? Should an 8 Int Wizard with 6 con be useful?

[Jude_H]

Why shouldn't they?
Books are expensive.
Optimization takes time.
Optimization assumptions aren't ubiquitous (the mutable fluff, the class != job thing, the "No, unless..." adjudication mentality).

If they want to play a simple small town butcher, and have a ton of ranks in Profession(Butcher) and Skill Focus (Butcher) should they still be as useful in combat as the guy who picked up Quicken and Empower spell?
Maybe not, but they should be good at butchering.

If a player wants to play a swordsman, opens the book to the class that's supposed to model a swordsman (Fighter), builds a character according to the game's guidelines (Str>Con>Dex, take sword-related feats), and then utterly fails to function as a swordsman because the rest of the table os min-maxed harder, there's a problem.

The problem may not be with the group and it may not be with the system, but it's definitely not that the swordsman's player is somehow playing the game wrong.

[Hale]

1) In my experience, fighters are a fine choice in Pathfinder. You can think they are awful, but I enjoy playing them - in Pathfinder, but not in 3.5. I have absolutely no idea what "extra feat options" you are referring to in 3.5, but from what I have seen, PF fighters have more class abilities (obvious fact, as 3.5 fighters have none), feats (fact) and the feats they have to choose from give more reasonable options and customization paths that make them more fun to play (this is, of course, my opinion).

Agreed. PF fighters are awesome; the vital strike tree combined with the improved critical and critical effects tree makes for a devastating combo. My level 8 fighter easily pulls over a hundred damage a turn with a +1 weapon. Spend a hero point and that's 200+ a round. Without min/maxing.

Also I feel this has boiled down into a "which character is the best" thread, or "what build or build philosophies are better for RP versus optimization" -- which was not the case. This thread started off as a "what is Pathfinder" question and now we're arguing over which system has better fighters? Please.

This needs a new thread.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Mainly, it depends on the majority. If one character is overpowered, it needs to be toned down. But if one character is underpowered, it needs to be optimized.

Wise words...


Books are expensive.
Optimization takes time.
Optimization assumptions aren't ubiquitous (the mutable fluff, the class != job thing, the "No, unless..." adjudication mentality).

Maybe not, but they should be good at butchering.

If a player wants to play a swordsman, opens the book to the class that's supposed to model a swordsman (Fighter), builds a character according to the game's guidelines (Str>Con>Dex, take sword-related feats), and then utterly fails to function as a swordsman because the rest of the table os min-maxed harder, there's a problem.

The problem may not be with the group or the system, but it's definitely not that the swordsman's player is somehow playing the game wrong.

Though I also agree with this. Overall, I'd say that the level of optimization should be agreed upon by the group. That, and the DM should develop a powerful nose, so as to detect cheese when it arises.



Agreed. PF fighters are awesome; the vital strike tree combined with the improved critical and critical effects tree makes for a devastating combo. My level 8 fighter easily pulls over a hundred damage a turn with a +1 weapon. Spend a hero point and that's 200+ a round. Without min/maxing.

Really? Damn. Okay, I'm curious now, mind posting those numbers?

[RaginChangeling]

Optimization takes time.


Just to pick a nit, but shouldn't someone be rewarded for putting time into something? Why is this a negative thing? If I work hard at something, I should have a better result than the guy who slapped it together in 5 minutes. And this also isn't true across the system, optimizing a Druid in 3.5 required one to have a 15 in Wisdom and take Natural Spell at 6th level, the only spell in Core that had Druid as a requirement no less.



Maybe not, but they should be good at butchering.


Moving the goalposts here a bit. A butcher is as out of place in an adventuring party as a totally non magical fighter is when fighting Balors and Tarrasques. He's still good at fighting with a sword, you've just moved beyond the point where fighting with a sword is relevant. Similarly, in a campaign about city politics I might want the Butcher over an 8 Charisma fighter or Wizard focused on combat with no ties to the city. Still doesn't make him good in most situations though.



If a player wants to play a swordsman, opens the book to the class that's supposed to model a swordsman (Fighter), builds a character according to the game's guidelines (Str>Con>Dex, take sword-related feats), and then utterly fails to function as a swordsman because the rest of the table os min-maxed harder, there's a problem.

The problem may not be with the group or the system, but it's definitely not that the swordsman's player is somehow playing the game wrong.

He would function as a swordsman though. Its just in a world where magic can literally rewrite reality and you fight threats like demons and angels, swinging a few pounds of metal is very unimpressive unless you have something to back you up.

[Mojo_Rat]

Why should a player have to optimize to feel useful?

characters only need to be as optimized as the characters of people they play with.

I play with a new player playing a monk, another playing a dwarf fighter designed for ac over offense a goblin rogue.


basically if I turn around and make a huge death machine it would likely ruin things for every one. so I make a char for the group in play with.


if another group was all min maxed characters I'd design a char for that group. and every group is different.

[Mr. Zolrane]

All excellent points, but more on topic:

I was looking at the Alchemist. If one were going for a mutagen alchemist build, would a level or two of Barbarian for the Rage synergize well with that, you think?

[Hale]

Really? Damn. Okay, I'm curious now, mind posting those numbers?

Because it was asked.
Level 9 now (leveled up since the 200+ damage hero pointed round) and using the Hero Points variant (essentially a second standard action in dire dire circumstances), so without a hero point here's what the damage would be in one hit.

Also I'd like to mention that I built this character with a concept in mind before opening any books: a wandering western style gunman, modeled after Blondie in the Good the Bad and the Ugly. Except instead of a gun he uses a sword. His name is Senor and he smokes Elven cigars, wears somberos, and rides over ridges during sunsets. I started with a concept and spent maybe 30 minutes flipping through the SRD before finding the fighter variant and the appropriate weapon for him.


Human Fighter lvl 9, Stats: STR 22 (26 item)
BA: +9
Necessary Feats for damage output: (1) Power Attack, (1) Weapon Focus, (1) Exotic W/Prof, (4) Weapon Spec, (8) Improved Crit, (9) Critical Focus.
Weapon: Elven Curved Blade (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/curve-blade-elven) 1d10, 18-20/x2, one or two handed.

To Hit while power attacking: +17/+12 +9 Base, +8 Str, +1 w/Focus, +1 Magic, +2 Weapon Training (variant here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter#TOC-Weapon-Master)) = +21 to hit; -3 from Power Attack (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/power-attack-combat---final) in exchange for +9 damage.

Damage per hit: 1d10+2d6+26Base: +1d10
Vicious: +2d6
Str: +12
Magic: +1
Weapon Training: +2
Weapon Spec: +2
Power Attack: +9
Total = 1d10+2d6+26 damage

Critical Chance: 15-20/x2 (Improved Critical)

So with two attacks at +17/+12 (assuming both hit, helped by party buffs/positioning/etc -- things I would expect with a level 9 party) you have a 1/4 chance of a critical threat on each attack. If you crit threat, you have a +4 to confirm from Critical Focus. This is further aided by the Weapon master's Reliable Strike ability, rerolling an attack once per day.

Average damage with no crits:
38.5 per hit (5.5+7+26=38.5)
Two hits = 77 damage per round.

Average damage with one crit:
38.5 hit (5.5+7+26=38.5)
70 damage crit (5.5+5.5+7+26+26=70)
Two hits = 115.5

Average damage with two crits:
70 damage crit (5.5+5.5+7+26+26=70) x 2
Two hits = 140

In my games I have found that I more than likely get one critical per two full attacks, doing over 100 damage per round and making the mob roll a massive damage threshold check each turn. Keep in mind that this fighter is not really optimized, as there are no traits taken, the weapon costs under 10,000 gp at level 9 and half the feat slots are open -- and it is common in pathfinder to have a 20 for a stat (even without a point buy). Also, if the fighter moves before attacking he can use vital strike instead, dealing double weapon damage on an attack as a standard action.

Fighters are not underwhelming anymore.



All excellent points, but more on topic:

I was looking at the Alchemist. If one were going for a mutagen alchemist build, would a level or two of Barbarian for the Rage synergize well with that, you think?

Ultimate Magic is out (or going to be for people that don't have a subscription) and there are some neat Alchemist variants there. There are also more mutagen related feats that give the barbarian flavor without forcing you to take levels in the class.

[SanguinePenguin]

They don't just say "What would be the most powerful thing I can possibly run" they say "Okay what do I want to run? Yeah, okay, that sounds good. Now how can I optimize that to make it not suck?" It sounds like you do the first half of this, but not the second. So in the end, you suck, then you blame it on the optimizers for making a stronger build, rather than you failing to optimize your concept.

First of all, I never blamed anybody. I said that in a game where other characters are heavily optimized, I have less fun. This is my issue, but I assume, possibly erroneously, that I am not alone in this issue.

Second, I think you are making false assumptions about how I build my characters or perhaps the scope of the usage of my word "concept." I don't decide, "I will be this, then I will optimize." I decided on my character's personality, history, motivations, I choose his class, race and class features that best fit his personality, history and goals. If his backstory seems to demand that he will be a halfling fighter with charisma as his top stat, than that is what I'll create. If there is anything left to choose at this point, then I will optimize what remains. This is how I build my characters. In PF, I greatly enjoy playing them. In 3.5, only if I'm in a group of people who don't stress optimization is it as fun. If you think my way of designing my character's is crap, then that is completely fine - it is the way I enjoy playing the game the most. It provides me with characters that I really enjoy role-playing. Of course, I can do as you do say to optimize my characters (that is what I used to do), but they never feel as real to me. Maybe you'll say I suck as a role-player too then.

[Seerow]

Just calculating average damage numbers here for Hale's Fighter:


Average noncrit damage: 38.5
Average Crit damage: 70

To Hit Bonus: 17/12


Picking a random monster of CR9 out of the pathfinder SRD, I get one with 23 AC.

So your first hit hits on a 6, second on an 11. So you have a 75%/50% chance to hit.



Now, each attack also has a 25% to threaten a critical strike, a crit threat has a 95/70% chance to be confirmed.

So your attack breakdown looks like this:

Attack 1:
Critical Strike-23.75%
Normal Hit-51.25%
Miss: 25%

Attack 2:
Critical Strike-17.5%
Normal Hit-32.5%
Miss: 50%

So your average damage per round comes out to 61 damage. You'll hit peaks of over 100 with lucky rolls, but that isn't your average.



edit: Forgot to include the extra d10 weapon damage on the crit, updated numbers appropriately.

[Sir Homeslice]

Agreed. PF fighters are awesome; the vital strike tree combined with the improved critical and critical effects tree makes for a devastating combo. My level 8 fighter easily pulls over a hundred damage a turn with a +1 weapon. Spend a hero point and that's 200+ a round. Without min/maxing.


snip

Looks like minmaxing to me.

[Mojo_Rat]

So your average damage per round comes out to 58.8. You'll hit peaks of 100 or so with lucky rolls, but that isn't your average.

If you look at all of the numbers in the DPR olympics thread which somone with more time and math love than i have apparently has. Apparently 60ish dpr is the amount to aim for for 'optimized damage' some builds can get higher but given monster HPs and other factors 60 seems to be about optimal.

Though I am just Conveying what i think somone elses opinion is :)

As i mentioned in my previous post i dont play with people that produce characters like these (im not being Negative as i said in the other post, you make chars for the people you play with, Optimization is only in my view an issue if you break the Trend either above or behind the average of your group)

[Luckmann]

All excellent points, but more on topic:

I was looking at the Alchemist. If one were going for a mutagen alchemist build, would a level or two of Barbarian for the Rage synergize well with that, you think?I wouldn't know, but I'd love to see an answer to it. I just want to point out that there's actually a dedicated Pathfinder Alchemist thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199320) on the first page, where perhaps your question would be much better served, if it only got some attention. :smallbiggrin:

[Hale]

Looks like minmaxing to me.

Expand this?



So your average damage per round comes out to 61 damage. You'll hit peaks of over 100 with lucky rolls, but that isn't your average.


I said average damage per two hits, I was assuming you hit the mob -- as was mentioned in the post. And yes, a 100 is not average. However, you have a decent change of breaking 100 each round -- no once per day uses, no spells, just a fighter. Which was the point of that post. Fighters are not underpowered.

[Mr. Zolrane]

I wouldn't know, but I'd love to see an answer to it. I just want to point out that there's actually a dedicated Pathfinder Alchemist thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199320) on the first page, where perhaps your question would be much better served, if it only got some attention. :smallbiggrin:

Good idea. I'll take it over there.

[Seerow]

I said average damage per two hits, I was assuming you hit the mob -- as was mentioned in the post.

To quote you:


Agreed. PF fighters are awesome; the vital strike tree combined with the improved critical and critical effects tree makes for a devastating combo. My level 8 fighter easily pulls over a hundred damage a turn with a +1 weapon. Spend a hero point and that's 200+ a round. Without min/maxing.


Easily I would think implies that it happens on an average round, as opposed to rarely when you get lucky and land a hit and a crit or two crits back to back. Especially since you're saying spend a hero point and break 200+ a round, to get that kind of luck on four consecutive strikes would be well outside the range of normal, and not something you should reasonably expect given your stats.

You can't just assume you hit the mob though, especially when considering using things like power attack.

I'm also going to argue that a character with 26 strength at level 9 with no rage or anything like that is min-maxing. I doubt that you have high scores in other stats unless you were rolling and got the equivalent of a 50 point buy, since this would require 18 str, a race that boosts str, and a large chunk of level 9 wealth spent on a +4 str item.



Anyway, unrelated note since I'm in the number crunching mood, here's the damage without power attack:


90%/65% hit chance

Second attack's crit confirmation chance is up to 85%, for a 21.25% crit rate.

Average noncrit damage: 29.5
Average Crit damage: 52

This gives you an average of 55.85, so power attacking is the right option at least, giving you an average of over 5 damage a round.




edit:


If you look at all of the numbers in the DPR olympics thread which somone with more time and math love than i have apparently has. Apparently 60ish dpr is the amount to aim for for 'optimized damage' some builds can get higher but given monster HPs and other factors 60 seems to be about optimal.

Though I am just Conveying what i think somone elses opinion is :)

As i mentioned in my previous post i dont play with people that produce characters like these (im not being Negative as i said in the other post, you make chars for the people you play with, Optimization is only in my view an issue if you break the Trend either above or behind the average of your group)

Yeah, 60 damage per round isn't bad, but it's half of what he advertised. It is enough, but nothing awe inspiring, and he only manages it on a full round action, as opposed to a standard action like any caster would need to do their job. Anyone with control or mobility is going to drop that damage drastically.


Also, I do agree with limiting your optimization to the group. Hell my most recent character I started just last weekend is a low level Favored Soul, who thus far is playing like a weak fighter, using his spells out of combat as a healbot to keep the party running. On the other hand, my fellow party members are a multiclass Rogue/Monk (worst level 2 character I've seen, let me tell you), a Bard, and a Sorcerer, and the Sorcerer is a new player... so everyone is pretty much low end.

[Curious]

The problem with the DPR olympics is that it assumes every character is getting a full-attack, something you cannot depend on in a real game. At the very least, full-attacking is boring.

Edit: This was in response to Mojorat.

[Hale]

To quote you:
Easily I would think implies that it happens on an average round, as opposed to rarely when you get lucky and land a hit and a crit or two crits back to back. Especially since you're saying spend a hero point and break 200+ a round, to get that kind of luck on four consecutive strikes would be well outside the range of normal, and not something you should reasonably expect given your stats.

You can't just assume you hit the mob though, especially when considering using things like power attack.

To quote myself "So with two attacks at +17/+12 (assuming both hit, helped by party buffs/positioning/etc -- things I would expect with a level 9 party)" Why are we arguing over nothing? You did the math when they didn't hit, I did it for when they did. We're both right.



I'm also going to argue that a character with 26 strength at level 9 with no rage or anything like that is min-maxing. I doubt that you have high scores in other stats unless you were rolling and got the equivalent of a 50 point buy, since this would require 18 str, a race that boosts str, and a large chunk of level 9 wealth spent on a +4 str item.

Addressed this already but let me be clear again. In pathfinder, it's not min maxing. Point buy for the Pathfinder equiv of RPGA (PFS) makes it easy to have an 18 in a stat (check it out, point buy is different in Pathfinder). +2 racial, +4 item is not unexpected at lvl 9. If the item is in question, then how about Bull's Str? Also, 3 races out of the 7 base races give +2 to strength -- Human, Half-Elf, and Half-Orc. Have you read the system at all?



This gives you an average of 55.85, so power attacking is the right option at least, giving you an average of over 5 damage a round.

Right option, wrong option? My point, again, was to show that fighters are not underpowered. I never did the math, I just power attack because the ratio seemed good at the time -- I haven't the skills to min/max as effectively as you have.



Yeah, 60 damage per round isn't bad, but it's half of what he advertised. It is enough, but nothing awe inspiring, and he only manages it on a full round action, as opposed to a standard action like any caster would need to do their job...

Vital Strike (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/vital-strike-combat---final), Improved Vital Strike (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/improved-vital-strike-combat---final), Greater Vital Strike (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/greater-vital-strike-combat---final), Cleave (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/cleave-combat), Great Cleave (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/great-cleave-combat---final) -- all are standard actions. Again, take a look at the system. And again -- I'm not saying that you can pull 100 damage every turn. In fact, here's what I said, again: "My level 8 fighter easily pulls over a hundred damage a turn with a +1 weapon. Spend a hero point and that's 200+ a round. Without min/maxing." If one crit is present out of two possible attacks the damage averages to over 100. With more than one crit and a second standard action the damage is easily over 200, since you can Vital Strike as a standard action. Again, regardless of whether the damage is 60 or 100 per round -- isn't that impressive for a fighter? Which was my original point.


Edit: The point of this thread originally was to explain what Pathfinder is to someone that didn't know. I think that's been made clear now, so I likely won't continue posting in regards to fighter damage related math.

I will concede the fight (no pun intended), my fighter does less damage than I originally believed. Luckily I'm in a group of 5 other players who's damage output is comparable. And as a final note, for two of those players they are playing the second and third character they have ever made and pull as much damage as I do (a monk and a ranger) if not more. Pathfinder is a different system where, compared to 3.5, players do more damage but the monsters they face are heartier, and for us, it's balanced out better than 3.5 ever did.

[Seerow]

To quote myself "So with two attacks at +17/+12 (assuming both hit, helped by party buffs/positioning/etc -- things I would expect with a level 9 party)" Why are we arguing over nothing? You did the math when they didn't hit, I did it for when they did. We're both right.


I did the math for what they will do on average. That is what is important. Saying "I'll do this much damage if I always hit" means nothing. I could show you a 9th level core only Fighter that will deal 100+ damage per round every round if we always assume a hit.

Your post didn't say "It can do 100 damage a round" it says "I break 100 damage in a round easily" that is an important distinction that you're trying to gloss over.


Addressed this already but let me be clear again. In pathfinder, it's not min maxing. Point buy for the Pathfinder equiv of RPGA (PFS) makes it easy to have an 18 in a stat (check it out, point buy is different in Pathfinder). +2 racial, +4 item is not unexpected at lvl 9. If the item is in question, then how about Bull's Str? Also, 3 races out of the 7 base races give +2 to strength -- Human, Half-Elf, and Half-Orc. Have you read the system at all?


I actually forgot about the buffs to Human/Half-Elf, but the point buy doesn't make it easier to get an 18. Actually, now that I've looked at it, I see it's even harder! It takes 17 points to get a 18 in any stat (compared to 16 in 3.5) and it lists the point buys as ranging from 10 (low fantasy) to 25 (epic fantasy), where in 3.5 the point buy starts at 25, and goes up from there. So even with the highest PF point buy, if you get an 18 in a stat, your other stats are on the low end, possibly being dumped to 7s and 8s for extra points.


Also I wouldn't expect bulls strength all day every day. Most characters pick up stat enhancement items rather than relying on short term buffs for a reason.


Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, Greater Vital Strike, Cleave, Great Cleave -- all are standard actions. Again, take a look at the system.

And incidentally none of those feats/abilities were listed in your Fighter, so all of these great standard actions have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, unless I missed something.

[The Glyphstone]

A second standard action? How many ways are there to get two standards/round in Pathfinder? I've seen a fair amount of Haste-style effects, but nothing Belt-of-Battle-esque.

[Seerow]

A second standard action? How many ways are there to get two standards/round in Pathfinder? I've seen a fair amount of Haste-style effects, but nothing Belt-of-Battle-esque.

I think he was referring to the Hero Point, which I believe grants an extra standard action the round you use it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I think he was referring to the Hero Point, which I believe grants an extra standard action the round you use it.

Yes, but you only gain one each level. And there are more useful ways to use it, such as the +8 to one attack roll, or the ability to cheat death.

[MeeposFire]

Hale you have to understand that assuming you hit every time is about as useful as saying you deal 10 (max damage) with a bastard sword every time. Obviously you know that that a d10 is averaged to 5.5 and used that but then you don't put the same idea on the attack roll. You need to compare what your attacks are verse what you will expect to attack otherwise you are being very inaccurate with your results. Notice that on average your damage per round went down so much when you are attacking a monster about your CR? That is why you need to deal with hit chance.

Also vital strike is sad. If it was free it would be okay but for three feats it is too expensive for what you get.

[MeeposFire]

I think he was referring to the Hero Point, which I believe grants an extra standard action the round you use it.

Sounds an awful like 4e action points:smalltongue::smallwink:.

[Seerow]

Sounds an awful like 4e action points:smalltongue::smallwink:.

I nearly called it an action point at least twice while posting here. (That said Action Points also exist in 3.5, in Eberron I believe. Though I think in both 3.5 and 4e they are more frequent than 1 per level. Indeed, 4e you get one per 2 encounters...)

[MeeposFire]

I nearly called it an action point at least twice while posting here. (That said Action Points also exist in 3.5, in Eberron I believe. Though I think in both 3.5 and 4e they are more frequent than 1 per level. Indeed, 4e you get one per 2 encounters...)

The term action point existed but it did not grant extra actions as it gave only bonuses on rolls and the like. Extra actions are the 4e action points (which don't normally give other bonuses until maybe level 11) and it sounds like this is a daily resource like 4e AP whereas 3.5 AP are level based.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The term action point existed but it did not grant extra actions as it gave only bonuses on rolls and the like. Extra actions are the 4e action points (which don't normally give other bonuses until maybe level 11).

In the Eberron Campaign Setting, the action surge feat allowed you to spend two action points to make an extra action.

[Hale]

Yes, but you only gain one each level. And there are more useful ways to use it, such as the +8 to one attack roll, or the ability to cheat death.

And one for completing story arcs.

As for the other comments, again, wrong thread for this kind of discussion. Thank you though.

[LordBlades]

First of all, I never blamed anybody. I said that in a game where other characters are heavily optimized, I have less fun. This is my issue, but I assume, possibly erroneously, that I am not alone in this issue.

This is a problem in any system that has a large enough gap between 'strong' and 'weak'. If several characters are set at vastly different points in that interval, issues appear. Be it weak chars feeling useless, or strong chars feeling that the rest aren't pulling their weight.


Second, I think you are making false assumptions about how I build my characters or perhaps the scope of the usage of my word "concept." I don't decide, "I will be this, then I will optimize." I decided on my character's personality, history, motivations, I choose his class, race and class features that best fit his personality, history and goals.

'Class' is a mechanical concept. RP wise, I think a char chooses the broad set of abilities he wants to pursue(fighting, magic etc), not a certain character class. Taking character classes is just the way in which game mechanics translate that set of abilities. A character can call himself a 'fighter' or 'monk' without any actual levels in the fighter or monk class. You can very well be a warblade and call yourself a fighter (warblade sucks as a name anyway IMHO).So far in my D&D experience I've yet to see a character concept that can't be translated into something non sucky mechanics-wise.


If his backstory seems to demand that he will be a halfling fighter with charisma as his top stat, than that is what I'll create.

Well, in this case it only makes logical sense that the char won't be too great at what he does. RP wise, he's chosen a career he doesn't have much inclination toward, so it's only normal he'll be worse at it than guys with natural talent for being a warrior. Think RL here: if a brilliant computer nerd that can barely do 5 push-ups in a row decided to pursue a career in professional athletics, wouldn't it be expected he'd be worse than guys that are naturally gifted for sports?

[Jude_H]

'Class' is a mechanical concept. RP wise, I think a char chooses the broad set of abilities he wants to pursue(fighting, magic etc), not a certain character class.
I'm just going to nitpick this because people keep saying it like it's True. The PHB disagrees in its first sentence about classes, the DMG disagrees in its level-up suggestions, many prestige classes disagree in their prerequisites, the hundreds of pages of flavor text attached to the various classes and prcs disagree in their implications and the Knowledge rolls attached to later classes disagree in a practical terms.

It's convenient to divorce the mechanical class from the in-game profession/archetype it represents because it makes character building more interesting, it makes certain archetypes less terrible and many of the base professions/archetypes are just stupid. But that's not the game's default assumption.

[Sillycomic]

Think RL here: if a brilliant computer nerd that can barely do 5 push-ups in a row decided to pursue a career in professional athletics, wouldn't it be expected he'd be worse than guys that are naturally gifted for sports?

I suppose so.

However, I would rather think of the movies.

How many times do we see awesome movies depicting computer nerds (or average joe's) who have to step out of their shell and do something they've never done before because they're the only ones who can, or have world ending knowledge or they're the only ones interested in saving the girl/puppy/maguffin.

Versus the awesome movie where the guy who is good at something is seen doing that thing he's good at.

The contradiction is actually quite popular in fun and quirky characters. Even simple archetypes such as Spiderman or Captain Jack Sparrow seem to stick with us because of this contradiction.

Spiderman is a nerd who is never allowed to be nerdy because he has so much responsibility.

Jack Sparrow is a pirate who's never allowed to be a pirate because he keeps getting caught, arrested, eaten, and his ship keeps disappearing on him.

[RaginChangeling]

I suppose so.

However, I would rather think of the movies.

How many times do we see awesome movies depicting computer nerds (or average joe's) who have to step out of their shell and do something they've never done before because they're the only ones who can, or have world ending knowledge or they're the only ones interested in saving the girl/puppy/maguffin.

Versus the awesome movie where the guy who is good at something is seen doing that thing he's good at.

The contradiction is actually quite popular in fun and quirky characters. Even simple archetypes such as Spiderman or Captain Jack Sparrow seem to stick with us because of this contradiction.

Spiderman is a nerd who is never allowed to be nerdy because he has so much responsibility.

Jack Sparrow is a pirate who's never allowed to be a pirate because he keeps getting caught, arrested, eaten, and his ship keeps disappearing on him.

The problem with this is, either the fish out of water is competent, has some special power/ability that allows them to contribute or is comic relief. Spiderman got superpowers, Jack is extremely competent in D&D they would have the stats to fill their roles as 'Superhero' and 'Adventurer' competently. Someone like Chuck, from the first season of 'Chuck', was the comic relief nerd who could barely contribute to the spy missions he was dragged on. In fact, he later had to get a super power in order to keep up with the group just like a hypothtical Halfling Fighter focused on Charisma would have to in a game of D&D if he wanted to be anything but the comic relief.

[LordBlades]

I'm just going to nitpick this because people keep saying it like it's True. The PHB disagrees in its first sentence about classes, the DMG disagrees in its level-up suggestions, many prestige classes disagree in their prerequisites, the hundreds of pages of flavor text attached to the various classes and prcs disagree in their implications and the Knowledge rolls attached to later classes disagree in a practical terms.

It's convenient to divorce the mechanical class from the in-game profession/archetype it represents because it makes character building more interesting, it makes certain archetypes less terrible and many of the base professions/archetypes are just stupid. But that's not the game's default assumption.

Therefore 'I think'. The way I see it, a char thinks 'I want to learn how to cast spells in armor better' not 'I want to take a level of Spellsword'.

As a side-note chars being aware of their classes could lead to some rather hilarious situations. Imagine a guy introducing himself to the king: 'Average Joe, Warblade Focused Transmuter Master Specialist Spellsword Abjurant Champion Sacred Exorcist at your service'

[Mr. Zolrane]

Haha, is class a lifestyle? Reminds me of another divisive thread I started (I seem to have an uncanny talent for starting those, though with that ToB thread, I was kinda asking for it). Ultimately, I would have to say "Only if you want it to be." The character I played last campaign was a polite, refined altar boy who also happened to be a barbarian. Not barbaric in the least, but the same abilities. It's been said 14 hojillion times, but fluff is mutable, guys.

This is how, as a DM, I approach character creation for newbs:

"What do you want your character to be able to do? Tell me that, and I'll do my best to help you build that character.

[McSmack]

Reading on the "Secrets" of the Loremaster, the "Applicable Knowledge" secret grants the effect of "Any one feat". Now, the first time I read this, I figure that sure, neat, an extra feat. But after re-reading it, it says "Any one feat".

Is it just me or.. would this allow me to bypass prereqs. for that feat? If so, Applicable Knowledge went from "Neat" to "God yes".
From Paizo PRD - http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/feats.html
"Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he gains the prerequisite.

A character can't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the feat itself. If, at a later time, he regains the lost prerequisite, he immediately regains full use of the feat that prerequisite enables." emphasis mine.

So basically unless stated specifically that you can use it without the prereqs, you can't use a feat even if you do take it. Would this technically mean that a archery ranger without the prereqs for his combat style feats can't use them? I think RAI says that if it specifically says you bypass the prereqs and can select it, then you can use it without having them. Otherwise bypassing prereqs via class abilities would be meaningless. However in the case of the Loremaster IIRC it doesn't have the "even if he does not have the normal prerequisites" clause. You'd have to choose a feat you qualify for.


Back to the OP. I didn't really get into PF's Hero Points. My PF GM doesn't use them, and I run a mishmash PF/Eberron game so I just use Eberron action points for my games.

[Prime32]

Haha, is class a lifestyle? Reminds me of another divisive thread I started (I seem to have an uncanny talent for starting those, though with that ToB thread, I was kinda asking for it). Ultimately, I would have to say "Only if you want it to be." The character I played last campaign was a polite, refined altar boy who also happened to be a barbarian. Not barbaric in the least, but the same abilities. It's been said 14 hojillion times, but fluff is mutable, guys.

This is how, as a DM, I approach character creation for newbs:

"What do you want your character to be able to do? Tell me that, and I'll do my best to help you build that character.Sir Lancelot was a Knight of the Round Table whose fighting style focused on going into wild rages. What class was he?

[LordBlades]

Sir Lancelot was a Knight of the Round Table whose fighting style focused on going into wild rages. What class was he?

Assuming you want to keep the 'lawful knight in shining armor' feel and race is a non issue, half-orc paragon 3/warblade or crusader x.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Sir Lancelot was a Knight of the Round Table whose fighting style focused on going into wild rages. What class was he?

I think barbarian sounds just fine for him. He could still wear full plate, it would just have to be mithral. Maybe there's some Tome of Battle stuff that would suit him better, but I'm not terribly familiar with ToB, so I just have to go by what I know.

EDIT: And if you need him to be lawful (Which, based on my admittedly thin knowledge of Arthurian lore, Lancelot was not), your DM can just waive the alignment restrictions. With the exception of a class whose abilities are intrinsically tied to morality and ethics (i.e. the Paladin, antipaladin, and most clerics) there is no legitimate reason why they should be bound to a code. A raging character need not be chaotic. They could be stickler's for the law and use their furious might to enforce said law.

[The Glyphstone]

Ironically, a Halfling Fighter Warblade with a heavy Charisma focus could be a competent warrior, thanks to Diamond Mind maneuvers. So unless "sucks at fighting" is a key part of the concept, rather than an unfortunate side effect of wanting to be an extremely charismatic warrior, that same flavor could be ported over to a competent fighter just fine.

[Sillycomic]

just like a hypothtical Halfling Fighter focused on Charisma would have to in a game of D&D if he wanted to be anything but the comic relief.

Precisely.

Spiderman got superpowers, but he had to work and train in order to be competent at them.

Sparrow has pirate skills which he has to use in new and interesting ways in order to get out of situations.

So, charisma halfling will have to train and adapt (fight monsters and level up) in order to be competent and awesome.

So, what's wrong with that? That's the way the game works.

[Seerow]

Ironically, a Halfling Fighter Warblade with a heavy Charisma focus could be a competent warrior, thanks to Diamond Mind maneuvers. So unless "sucks at fighting" is a key part of the concept, rather than an unfortunate side effect of wanting to be an extremely charismatic warrior, that same flavor could be ported over to a competent fighter just fine.


Indeed. Though I was going to suggest some form of Bard (maybe a multiclass), Snowflake Wardance make a Cha Focused melee fighter pretty plausible. But yeah, there's all sorts of ways to get cha to just about anything, so if you want a cha focused melee fighter, it's possible to do that and have the cha be a big part of it.

The alternative as Glyphstone points out is to go for stuff that just ignores your stats altogether, such as Diamond Mind. Works just as well.


Or you could say "My charismatic halfling fighter sucks at combat, woe is me. Damn these powergamers for making mechanically functional builds rather than gimping themselves for the sake of RP!"

[Hiro Protagonest]

Ironically, a Halfling Fighter Warblade with a heavy Charisma focus could be a competent warrior, thanks to Diamond Mind maneuvers. So unless "sucks at fighting" is a key part of the concept, rather than an unfortunate side effect of wanting to be an extremely charismatic warrior, that same flavor could be ported over to a competent fighter just fine.

Yeah, Diamond Mind and White Raven. White Raven has diplomacy as it's key skill, even though it's only for fluff and gaining it as a class skill if you take martial study for White Raven.

[RaginChangeling]

Precisely.

Spiderman got superpowers, but he had to work and train in order to be competent at them.

Sparrow has pirate skills which he has to use in new and interesting ways in order to get out of situations.

So, charisma halfling will have to train and adapt (fight monsters and level up) in order to be competent and awesome.

So, what's wrong with that? That's the way the game works.

Ok, but if someone starts partying with a Jack Sparrow or a Spider-man and is not competent and they all gain power at the same rate, he's always going to be behind. Thats the other issue, D&D isn't a solo game and power is not gained in a vacuum. The Halfling will need substantially more stuff, in the form of better feats or classes, to keep up with them unless he wants to be comic relief.

[Luckmann]

[...]

The Halfling will need substantially more stuff, in the form of better feats or classes, to keep up with them unless he wants to be comic relief.Since when are Halflings not comical relief? :smallamused:

[The Glyphstone]

Yeah, Diamond Mind and White Raven. White Raven has diplomacy as it's key skill, even though it's only for fluff and gaining it as a class skill if you take martial study for White Raven.

That, and the White Raven Tactical Maneuver Feat. Your party rogue will love you forever and ever once you can make that DC20 Diplomacy check to slap the [Flanked] condition on anything within arm's reach of you.

[Sillycomic]

The Halfling will need substantially more stuff, in the form of better feats or classes, to keep up with them unless he wants to be comic relief.

You're just assuming everyone else in the charismatic halfling party is a power gamer and will look down at the player wanting to play a fighter and have Charisma as his best stat.

You also seem to be looking down at someone who isn't really concerned with OOBER optimizing.

Plus, you're forgetting that the charismatic halfling is charismatic. Which means he could easily decide to put some points in bluff, diplomancy and intimidate and actually be pretty competent at it thanks to Pathfinder's new skill system.

So, actually the charismatic halfling fighter has a leg up on other fighters because he can whomp people with his stick, or come up with a different solution that doesn't even involve using a weapon.

In fact, this would be a perfect build for a charismatic halfling who has realized that being a competent fighter will help him deal with negotiations. Wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt who said speak softly and carry a big stick?

You're neglecting character/options/quirkiness and the effectiveness of playing a silly game where comic relief might be an actual goal simply because you don't want to play in a group of super optimization.

If that's what you want to do, cool with that, but don't limit that to being the ONLY thing people can do with the game. Fish out of water characters are cool and fun to play and often times have surprising skill and adaptation in ways you didn't even think possible.

[Serenity]

My take, from the practical experience of running a converted Curse of the Crimson Throne:

Every player, every character has had many and ample opportunities to feel and be awesome.

The alterations to the Paladin have gone unmentioned thus far in this thread, and that is easily one of the greatest things about Pathfinder. Paizo has turned the Paladin from a brief dip who slaps evil on the wrist to a true indomitable Holy Warrior. The new Smite Evil takes the enemies of righteousness to pieces, they will save against virtually any effect, and are generally very hard to hurt.

Rogues and their rogue talents rock. They love being able to sneak attack nearly everything.

All classes who hit stuff with pointy sticks love being able to crit nearly everything.

Everything earlier stated about 'practical' rounds per day for Barbarian Rage definitely applies. The Pathfinder change has meant that Rarya has had the boost of rage available almost whenever she wants it. The same thing applies to Bardic music. The Paladin's Bard cohort has never run out of performance to boost the party--especially not with the updated Harmonic Spell feat, which means she doesn't use up a round of performance when she casts a spell. The nerf to bards rather lies in the fact that they can't switch between performances to stack up different performance bonuses.

Combat casting is something casters actually need to worry about, and several spellcasting enemies who tried to use 5-foot steps to bypass it have fallen prey to feats and rage powers which allow melee types to stay up in the caster's grille.

The gnome illusionist may be more powerful for the School abilities, but everyone enjoys that he has these interesting and unique tricks...and I'm with Saph, whose overview of the changes observes that few of the school/bloodline/domain abilities are really hugely powerful. They've objectively grown in power, but everyone having a full suite of class features is a good thing overall.

Oh, Pathfinder has its flaws, by all means. Pseudo-full BAB on the monk is silly, and both the monk and and the fighter should have more goodies than they got. At the level of high-end optimization, many important things haven't changed. But my experience is that it's a whole lot of fun to play.

[jmelesky]

Serenity, your experiences mirror mine. PF seems to distribute fun better around the table.

That said, what level does Curse of the Crimson Throne go up to? I know several of the paths go only into the mid-teens. Did you get a chance to play up at levels 19-20?

I haven't, and wanted to know if the experience sustained itself at that power level.

[subject42]

I've had similar results, Serenity.

In the games I've run, Rangers are straight-up murder factories. Rogues are pretty much always sneak attacking, even without all sorts of high-end optimization. Fighters are sticking pointy things into soft things that scream and bleed, and barbarians are busting through doors like the Kool-Aid man.

The only class that's felt outright underwhelming so far has been the Druid, but I chalk that up to the Druid sitting on the top of the heap in 3.5.

[The Glyphstone]

I know second-hand, at least, from two people playing Monks in various PF games that they are incredibly fun and reasonably effective - I don't remember one, but the other is playing some sort of Hungry Ghost crit-fisher build, and the highest-damage dealer among them. the group isn't very high-optimization, but they don't have any issues.

[Sillycomic]

My only personal experience is from a monk in my Pathfinder game. He's been able to hold his own against the paladin, who was built for damage.

His only problem came when he had to fight against one of the other members, optimized for AC build. He turned into a monk of old, flurry of misses making me feel sad for him.

He wasn't smart enough to use other kinds of tactics, so it turned into a standstill.

But, over all he was able to hold his own, especially with a party buffer and fellow meatshield to help him out. Things were going just fine until he had to fight other members of the party. (It was an evil campaign and they were challenging for leadership of the clan... so it was an expected PVP fight)

[Curious]

I know second-hand, at least, from two people playing Monks in various PF games that they are incredibly fun and reasonably effective - I don't remember one, but the other is playing some sort of Hungry Ghost crit-fisher build, and the highest-damage dealer among them. the group isn't very high-optimization, but they don't have any issues.

Ah, the Hungry Ghost, he is a thing of beauty. The Archetype allows you to gain a ki point from every enemy you kill, so one of my favorite exploits is to carry around a bag of kittens to smash into the ground when I need a boost. :smallamused:

[Serenity]

APs go up to 17 as a general rule; my players are currently level 14, having just started the final module this past Saturday. A few exceptions to the rule only go up to 14 or 15. Currently no APs go up to 20, and I don't believe Paizo has any plans to change that imminently.

That said, as the GM, I do get to play some high-level NPCs. Notably, I've rewritten the final boss as a heavily templated Sorcerer 19/Aristocrat 2, so I should have plenty to play around with.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Ah, the Hungry Ghost, he is a thing of beauty. The Archetype allows you to gain a ki point from every enemy you kill, so one of my favorite exploits is to carry around a bag of kittens to smash into the ground when I need a boost. :smallamused:

Just don't be surprised when plucky groups of adventurers try to kill you.

[LordBlades]

The alterations to the Paladin have gone unmentioned thus far in this thread, and that is easily one of the greatest things about Pathfinder. Paizo has turned the Paladin from a brief dip who slaps evil on the wrist to a true indomitable Holy Warrior. The new Smite Evil takes the enemies of righteousness to pieces, they will save against virtually any effect, and are generally very hard to hurt.

Sounds like a 3.5 crusader :smallwink: