Flaws/problems in Pathfinder?

[Rezby]

From what I've read, Pathfinder seems to be a bit more of a balanced version of 3.5e. But of all the local players I've talked to, about half were fairly averse to the idea of converting to Pathfinder rules. I couldn't find anything on google, so I came here to ask if there are any serious flaws in Pathfinder as opposed to 3.5e and why it might be better to stay with 3.5 instead of switching?

Sorry if this is in the wrong section, if it is, could the mods please relocate it to the right section if it's not too much trouble?

[jmelesky]

My personal take is that PF is flatly better than 3.5e Core. As someone who never spent a huge amount on splatbooks, that means PF is a win for me. If you like the wide library of 3.5 available to you, though, it's a different story. You can convert (feats|spells|PrCs|...), but it does generally require conversion.

Warning: PF does actually play differently than 3.5. It's tuned to single-classing rather than multiple dips. It also means any optimization tricks you may recall from 3.5 may not work -- lots of feats and spells have been tweaked.

Warning 2: PF is more balanced than 3.5e Core, but it's not actually balanced. Wizards can still mold reality to their whim at 20th level; many of the most open-to-abuse spells haven't been changed. I don't have a huge issue with this personally, but you'll hear many people who feel like they were promised balance and only got tweaks.

[Godskook]

I have 3 problems with Pathfinder:

1.It didn't fix 3.5's problems. Casters still dominate, melee still needs love. It did make fixes to help this issue(like nerfing polymorph magic into something nearly playable, afaik), but overall, everything I've read indicates that 3.5's main problems all ported to some extent.

2.It doesn't port some of my favorite things about 3.5.

3.The differences are too nuanced between them for somebody who's only played 3.5 like me. Spiked chains exist, but lack the reach+ that made them good in 3.5 as an example. I just find it a little to confusing, and would rather learn a much more dissimilar ruleset than one that's 80% the same, and have to spend all my time playing "where's waldo" for the 20% that's different.

On the other hand, it did do some really cool things, like reduce(or eliminate?) dead levels, so ymmv.

[Absol197]

I personally love Pathfinder, but I do know some of the more common arguments against it.

First is broken promises. Quite a few people were lead to expect that Pathfinder would be a complete fix of the problems with 3.5. Since it wasn't, they don't like it, or are at least soured against it. Also, apparently Paizo said that it would be completely backwards compatable with 3.5, and to a big extend it is, but it still requires conversion for some things (classes/Prestige classes, some monsters, races), which some people don't like.

Second, but related to the first, many feel that it didn't change enough, either to truly balance the system, or to make it worth buying. Like Jmelesky said, it is more balanced, but not actually truly balanced. Since my group doesn't really go for optimization, this hasn't bothered us. Also like he said, those who believe that they haven't changed enough and have a large 3.5 library don't feel like it's worth it to change.

Third, the changes to a couple feats (Power Attack and the Improved Combat Maneuver feats seem to be the biggest offenders) has people crying foul over the fact that melee has become "worse." Personally, I feel that if one takes every change into account instead of focuing on specific ones, melee comes out way ahead, but as I said before, I'm nowhere near an optimizer, so taking my word on that might not be a good idea :smallwink: .

Fourth, many people dislike the combat maneuver system. I think a big part of this is people who heard about the beta for Pathfinder, in which CMD was calculated as 15 + CMB, which would indeed make a huge difference, and haven't heard that it has changed to 10 + Dex + CMB.

All that said, it's up to your preference. I love the vast array of options it allows every class. I used to play sorcerers and wizards a lot, simply because it was the only class that allowed me to completely customize my class features (spells), so that every character had a really unique feel. But now, with Pathfinder, every class gets that to at least some degree, and most get it to a pretty large degree. That's what I like, so I like the system (along with the changes to races, skills, many of the additional feats, the combat maneuvers system...basically all of it :smallsmile:).

[Wings of Peace]

My main issue with PF is that it doesn't really fix the problem of magic users vs. mundanes for me. I also tend to play in fairly high power groups where the players know the mechanics and how to do what they want pretty well. I say that second part because from my perspective it seems like the people who play more optimal characters are the ones with the most against PF.

[Doc Roc]

Paizo doesn't treat optimizers very well, and a few of the designers throw hissy fits if you don't talk to them with the respect that befits their station.



As a designer and programmer, let me suggest that the actual quantity of respect we deserve is near zero.

[Seatbelt]

My girlfriend's boss is, according to him, the record holder for "most attacks in a single round" and, according to him, reaches the millions (thousands? I was drunk at the time). So, apparently, he is something of an expert on mechanics. His big complaints are that

1: They failed to address the balance issues they said they were going to and
2: They said they were going to be completely open to criticism and commentary and user feedback during beta but this has, according to him, largely not been true. He feels betrayed by the company and those are his beefs with Pathfinder.



In my opinion, Pathfinder is cool. Lots of the stuff it does are cool. Download the PDFs from the internets or check out the PF SRD. If you like the content, buy the book. If you don't, don't. If you are like my girlfriend's boss and hate the company because they're full of lying liars who lie a lot, don't get them either.

[peacenlove]

One problem i find in PF is the overlapping names for various feats/spells/abilities (for example Persistent spell in APG).

Lots of undocumented changes. Really lots of them. Many of them are good (such as the equalization in Hide in plain sight for all classes that grant it) but still they should make a better conversion manual. As a DM who spends a lot of time making NPC's this is frustrating. However in general my players adapted very quickly.

[Lord_Gareth]

First is broken promises. Quite a few people were lead to expect that Pathfinder would be a complete fix of the problems with 3.5. Since it wasn't, they don't like it, or are at least soured against it. Also, apparently Paizo said that it would be completely backwards compatable with 3.5, and to a big extend it is, but it still requires conversion for some things (classes/Prestige classes, some monsters, races), which some people don't like.

This right here. I spent money on this crap and then Paizo had the nerve to announce Mission Accomplished? No. Just no.

[Absol197]

Just wondering: why did you buy it without reading through it first?

[Lord_Gareth]

Just wondering: why did you buy it without reading through it first?

Couldn't find the SRD at the time and I was kinda burning out on 3.5. Then I started 'brewing and participating here. Never looked back.

[Grommen]

I do have to admit that it is aggravating when you find your self doing something the way that 3.5 did, only to find out that your doing it wrong with Pathfinder, and you have to look up information in the middle of a game, slowing the pace to a crawl.

Coarse this has been the same issue with my group every time we change editions. A fireball is not a fireball I guess you would say.

That said. I very much like it. No game is without it's issues, and they have some. The amount of disruption to your game will depend on the persons hell bent on wrecking your game. And anyone determined to wreck a Pathfinder game can, probably easier than a 3.5 game.

Below are my pros and cons

Good: They have one single mechanic to accomplish combat maneuvers (grappling, tripping/sweeping, disarming etc.) It's one single formula, in general if you succeed your check by +5 better things happen.
BAD: They added Dex to the defense of the maneuvers. Realistic, however in some cases the defense really out does the offense. So you get people screaming foul soon as monsters reach CMD 30 and they can generate a CMB +10.
Good: They addressed spells
BAD: Not enough. And in general spells that you knew from 3.5. They might work totally different in Pathfinder.
Good: Skill system got worked over a lot, and in general characters will have more skills and higher numbers in them.
BAD: Some skills are just wonkey and make no sense. Just because I'm good a palming cards does not mean that I am an expert at tieing knots. Yet they are the same skill.
Good: Wizards and Sorcs got d6 HD.
Bad: Wizards and Sorcs got d6 HD :smallfurious:
Good: Splat books come out slower. When they do come out they are better thought out than the 3.5
BAD: $45 **&(^& bucks for a stinking book!

Coarse Wizards are a thing to be reconened with. And if your DM does not reign them in, they will destroy your game. I keep a tight lid on the spellcasters if necessary, and I don't have this problem.

[Sucrose]

I dislike it because there is less optimization data on Pathfinder (due largely to the reflexive hatred that the Pathfinder devs have toward actual statistical analysis, rather than loose playtesting, which has driven a fair portion of the optimization community away from the game). This makes it more difficult to gauge how balanced a given party is.

Beyond that, I just don't see a reason to convert. Melee can have good things (much better things than Pathfinder grants, given sufficient book access) in 3.5. I don't see any reason that single-classed characters should be more appealing, inherently, than multiclassed ones. Since I have a large 3.5 library, and conversion would end with me playing in a system that can only advertise itself honestly as moderately more balanced than Core 3.5, I just don't see how it's worth the hassle.

This may change in a few years, as 3.5 games become harder to play, but more likely I'll accept my role as a 3.5 grognard, and play games on the internet, or games that I start, whilst guiding new players in building their characters' mechanics to match their concepts. I've also started exploring non-D&D RPGs.

Edit: That said, I am ganking their basic modification to the skill point system. I like the idea of giving a bit of a reward for generalization.

[CTrees]

Good: Splat books come out slower. When they do come out they are better thought out than the 3.5
BAD: $45 **&(^& bucks for a stinking book!


Define "better thought out." Because, well, have you looked at their Ultimate Magic supplement? WotC would be ashamed of that level of editting. The errata should be massive.

[Jarveiyan]

I personally love Pathfinder, but I do know some of the more common arguments against it.

First is broken promises. Quite a few people were lead to expect that Pathfinder would be a complete fix of the problems with 3.5. Since it wasn't, they don't like it, or are at least soured against it. Also, apparently Paizo said that it would be completely backwards compatable with 3.5, and to a big extend it is, but it still requires conversion for some things (classes/Prestige classes, some monsters, races), which some people don't like.

Second, but related to the first, many feel that it didn't change enough, either to truly balance the system, or to make it worth buying. Like Jmelesky said, it is more balanced, but not actually truly balanced. Since my group doesn't really go for optimization, this hasn't bothered us. Also like he said, those who believe that they haven't changed enough and have a large 3.5 library don't feel like it's worth it to change.

Third, the changes to a couple feats (Power Attack and the Improved Combat Maneuver feats seem to be the biggest offenders) has people crying foul over the fact that melee has become "worse." Personally, I feel that if one takes every change into account instead of focuing on specific ones, melee comes out way ahead, but as I said before, I'm nowhere near an optimizer, so taking my word on that might not be a good idea :smallwink: .

Fourth, many people dislike the combat maneuver system. I think a big part of this is people who heard about the beta for Pathfinder, in which CMD was calculated as 15 + CMB, which would indeed make a huge difference, and haven't heard that it has changed to 10 + Dex + CMB.

All that said, it's up to your preference. I love the vast array of options it allows every class. I used to play sorcerers and wizards a lot, simply because it was the only class that allowed me to completely customize my class features (spells), so that every character had a really unique feel. But now, with Pathfinder, every class gets that to at least some degree, and most get it to a pretty large degree. That's what I like, so I like the system (along with the changes to races, skills, many of the additional feats, the combat maneuvers system...basically all of it :smallsmile:).
Actually its - 10+bab+str+dex+size mod and circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC also apply.
CMB - bab+str+size mod.

[ericgrau]

As for actual flaws, it looks like they removed most of the horrendous issues that were in alpha. I'm guessing (as a numbers person myself) because they would have been quickly obvious after playing with them a bit.

As for the off topic system comments, people tend to have a beef with pathfinder because it didn't fix what they wanted it to fix. Problem is what that is varies from person to person and from forum to forum so it would have been impossible to please everyone anyway. In the end they didn't change very much, which I suppose could be my own complaint. But I don't really care.

[subject42]

It's starting to drop off a bit here at GitP, but for a long time my biggest complaint about Pathfinder was that it was impossible to start a thread about the game without a legion of extremely angry people flooding the thread and derailing it into a discussion on why fighters are 1000x worse than they were in 3.5.

The only other complaint I've had so far is that a few of the feats aren't terribly well-designed. It's not even the ones that everyone is complaining about, either.

Vital Strike + Spring Attack, at first blush, looks like an effective way to make a mobile fighter. Unfortunately, if you look at the wording you can't use vital strike during a spring attack. That's bad design.

The second thing that's caught me is the Arcane Armor training line of feats. They let you reduce ASF as a swift action, meaning that it's impossible to cast quickened spells using that feat, thus making melee casters without Eldritch Knight or Dragon Disciple a tricky proposition.

[Boci]

CMB - bab+str+size mod.

A.K.A. grapple modifier, an entry in 3.5 monster state blocks? I am missing something, because to me it seems CMB is just a different name for something that already existed.

[Lord Bingo]

I think Pathfinder is a vast improvement over core 3.5 because it fixes a lot of minor issues and makes base classes fun to play but in essence it is still just a streamlined edition of the same game. As such it still has the basic problems you know from 3.5.
I did, however, not think it was a problem that I needed to read the rulebook in order to familiarize myself with its changes.

[subject42]

CMB - bab+str+size mod.

Certain other bonuses apply, depending on the maneuver. Look at the wording on the fighter's weapon training.

[Grommen]

Define "better thought out." Because, well, have you looked at their Ultimate Magic supplement? WotC would be ashamed of that level of editting. The errata should be massive.

Came out last week, everyone else beat me to it at the local gaming store. So no.

And I'm not talking about errors. I'm talking about the fact that most of what I've read from the Advanced Players Guide and GM's guide I liked. It was balanced, and thought out.

[Grommen]

A.K.A. grapple modifier, an entry in 3.5 monster state blocks? I am missing something, because to me it seems CMB is just a different name for something that already existed.

Perzectaly. However it also is the number you use to Trip, Bull Rush, Grapple, Disarm, etc. Once nice wonderful number. You don't have to remember half a dozen different rules to do combat maneuvers.

[Boci]

Perzectaly. However it also is the number you use to Trip, Bull Rush, Grapple, Disarm, etc. Once nice wonderful number. You don't have to remember half a dozen different rules to do combat maneuvers.

You didn't in 3.5 either, just your grapple modifier and your grapple modifier - BAB.

[Yora]

What I dislike about 3.5e is that it's a constant hunt for new class features. If a character simply improves but doesn't learn something new, it's generally seen as something really terrible. I can see why people want that, but to me it distracts from the plot of the game, when the players think of their characters as an optimal combination of class features.

And what PF did was to make classes that have new class features all the time. When a wizard gets new spells, that's more than enough. But in PF you have all those specializations and bloodlines, and witches and oracles that cram even more stuff into each character. So instead on focusing more on personalty and interaction between people, it's even more of a game of making use of class features.

And the changes to races where completely unneccesary. Just more stuff for everyone instead of focusing on the essentials.

[MeeposFire]

It's starting to drop off a bit here at GitP, but for a long time my biggest complaint about Pathfinder was that it was impossible to start a thread about the game without a legion of extremely angry people flooding the thread and derailing it into a discussion on why fighters are 1000x worse than they were in 3.5.

The only other complaint I've had so far is that a few of the feats aren't terribly well-designed. It's not even the ones that everyone is complaining about, either.

Vital Strike + Spring Attack, at first blush, looks like an effective way to make a mobile fighter. Unfortunately, if you look at the wording you can't use vital strike during a spring attack. That's bad design.

The second thing that's caught me is the Arcane Armor training line of feats. They let you reduce ASF as a swift action, meaning that it's impossible to cast quickened spells using that feat, thus making melee casters without Eldritch Knight or Dragon Disciple a tricky proposition.

That drove me nuts. Oddly you could use vital strike with the 3.5 spring attack.

It does seem like Paizo hates decent standard actions for anybody who is not a spell caster. Except for the mobile fighter (and perhaps some other splat thing I don't know about) there are essentially no ways to do decent standard actions as a warrior class outside of vital strike (which is 3 feats and is not very good at all). Heck even archers lost their decent standard action since they made multi shot into a full attack ability, as if archers needed more attacks on a full attack?

To me Paizo feels like they are designing stuff that was being created at the start of 3.5 rather than the end of 3.5 which I think is dumb considering the end was when things were starting to get better.

[jmelesky]

Regarding Vital Strike, i wouldn't mind it being three feats if it were applicable to a single attack per round (i.e. compatible with a full attack, spring attack, or any of the other fine combos out there).

As it is, i'm inclined to houserule it a single feat that progresses.

[subject42]

Regarding Vital Strike, i wouldn't mind it being three feats if it were applicable to a single attack per round (i.e. compatible with a full attack, spring attack, or any of the other fine combos out there).

We houseruled it to an attack action, with the restriction that you could only make one attack in the round that you used it. Our monk/rogue loved it.

[Golkiwu]

BAD: $45 **&(^& bucks for a stinking book!


Just buy the PDF for $9.99. (yes, sold separately)

Who wants to lug all those processed trees around anyway.

I have a Physical Core Rule Book and everything else on PDF.

All PDFs on my Laptop and Phone for reference.:smallwink:

[FMArthur]

I like Pathfinder and what it brings to the table in both simplification and character options, as well as a lot of the nerfed spells.

What I don't like is that they did not apparently understand the full extent of the mundanes-vs-casters disparity, and continue to act under the assumption that it doesn't need any fixing and would be unbalanced to fix - and are outright hostile to criticisms about these issues. So there's absolutely no hope for improvement out of that place, which would be devastating if you entered a group that only allows Pathfinder material.

At least WotC was absent-minded enough that you could count on their wild variety of options to be able to pick out 'stealth fix' options to make melee playable, and didn't seem to believe mobile melee combat constituted the end of the ****ing world. Consequently they scattered an incredible variety of ways to fix this problem all over the place, whereas you know Paizo staff will take extra care to reign-in good melee options and make combos they didn't explicitly plan out in feat chains difficult or impossible.

[peacenlove]

Actually its - 10+bab+str+dex+size mod and circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC also apply.
CMB - bab+str+size mod+anything that enhances your attack roll.

Emphasis mine.


Define "better thought out." Because, well, have you looked at their Ultimate Magic supplement? WotC would be ashamed of that level of editting. The errata should be massive.

Any info/playtest data about their words of power system? I would like to import it to my Shadowcaster revision if it is half decent.

[subject42]

Emphasis mine.

I don't think that's universally the case. I think the blue text only applies if the maneuver in question is resolved as an attack action. I don't think it applies for maneuvers that are a standard action or full round action, like grapple.

(Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

[peacenlove]

I don't think that's universally the case. I think the blue text only applies if the maneuver in question is resolved as an attack action. I don't think it applies for maneuvers that are a standard action or full round action, like grapple.

(Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

from pfsrd (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Combat-Maneuver-Bonus)


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. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.

[subject42]

from pfsrd (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Combat-Maneuver-Bonus)

So based on that, grappling wouldn't get your weapon bonus, would it?

[peacenlove]

So based on that, grappling wouldn't get your weapon bonus, would it?

No unless it was gauntlets, natural weapons or other similar gear/attacks since you grapple with your hands/tentacles /whatever.

[Infernalbargain]

So based on that, grappling wouldn't get your weapon bonus, would it?

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy88yj/faq#v5748eaic9nvd

I presume that if you're using a mancatcher for some bizarre reason, you'd get it.

[Numinous]

so I came here to ask if there are any serious flaws in Pathfinder as opposed to 3.5e and why it might be better to stay with 3.5 instead of switching?

As to the first part: Pathfinder doesn't have any serious flaws that weren't in 3.5

As to the second part: you might want to stay with 3.5 if you have lots of 3.5 material and you don't want to have to convert it.

For example, one thing that I like about 3.5 is all of the alternative base classes that cropped up. I love the Warlock, the Dragonfire Adept, the Binder, the Beguiler, the Duskblade, the Warblade and the Crusader.

Because PF beefed up most of the PHB base classes, It's not clear how these other classes should be similarly beefed up, if at all. And Paizo can't do anything to help because none of them are OGL.

I'm a player in a PF game at the moment and I'd rather it was 3.5 for exactly these reasons. Of course I'd prefer it more if were 4th ed, but that's the GM's call :-)

[DeMouse]

As somone who dislikes wizards immensely you shouldn't listen to the people who say that melee is still broken in PF.


All of the melee classes either get large bonuses to their saves (EG: paladins), can automatically get half damage on reflex saves (Rogues), or are good enough at grappling and damage to be able to shut wizards down (Fighters).

Sure if you compare spells with full-attacks wizards can do more damage but with the changes to defensive casting and concentration checks if you can get in close any melee class could take one down.


biggest thing I miss from 3.5 are the binder and warlock classes which I am yet to find a good conversion for, and many of the prestige classes which Pathfinder moved away from. But it is compatible enough that somone could easily come up with conversion for all of these.

the biggest advantage of pathfinder is the alternative class options (especially for martial and secondary caster classes). These give way more options for how to build the type of character you want.

[Doc Roc]

As somone who dislikes wizards immensely you shouldn't listen to the people who say that melee is still broken in PF.


All of the melee classes either get large bonuses to their saves (EG: paladins), can automatically get half damage on reflex saves (Rogues), or are good enough at grappling and damage to be able to shut wizards down (Fighters).

Sure if you compare spells with full-attacks wizards can do more damage but with the changes to defensive casting and concentration checks if you can get in close any melee class could take one down.


biggest thing I miss from 3.5 are the binder and warlock classes which I am yet to find a good conversion for, and many of the prestige classes which Pathfinder moved away from. But it is compatible enough that somone could easily come up with conversion for all of these.

the biggest advantage of pathfinder is the alternative class options (especially for martial and secondary caster classes). These give way more options for how to build the type of character you want.

God help you if the wizard is competent enough to not get... I don't know... within a hundred feet of you?

[The Glyphstone]

As somone who dislikes wizards immensely you shouldn't listen to the people who say that melee is still broken in PF.


All of the melee classes either get large bonuses to their saves (EG: paladins), can automatically get half damage on reflex saves (Rogues), or are good enough at grappling and damage to be able to shut wizards down (Fighters).

Sure if you compare spells with full-attacks wizards can do more damage but with the changes to defensive casting and concentration checks if you can get in close any melee class could take one down.


biggest thing I miss from 3.5 are the binder and warlock classes which I am yet to find a good conversion for, and many of the prestige classes which Pathfinder moved away from. But it is compatible enough that somone could easily come up with conversion for all of these.

the biggest advantage of pathfinder is the alternative class options (especially for martial and secondary caster classes). These give way more options for how to build the type of character you want.

But...that was the same in 3.5, too. A melee warrior who managed to close into thwacking range of a spellcaster would easily tear him a new one - the problem was the over nine thousand ways that caster had to prevent said melee warrior from ever getting within reach.

People always get sidetracked by the 'can a fighter punch a wizard' thing, though - that's not the root of melee being too weak. The problem is their lack of significant damage on a standard action hit (Vital Strike was a step in the right direction, though) when it puts them in a position to eat a brutal full attack from the enemy in return.

[Doc Roc]

And power attack basically got Put On A Boat.

[Akal Saris]

So far what I'd like to see more from PF would be more ways to use swift actions as mundane characters, and more supplements.

[Stone Heart]

I'm just looking at the SRD right now, so maybe there is something in the book, but why wouldn't you be able to use Vital strike with spring attack? With spring attack aren't you making a single attack at your highest BAB? What prevents you from combining them?

[olentu]

I'm just looking at the SRD right now, so maybe there is something in the book, but why wouldn't you be able to use Vital strike with spring attack? With spring attack aren't you making a single attack at your highest BAB? What prevents you from combining them?

As I do not currently play in any pathfnder games I am not as up on the intricacies of the rules as I could be but purely from what has been said in this thread I would assume that the problem is as follows. As you said you are making a single melee attack but presumably this is different from 3.5 where you use the attack action. Presumably since it would work in one and not in the other vital strike requires the attack action and not just any old melee attack.

Now this may be wrong as references would need to be consulted but from the comments the attack action versus any melee attack is the distinction that keeps one from using the vital strike feat.

[FMArthur]

I'm just looking at the SRD right now, so maybe there is something in the book, but why wouldn't you be able to use Vital strike with spring attack? With spring attack aren't you making a single attack at your highest BAB? What prevents you from combining them?

The knowledge that that both cost you three feats for one special move, and that they don't do enough to help the lot of a melee character.

I mean the rules on actions. The rules on actions prevent you from taking your standard action "attack action" to make a Vital Strike during your full-round Spring Attack. Paizo is very careful to make sure that melee feats can't combo.

[CTrees]

I'm just looking at the SRD right now, so maybe there is something in the book, but why wouldn't you be able to use Vital strike with spring attack? With spring attack aren't you making a single attack at your highest BAB? What prevents you from combining them?

It's picky, but it's there, even in the SRD:

Spring attack:

As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.

Vital Strike:

When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.


Technically, Spring Attack gives you another option for a type of full round action you can make, and that includes a single melee attack. You do this instead of using your move action to move and your standard action to use the attack action. Vital Strike only triggers when you use the attack action, not when you make any attack. If it was allowed any time you made an attack, period, you'd be able to use VS on AoOs, which I'm *guessing* is what they were trying to avoid.

Personally, if I was thinking about going that route, I'd try to get my DM to houserule it to work with Spring Attack. It just seems like it should.

EDIT: Yeah, silly work getting in the way of timely posting...

[PairO'Dice Lost]

My problem with PF is that the vast majority of the changes made aren't innovative or particularly amazing. It's pretty much a collection of houserules in hardbound book form. Chances are that anyone who'd run into 3.5's problems and knew them well enough to know what a good fix looked like also knew 3.5 and its problems well enough to fix it themselves or at least find good fixes.

Go onto any forum where people post homebrew (like, say, this one) and you'll find plenty of fixes for the things PF tried to fix going back to during 3.5's run, and in many cases the fixes are equal or superior to them. The intertubes were working on skill consolidation, paladin/monk/fighter fixes, spell nerfs, unified combat maneuvers, new classes and PrCs, new magic systems, and much more long before PF was a glimmer in Paizo's eye, and while said changes might have been different from the PF ones, there's no reason to hype a new "3.75" and sell books for $40+ when one could google "paladin fix" or "fix grappling" or whatever and get the same or better for free.

[Lastgrasp]

Well, Pathfinder deviates enough from 3.5 to be different but the essence of the system is still 3.0/3.5. What I like most about the system is that classes have been beefed up and you are less likely to switched to a prestige class. The archetype system has been there best innovation in my opinion. It allows you to stick with your core class but deviate enough to be different.

The grapple system in PF is much improved. Now it doesn't fix balance issues and doesn't recreate the game system. It's a more subtle differences but I don't think Paizo wanted to recreate the game system from the ground up. Plenty of gamers loved 3.X and paizo just altered it slightly to fit their style.

Plus most of you 3.X material easily converts into to PF. So if you have a library of material it doesn't have to go to waste. Easy stuff to convert are spells, magic items, monsters, etc.

[Infernalbargain]

My problem with PF is that the vast majority of the changes made aren't innovative or particularly amazing. It's pretty much a collection of houserules in hardbound book form. Chances are that anyone who'd run into 3.5's problems and knew them well enough to know what a good fix looked like also knew 3.5 and its problems well enough to fix it themselves or at least find good fixes.

Go onto any forum where people post homebrew (like, say, this one) and you'll find plenty of fixes for the things PF tried to fix going back to during 3.5's run, and in many cases the fixes are equal or superior to them. The intertubes were working on skill consolidation, paladin/monk/fighter fixes, spell nerfs, unified combat maneuvers, new classes and PrCs, new magic systems, and much more long before PF was a glimmer in Paizo's eye, and while said changes might have been different from the PF ones, there's no reason to hype a new "3.75" and sell books for $40+ when one could google "paladin fix" or "fix grappling" or whatever and get the same or better for free.

Because there's a difference between a best selling author and a best writing author.


When I ask the classes I teach, "How many of you can cook a better burger than McDonalds?" almost all of the students raise their hands. I then ask, "So if most of you can cook a better hamburger, how come McDonalds makes more money than you?"

[Grommen]

And power attack basically got Put On A Boat.

So go back to the old way. Not likely to break anything.

Personally I don't have an issue with PF's power attack. Then again our games have never run amuck with spell tossers. I suppose they could, but the DM (me and another friend) just don't allow it. I guess were bad that way. :smallwink:

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Because there's a difference between a best selling author and a best writing author.

Oh, there's definitely a reason why PF is selling, no argument there; pretty pictures and some good initial PR go a long way. I'm just saying that there's no reason for a consumer to want to buy a so-called 3.75 when you can do better for free, or why a consumer should hold a product in higher esteem just because it's in print rather than online. To compare it to your quotation there, McDonald's is rich because people are lazy and cheap. How much money would it make, though, if you could google, say, "double cheeseburger no pickles," look through a bunch of recipes that pop up, and have a double cheeseburger without pickles appear in front of you when you find the one you like? As soon as you can get a superior burger for free, the advantage McDonald's has disappears.

The difference between a best-selling author and a best-writing author is that one's material is approved by someone who might not like the better writer's stuff for any reason at all, and so gets into print and gets more exposure; in an era when anyone can put their books up online for free to be only a quick google away from potential readers, there's no reason to restrict yourself to publisher-approved works simply because they're somehow more "official." A published series such as Harry Potter or (shudder) Twilight certainly has more exposure, and it's nice to be able to talk about it and have others know what you're talking about it, but if you're just reading with (playing with) a group of friends, it's just as easy to pass around online short stories (homebrewed content) and have your reading circle (gaming group) use that.

Paizo put all of the PF information online, granted, so you can look everything up there, but then again the d20 SRD and the Playground are online as well. Just about the only thing PF has over homebrew is the fact that it comes in a hardbound book for those who prefer pretty pictures and offline reading material, but that's no guarantee of mechanical quality, which is what one should be looking for in a product that claims to "fix" another product.

[Doc Roc]

So go back to the old way. Not likely to break anything.

Personally I don't have an issue with PF's power attack. Then again our games have never run amuck with spell tossers. I suppose they could, but the DM (me and another friend) just don't allow it. I guess were bad that way. :smallwink:

The question is: Would you recognize amok before it happened? Would your player? Some of these things are really easy to do by accident. I mean, planar binding, right? That's something wizards are just supposed to do. Wizards summon stupid stuff from beyond the veil. That's basically their gig.

Except you do it in 3.x, pick the wrong monster and:

You fail to bind it at all. Possible TPK.
You bind it, it sucks. Game slows down.
You bind it, it doesn't suck. You now have two characters.

[jmelesky]

And power attack basically got Put On A Boat.

Power Attack is different than in 3.5, therefore all melee classes in PF are forever screwed.

This comes up in every thread about PF. I'm amazed it didn't happen in the first page, honestly.

The notion that changing a single feat could break entire classes means that 3.5 is broken, not PF. To put it another way, if a feat is required by all characters of a given class in order for those characters to be effective, then either the feat or the class is poorly designed.

Paizo changed it. They made it less flexible, but with higher proportional bonuses. If this were the only change they made, then yes, they would have broken fighters, because fighters are broken in 3.5.

But it's not the only change they made. And if you look at the changes more broadly, you'll notice that fighters are, overall, improved in PF. Which means that changing PA may not have been a bad idea, and certainly wasn't as apocalyptic as some claim.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Power Attack is different than in 3.5, therefore all melee classes in PF are forever screwed.

This comes up in every thread about PF. I'm amazed it didn't happen in the first page, honestly.

The notion that changing a single feat could break entire classes means that 3.5 is broken, not PF. To put it another way, if a feat is required by all characters of a given class in order for those characters to be effective, then either the feat or the class is poorly designed.

Paizo changed it. They made it less flexible, but with higher proportional bonuses. If this were the only change they made, then yes, they would have broken fighters, because fighters are broken in 3.5.

But it's not the only change they made. And if you look at the changes more broadly, you'll notice that fighters are, overall, improved in PF. Which means that changing PA may not have been a bad idea, and certainly wasn't as apocalyptic as some claim.

The "they changed PA, now PF sucks" argument is not really saying "Fighters all needed PA, it was the only good thing martial characters got, and now I hate PF for nerfing it." Rather, it's saying that PA was one of the things that worked fine in 3e that did not need changing, and that PF nerfing PA to put it in line with other things instead of bringing every option up to the level of 3e PA (not Ubercharger levels, just "a good fighting style only really needs 1 or 2 feats" levels) was unnecessary. PA in 3e is comparatively amazing because (A) it's an easy style that intuitively works, in that a new player can say "Oh, I like hitting things harder!" and take PA and do well, and (B) it takes very little investment--compare Power Attack plus a purely optional Leap Attack or other booster feat with Point Blank Shot + Precise Shot + Manyshot + Rapid Shot + Improved Precise Shot/Rapid Shot/Manyshot etc. for archery, or TWF + ITWF + GTWF + Dual Strike + Two-Weapon AoO etc. for TWFing, entire styles that require several feats and levels of investment just to be competent in them, not amazing.

Other styles can be brought up to the PA level, and even exceed it, as the recent TWF thread shows, the only issue is that it takes a lot more investment than it should. TWF, S&B, and other styles should have been brought up to PA's level in terms of simplicity and power; PA did not need to be brought down in the slightest. A common corollary is that the other martial changes in PF weren't actually helpful (tripping isn't as good anymore, the CMB/CMD system doesn't work, etc.), which, while one may disagree with that, is an argument that is made. "They changed PA, PF sucks" is really shorthand for saying "fighters came out with a net negative change, and PA is simply the most visible aspect of that."

[FMArthur]

Power Attack is different than in 3.5, therefore all melee classes in PF are forever screwed.

This comes up in every thread about PF. I'm amazed it didn't happen in the first page, honestly.

The notion that changing a single feat could break entire classes means that 3.5 is broken, not PF. To put it another way, if a feat is required by all characters of a given class in order for those characters to be effective, then either the feat or the class is poorly designed.

Paizo changed it. They made it less flexible, but with higher proportional bonuses. If this were the only change they made, then yes, they would have broken fighters, because fighters are broken in 3.5.

But it's not the only change they made. And if you look at the changes more broadly, you'll notice that fighters are, overall, improved in PF. Which means that changing PA may not have been a bad idea, and certainly wasn't as apocalyptic as some claim.

PA was the feat tax for one weapon style. TWF had at least three just to work and be weak (and, embarrassingly, still does in Pathfinder). Unarmed combat, trippers, and all sorts of styles required at least one feat or even class levels to even begin to work. No, it's not good design and never was, but Pathfinder didn't change that design quirk at all, they just nerfed a couple of the options.

Fighters are "broken" in 3.5 because the value of feats isn't the same as class features. A scaling +1 here and there is not enough to fix it, and breaking up the good feats nullifies any advantage gained by the slightly improved feat gain rate.

Paizo's attempts at fixing melee were so far off the mark of what needed to be done that it's clear they never even understood what was wrong.

[Blisstake]

Hmm, to me it seems optimizers generally don't seem to like Pathfinder, while non-optimizers are often in favor of it. Is this a correct observation, or am I seeing things that aren't there?

One of the problems I had with 3.5, was that even if the party wizard or cleric wasn't trying to, they would end up more powerful than anyone else. In Pathfinder it seems that if everyone is just trying to make an interesting character, they will end up roughly equal, where if everyone is trying to optimize their characters, the spellcasters will still end up being better.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Hmm, to me it seems optimizers generally don't seem to like Pathfinder, while non-optimizers are often in favor of it. Is this a correct observation, or am I seeing things that aren't there?

One of the problems I had with 3.5, was that even if the party wizard or cleric wasn't trying to, they would end up more powerful than anyone else. In Pathfinder it seems that if everyone is just trying to make an interesting character, they will end up roughly equal, where if everyone is trying to optimize their characters, the spellcasters will still end up being better.

Not so much optimizers as people familiar with the system. If you know 3e inside and out, chances are you already have fixes for stuff you don't like, and chances are they work better for you than PF would. If you're the kind of player who likes beer-and-pretzels games and your group sticks to smashy/sneaky/blasty/healy parties, you might not have thought of any of PF's changes and might not be familiar with the wealth of material online and thus PF might actually be a benefit.

[Stone Heart]

*snip*
A common corollary is that the other martial changes in PF weren't actually helpful (tripping isn't as good anymore, the CMB/CMD system doesn't work, etc.), which, while one may disagree with that, is an argument that is made. "They changed PA, PF sucks" is really shorthand for saying "fighters came out with a net negative change, and PA is simply the most visible aspect of that."

You are not the first to bring it up, but I don't see what peoples problems are with the cmb/cmd system, people are saying that it does not work when it always works fine in the game I play in. Can someone please explain why people feel this way about it?


Also in relation to my last post, and the responses, that seems like something thats RAW more than RAI in my opinion. It looks like you are looking at the words too precisely IMO.

EDIT: I just looked at the exact wording again, I misunderstood what you said, now I get it nevermind that last part

[jmelesky]

Paizo's attempts at fixing melee were so far off the mark of what needed to be done that it's clear they never even understood what was wrong


"They changed PA, PF sucks" is really shorthand for saying "fighters came out with a net negative change, and PA is simply the most visible aspect of that."

Again, though, they tweaked more feats than just PA. Cleave, to cite another common example, explodes on hits, not on takedowns.

The added class features to Fighter, too. Granted, they're very fighter-y (giving bonuses or reducing penalties, rather than expanding options), but they're legitimate boosts to the class. And, even if they're otherwise useless, they open the class up for the archetypes in the APG.

In play, i've seen a net boost in the number of playable fighter builds, rather than a drop. Therefore, the fighter class was not nerfed.

(as an aside: would i have handled things differently? of course, and mostly around the combat maneuver feats. so i houserule. but i need fewer houserules to PF than to 3.5 to play the game i want to play.)


Also in relation to my last post, and the responses, that seems like something thats RAW more than RAI in my opinion. It looks like you are looking at the words too precisely IMO.

There was an official clarification on the Paizo messageboards supporting the RAW for Vital Strike. Which is a shame. I can see it being a worthwhile 3-feat chain if it were applicable to "attack" rather than "attack action", but as it stands it should probably be a single scaling feat.

Some argue it should be a class feature, but i think that limits availability too much.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

You are not the first to bring it up, but I don't see what peoples problems are with the cmb/cmd system, people are saying that it does not work when it always works fine in the game I play in. Can someone please explain why people feel this way about it?


Again, though, they tweaked more feats than just PA. Cleave, to cite another common example, explodes on hits, not on takedowns.

I'm not saying that I think all the PF martial changes are bad, I said that people who argue that they are tend to lump that under the "PA changed, PF sucks" umbrella because the underlying sentiment ("Stuff was nerfed that didn't need nerfing") is the same.

[Sucrose]

'Fightery' bonuses are exactly the bonuses that Fighters don't need. They have big enough numbers without issue, most of the time (though the PA modification has made that a bit more difficult to carry out, since in Pathfinder a high to-hit doesn't easily handle dealing adequate damage as well).

What melee classes need in combat, what Pathfinder does not provide, and what expanded material from the 3.5 library does are basically two things
-A way to be effective while mobile (Tome of Battle strikes, Dungeon Crashing, charge-whoring, utilizing something other than attack rolls (such as Intimidating), or getting your attacks via methods other than full-attacking, such as with an AoO build)
-ways to overcome non-numbers-based defenses (Mage Slayer, Darkstalker, racial flying, Pierce Magical Concealment, Hunter's Sense and Hearing the Air stances, and so on)

In fairness, Pathfinder does, to my knowledge, partially alleviate the 'Fighters can do nothing beyond combat' issue from 3.5, via the skill system modification (they do make all skills cost one point per rank, yes?). However, they still can't do much outside of combat that can't be done better by people who have the skills as class skills.

[subject42]

-A way to be effective while mobile (Tome of Battle strikes, Dungeon Crashing, charge-whoring, utilizing something other than attack rolls (such as Intimidating), or getting your attacks via methods other than full-attacking, such as with an AoO build)

While not as good as ToB, the Mobile Fighter (http://www.pathfindersrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter#TOC-Mobile-Fighter) takes steps to help out there.

[Sucrose]

While not as good as ToB, the Mobile Fighter (http://www.pathfindersrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter#TOC-Mobile-Fighter) takes steps to help out there.

Can't say I think much of that. You get a severely restricted version of Pounce at level 11, and, before that, a tiny bonus to your attacks on the move. You need better mobile efficacy long before level 11 (level 6 or so, I'd say), and even at level 11, giving up your first attack hurts pretty badly.

[FMArthur]

The Cleave feat is another example of strange decisions. I like that it's on a hit and not a death anymore, I really do, but it's a good example of something very common in Pathfinder: a modifier to the attack routine that requires its own particular action to do, in a bewildering attempt to prevent melee classes from building any combos whatsoever.

Oddly enough, PF Cleave/Great Cleave is pretty nearly Whirlwind Attack as a Standard action with better prerequisites, so while it's actually an example of something that came out cooler despite the special action nerfs PF hands out like candy, it's also an example of lack of design forethought in a system that has made nerfing all combat styles to be something approximating equality its game plan.


While not as good as ToB, the Mobile Fighter (http://www.pathfindersrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter#TOC-Mobile-Fighter) takes steps to help out there.
Wow. I knew they were off-base, but this is just disturbing. The ability to move and bring your main combat power to bear is a twentieth level capstone. Even just 11th level pounce would have been cringe-worthy in its lateness, and they've given you a nerfed version of it. An attack at -5 and -10 penalties is not worthwhile. At least TWF can use it because they get two full-BAB attacks, but this is not an example of good design or a way to restore faith in Pathfinder's idea of melee balance.

[The Glyphstone]

Can't say I think much of that. You get a severely restricted version of Pounce at level 11, and, before that, a tiny bonus to your attacks on the move. You need better mobile efficacy long before level 11 (level 6 or so, I'd say), and even at level 11, giving up your first attack hurts pretty badly.

I'd call it a buffed version of Spring Attack rather than a nerfed Pounce, myself. Note that it lets you attack at any time during the move. Still painful to lose that attack, though.

[Veyr]

The changes to the Paladin's Smite are just about the only changes in Pathfinder that I unreservedly like.

[Sucrose]

I'd call it a buffed version of Spring Attack rather than a nerfed Pounce, myself. Note that it lets you attack at any time during the move. Still painful to lose that attack, though.

Extremely. And it hurts yet more to play in the vast majority of most campaigns' level ranges without even that rather poor option available to you.

[jmelesky]

-A way to be effective while mobile (Tome of Battle strikes, Dungeon Crashing, charge-whoring, utilizing something other than attack rolls (such as Intimidating), or getting your attacks via methods other than full-attacking, such as with an AoO build)

As subject42 mentions, there's the Mobile Fighter archetype. There's also the Vital Strike feat chain (which probably doesn't do enough, but it's there), the Step Up feat chain (lets you follow 5-foot-steppers as an immediate action, setting you up for FA the following round), and the Critical feats (which stack effects onto confirmed criticals).

Is it enough? Debatable, certainly. Is it ToB? No, certainly not. Is it better than core 3.5? I say yes.


-ways to overcome non-numbers-based defenses (Mage Slayer, Darkstalker, racial flying, Pierce Magical Concealment, Hunter's Sense and Hearing the Air stances, and so on)

There's some lack there. Still, they made casting a bit harder generally. Concentration is no longer a skill, just a not-easily-boostable mechanic. They added the Disruptive feats (increase DCs for Concentration checks, gain an AoO against failed spellcasting).


In fairness, Pathfinder does, to my knowledge, partially alleviate the 'Fighters can do nothing beyond combat' issue from 3.5, via the skill system modification (they do make all skills cost one point per rank, yes?). However, they still can't do much outside of combat that can't be done better by people who have the skills as class skills

Yep. Skills are streamlined. No cross-class penalty. Class skills get a boost of 3 points (which persists if you multiclass). They did remove synergy bonuses, though.

On the flip side, Skill Focus scales a bit. 3 points at the start, 6 points if you have 10 ranks. Same with the two-skill feats (+2, +4 at 10 ranks).

But, ultimately, removing the cross-class penalty means that a Fighter 10 has a chance of Sneaking alongside her Rogue 10 companion. She won't be as good, but she won't be abominable, either.

[Blisstake]

Not so much optimizers as people familiar with the system. If you know 3e inside and out, chances are you already have fixes for stuff you don't like, and chances are they work better for you than PF would. If you're the kind of player who likes beer-and-pretzels games and your group sticks to smashy/sneaky/blasty/healy parties, you might not have thought of any of PF's changes and might not be familiar with the wealth of material online and thus PF might actually be a benefit.

Well, I knew the 3.5 system pretty well, but I could never find a good alternative for polymorph/shapeshift abilities, so I usually just banned them. I have to say I like the changes PF made to them, as well as toward a lot of other problems I had trouble balancing in the game.

Also, a lot of the changes I did make left a lot of my players unsatisfied, and thought I was picking on them specifically. They are more accepting of PF than my house-rules, mostly because it's a published system.

I do understand why a lot of people don't like it. I understand many of the changes don't make much sense, but overall I think Pathfinder is more beneficial to groups that don't powergame (not that there's anything wrong with optimization :smallsmile:)

[Sucrose]

As subject42 mentions, there's the Mobile Fighter archetype. There's also the Vital Strike feat chain (which probably doesn't do enough, but it's there), the Step Up feat chain (lets you follow 5-foot-steppers as an immediate action, setting you up for FA the following round), and the Critical feats (which stack effects onto confirmed criticals).

Is it enough? Debatable, certainly. Is it ToB? No, certainly not. Is it better than core 3.5? I say yes.



There's some lack there. Still, they made casting a bit harder generally. Concentration is no longer a skill, just a not-easily-boostable mechanic. They added the Disruptive feats (increase DCs for Concentration checks, gain an AoO against failed spellcasting).



Yep. Skills are streamlined. No cross-class penalty. Class skills get a boost of 3 points (which persists if you multiclass). They did remove synergy bonuses, though.

On the flip side, Skill Focus scales a bit. 3 points at the start, 6 points if you have 10 ranks. Same with the two-skill feats (+2, +4 at 10 ranks).

But, ultimately, removing the cross-class penalty means that a Fighter 10 has a chance of Sneaking alongside her Rogue 10 companion. She won't be as good, but she won't be abominable, either.

As I noted on the previous page, I do believe that Pathfinder is better than Core 3.5. That does not make it better than the entirety of 3.5 (as illustrated by my examples concerning Fighter-types), which means that moving from a reasonably-sized 3.5 library to just Pathfinder, as many Pathfinder advocates advise, and as would be necessary if one were to take advantage of any claimed improvements to the game's balance, is, overall, a downgrade.

The Step Up line only works once you're already closed, so it does pretty much nothing for actually being effective while moving.

The Critical line has about a 30% chance of affecting any given strike, if you put work into improving your crits, and since it's so difficult to get additional attacks on the move, that makes the Critical feats pretty unreliable.

I've covered the Mobile Fighter already, and you yourself have pointed out that Vital Strike isn't a worthwhile option.

Disruptive sounds like a strict downgrade to Mage Slayer, which flat-out disallows defensive casting. And I see nothing in there to overcome visual defenses, or phasing defenses, or additional movement modes, all of which are still available to casters.

Glad to hear that the better parts of the skill system modification are intact. Lack of synergy bonuses makes little sense, though, and I'd say that the specific example that you chose is pretty poor: the Fighter will be much worse at sneaking, due to differing stat focuses, and, at low levels, his likely-much-higher armor check penalty. He likely would be a reasonable guard, though, as well as a passable diplomat.

[Benly]

I like Pathfinder generally, but it has two big and tightly interrelated problems. The first is that they set out to fix 3.5 without actually having a good sense of what was broken, and this is the fundamental problem that "they nerfed Power Attack!" is gesturing at. For all the fixes they made that needed doing (Smite changes, Polymorph changes, Black Tentacles and Grease being marginally less win-button) they made "fixes" that indicate a severe incomprehension of the problems at hand (Power Attack nerf, fighter action muckery) while leaving egregious offenders alone (Time Stop, Planar Binding).

The other big problem that then comes into play to exacerbate this is hostility from the designers towards any criticism or discussion of their decisions on mechanical grounds. While I use their product, I can't bring myself to read the Paizo boards anymore because of that designer hostility.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Well, I knew the 3.5 system pretty well, but I could never find a good alternative for polymorph/shapeshift abilities, so I usually just banned them. I have to say I like the changes PF made to them, as well as toward a lot of other problems I had trouble balancing in the game.

Well, to look at polymorph specifically since you brought it up, PF polymorphing essentially grants a large disguise bonus, a moderate size bonuses to stats, a small natural armor bonus, and abilities off a certain list. Was that really all that innovative? Sure, the exact numbers and abilities to grant might take some fiddling, but the basic idea of making the transformation mostly fluff and granting stuff off a list has been done (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/dC21fDHZ4tK8n5OjUm9.html) before (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#wildShapeVariantAspectOfN ature), and for every good aspect of the change (druids can't dump Str now) there's a bad one (the fixed stat boosts by size and type are nonsensical).

It's nice that they added another fix to the list of umpty-bazillion fixes out there, but that's all it is, another fix, someone else's idea of what works better that still has plenty of problems. You could have sat down and written up your own fix, in fact, customized to your group's style--and no, the fact that PF did it for you doesn't make it a good fix to use, it makes it an easy fix to use.


Also, a lot of the changes I did make left a lot of my players unsatisfied, and thought I was picking on them specifically. They are more accepting of PF than my house-rules, mostly because it's a published system.

That seems like a player/DM trust issue more than a system issue, honestly, and it's just as much support for switching to PF as it is for switching to any other d20 variant.

[Blisstake]

No, it's just an argument against house rules being the answer for anything. I don't know how many published "fixes" there have been toward 3.5, but PF is the only one I'm familiar with, and has honestly worked the best for my group. I guess what I'm trying to say, is Pathfinder is a very useful system, but doesn't really work for many of the types that frequent this forum.

[peacenlove]

No, it's just an argument against house rules being the answer for anything. I don't know how many published "fixes" there have been toward 3.5, but PF is the only one I'm familiar with, and has honestly worked the best for my group. I guess what I'm trying to say, is Pathfinder is a very useful system, but doesn't really work for many of the types that frequent this forum.

These boards house many widely accepted projects that rival professional ones (A good starting point would be this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188341)). I myself have tested only a minuscule fraction of this work and I am generally satisfied of it.
Note that I am primarily a Dungeon Master and I make my duty to be up to date with anything I find interesting. No player of mine has examined anything found on this board and for them Pathfinder is a blessing.
I can guess this is the opinion of many veteran members here too.
Pathfinder is a great toolkit but it is only that. You pick the best tools (for me Paladin rewrite, sorcerer remake from which I envisioned my shadowcaster remake, skill system remake) and throw out the rest (60-70% of the feats, spells with expensive material components/longer than 1 round casting time, 3rd edition sacred cows etc. etc.)



Disruptive sounds like a strict downgrade to Mage Slayer, which flat-out disallows defensive casting. And I see nothing in there to overcome visual defenses, or phasing defenses, or additional movement modes, all of which are still available to casters.


Depends on the version of mageslayer you use. C.Arcane version is not so good because the caster knows he can't cast defensively (so he will proceed casting a swift action spell which does not provoke AoO), while Miniatures handbook one he doesn't.
Also Teleport tactician (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/teleport-tactician-combat) can handle teleportations of any kind if you get within threat range (and with combat patrol (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/combat-patrol-combat) it widens considerably)
Lastly the number of crunch material Paizo wrote does not hold a candle to the amount WotC wrote, so options will be more limited.

[Gnaeus]

and for every good aspect of the change (druids can't dump Str now) there's a bad one (the fixed stat boosts by size and type are nonsensical).

Actually, I like the fixed stat boosts by size & type. The nerfed version of Polymorph my group uses allows a certain amount of stat increases (8 points) distributed between Str/Con/Dex, and just being able to say "+4 str, +2 NA, attack forms by type" would save a ton of in-game cross referencing, not to mention the time it would save for our tank to just know what his "polymorphed" stats are, instead of having to recalculate them every time with different numbers.

I still don't like the change to personal range for most of the polymorph line of spells, tho.

[Sucrose]

These boards house many widely accepted projects that rival professional ones (A good starting point would be this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188341)). I myself have tested only a minuscule fraction of this work and I am generally satisfied of it.
Note that I am primarily a Dungeon Master and I make my duty to be up to date with anything I find interesting. No player of mine has examined anything found on this board and for them Pathfinder is a blessing.
I can guess this is the opinion of many veteran members here too.
Pathfinder is a great toolkit but it is only that. You pick the best tools (for me Paladin rewrite, sorcerer remake from which I envisioned my shadowcaster remake, skill system remake) and throw out the rest (60-70% of the feats, spells with expensive material components/longer than 1 round casting time, 3rd edition sacred cows etc. etc.)



Depends on the version of mageslayer you use. C.Arcane version is not so good because the caster knows he can't cast defensively (so he will proceed casting a swift action spell which does not provoke AoO), while Miniatures handbook one he doesn't.
Also Teleport tactician (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/teleport-tactician-combat) can handle teleportations of any kind if you get within threat range (and with combat patrol (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/combat-patrol-combat) it widens considerably)
Lastly the number of crunch material Paizo wrote does not hold a candle to the amount WotC wrote, so options will be more limited.

Last point first: this thread is about whether one should convert to Pathfinder, per the OP, so the defense of 'they've written less material' doesn't mean very much. Particularly when one 3.5 book does far more about melee-caster imbalance and fighting style imbalance than the whole of Pathfinder thus far, from what I've seen.

Teleport Tactician can only be gained at level 11 or higher, when tactical teleportation has been available to enemy casters since at least level 7, and defensive teleportation effects have been available to casters since level 5. It also does nothing about the other defensive measures that I have mentioned.

With Mage Slayer, if they opt for a swift action spell, then it's either a fairly weak effect, or a much lower level effect than said caster is normally capable of using. One cannot even cast Quickened spells prior to level 9, and even then, you're limiting them to first-level effects when they would otherwise be making use of fifth-level ones. And this assumes that the caster has any quickened spells that aren't for use as a booster to a follow-up spell, like Quickened True Strike and the like.

Combat Patrol requires three other feats (though one of them is actually half-decent), and requires that you be positioned exactly where you need to be at the beginning of the round, since, again, full-round-action, compounding the mobility issue.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Actually, I like the fixed stat boosts by size & type. The nerfed version of Polymorph my group uses allows a certain amount of stat increases (8 points) distributed between Str/Con/Dex, and just being able to say "+4 str, +2 NA, attack forms by type" would save a ton of in-game cross referencing, not to mention the time it would save for our tank to just know what his "polymorphed" stats are, instead of having to recalculate them every time with different numbers.

I still don't like the change to personal range for most of the polymorph line of spells, tho.

It's not the concept that's problematic, it's the flavor/mechanics disconnect caused by the specific values chosen. A dwarf turning into an elf gets +2 Str, as does an elf turning into a dwarf. Turning into a water elemental gets you a Con boost (and later on a smaller Str boost) despite the fact that its Str is higher than its Con. Really, if you're going to go with the "menu of abilities" option, go with the "menu of abilities" option. Something like an astral construct or the constructor's eidolon, where you can pick and choose to approximate what you want, would work better; otherwise, you have the issue of homogeneity in forms plus the issue of inconsistent variety for the sake of mechanical benefit (like the water elemental getting +Con to avoid duplicating the earth elemental).

[subject42]

Can't say I think much of that. You get a severely restricted version of Pounce at level 11, and, before that, a tiny bonus to your attacks on the move. You need better mobile efficacy long before level 11 (level 6 or so, I'd say), and even at level 11, giving up your first attack hurts pretty badly.

Out of curiosity, what capabilities would you suggest for a purely martial "fighter" archetype roughly at levels 1, 6, 11, 16, and 20?

I tend to use the Warblade and Crusader as the gold standard for that, but I'm assuming that Paizo would get sued into a fine powder if they tried to use anything that even resembled those mechanics.

[Veyr]

Out of curiosity, what capabilities would you suggest for a purely martial "fighter" archetype roughly at levels 1, 6, 11, 16, and 20?

I tend to use the Warblade and Crusader as the gold standard for that, but I'm assuming that Paizo would get sued into a fine powder if they tried to use anything that even resembled those mechanics.
Nope, most likely not. As long as they didn't use the words "iniatiate", "initiator", or maybe "boost", they'd probably have been fine. The concept of per-encounter abilities that can be recovered some way or another is neither unique to Tome of Battle nor, to the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge, copyrightable.

More likely they just didn't want to scare off potential customers; they're marketing PF largely at a population who doesn't like ToB, I'd think. Their desired customers, perhaps like they themselves, seems to be those who see no major problems with 3.5, do not recognize the Tier System, see nothing massively wrong with the Monk as is, etc. etc. The kind of person who might admit that the Fighter could use a bit of help, maybe, but denies that the class is in dire need of a complete overhaul.

For anyone for whom the Tiers are a meaningful concept that does affect your game, Pathfinder has extremely little to offer. Some rules changes are good, but few are good enough, and overall the total changes aren't so sufficient as to justify the cost of the core book. Mostly, that's kind of the point: it's largely still 3.5, with just enough change to have the appearance (and selling point) of improvement, without actually scaring off potential customers who aren't looking for change so much as new material.

I've heard, but haven't personally read, that their original material building on PF Core is notably better than their attempts to update the Core classes. So the Pathfinder system as a whole might be worth something, but the Core is not.

[navar100]

Regarding Vital Strike, i wouldn't mind it being three feats if it were applicable to a single attack per round (i.e. compatible with a full attack, spring attack, or any of the other fine combos out there).

As it is, i'm inclined to houserule it a single feat that progresses.

??

According to my book, Vital Strike's only prerequisite is BAB +6.

[Sucrose]

Out of curiosity, what capabilities would you suggest for a purely martial "fighter" archetype roughly at levels 1, 6, 11, 16, and 20?

I tend to use the Warblade and Crusader as the gold standard for that, but I'm assuming that Paizo would get sued into a fine powder if they tried to use anything that even resembled those mechanics.

I imagine that they couldn't use the maneuver system, but they should've looked at what capabilities Warblades and Crusaders gained through the maneuver system, and built a few of them into their own martial classes: most notably a decent mobile option, and the way that one can use multiple tricks without devoting a substantial portion of one's build toward it (Whirlwind Attack, I'm looking at you).

As for minimum general abilities, I'd put it about like this:

Note: Some of these abilities can be acquired through gear, but at least the majority of these things should be available to one's character innately.

Level 1: Full BAB, Martial Weapon Proficiency in your weapon of choice, at least some armor, ability to do at least about ten damage on an average sword swing. Battlefield control optional.

Level 6: As level 1, as well as an effective mobile option of some sort (level 2 Tome of Battle strikes, pounce through some method or another, or maybe free movement to get full attacks that way). A bit of battlefield control is good to have here as well. Begin accumulation of anti-spell-defense effects. Damage per swing on a normal full attack should be at least around 20.

Level 11: As level 6, plus flight/highly effective ranged attacks, and ways to pierce common magical defenses. Battlefield control weakens, as many enemies begin to have ways around it. Damage per swing should double once more

Level 16 & Level 20: As level 11, plus highly effective debuffs, or sufficient damage to grievously wound pretty much any given enemy. Good saves, and hopefully some way of avoiding being flatfooted.

These are the general abilities that I feel are the bare minimum for keeping up with CR-appropriate foes. Even then, I may have put acquisition of flight at too late a level. I'd say that the latest one should really aim to pick up some sort of flight method would be around level 8.

[Lonely Tylenol]

As a DM, the Pathfinder system is much easier to use, so when I decided to craft my first campaign, I used Pathfinder as the system it was based around...

...Unfortunately, since Pathfinder is, right now, only a core game (unless you count the new Ultimate Magic book), the options for Human-based characters are very limited. If you want to go by-the-book on NPC/enemy creation, you don't have much to work with, and often can't even create the type of character that you want. That annoyed me. When I tried adapting 3.5 books to the Pathfinder system, I either wound up with a long list of confusing class features or just a lot of unnecessary work reconciling everything.

I guess my main complaint with the system, as somebody who has tried to write a campaign around it, is: Core for Core, Pathfinder is better than 3.5, but when you consider the systems in their totality, 3.5 has so many more options for customization and creation that literally anything can be done the way you want it--something that, unfortunately, Pathfinder just can't boast right now.

[MeeposFire]

I imagine that they couldn't use the maneuver system, but they should've looked at what capabilities Warblades and Crusaders gained through the maneuver system, and built a few of them into their own martial classes: most notably a decent mobile option, and the way that one can use multiple tricks without devoting a substantial portion of one's build toward it (Whirlwind Attack, I'm looking at you).

As for minimum general abilities, I'd put it about like this:

Note: Some of these abilities can be acquired through gear, but at least the majority of these things should be available to one's character innately.

Level 1: Full BAB, Martial Weapon Proficiency in your weapon of choice, at least some armor, ability to do at least about ten damage on an average sword swing. Battlefield control optional.

Level 6: As level 1, as well as an effective mobile option of some sort (level 2 Tome of Battle strikes, pounce through some method or another, or maybe free movement to get full attacks that way). A bit of battlefield control is good to have here as well. Begin accumulation of anti-spell-defense effects. Damage per swing on a normal full attack should be at least around 20.

Level 11: As level 6, plus flight and ways to pierce common magical defenses. Battlefield control weakens, as many enemies begin to have ways around it. Damage per swing should double once more

Level 16 & Level 20: As level 11, plus highly effective debuffs, or sufficient damage to grievously wound pretty much any given enemy. Good saves, and hopefully some way of avoiding being flatfooted.

These are the general abilities that I feel are the bare minimum for keeping up with CR-appropriate foes.

I have been trying to think of a quick and dirty fix for warrior classes on an attack action and my idea was +1d6 for every point of BAB over 5. So at BAB 20 you would deal weapon+15d6 on an attack action. Nearly at ToB levels but not quite and is usable and intuitive. Just a kernal of thought and I am still mulling it over. Now if PF did something like that they would get a lot more respect from me.

[The Glyphstone]

I have been trying to think of a quick and dirty fix for warrior classes on an attack action and my idea was +1d6 for every point of BAB over 5. So at BAB 20 you would deal weapon+15d6 on an attack action. Nearly at ToB levels but not quite and is usable and intuitive. Just a kernal of thought and I am still mulling it over. Now if PF did something like that they would get a lot more respect from me.

See, that's not the issue. Warriors can do oodles of damage - a well-built barbarian can do vastly more damage than any ToB character. The problem is options and flexibility, as highlighted above. Warriors hit things, but that's the only thing they can do, and there are too many ways to keep them from doing it.

[MeeposFire]

See, that's not the issue. Warriors can do oodles of damage - a well-built barbarian can do vastly more damage than any ToB character. The problem is options and flexibility, as highlighted above. Warriors hit things, but that's the only thing they can do, and there are too many ways to keep them from doing it.

It is an issue because that is for an attack action which is one of the metrics for ToB's awesomeness. That extra damage allows warriors to attack on the go while doing more acceptable damage. It is not the only thing I would change but all classes need decent standard actions and this is one way to do it without creating a subsystem.

[Sucrose]

See, that's not the issue. Warriors can do oodles of damage - a well-built barbarian can do vastly more damage than any ToB character. The problem is options and flexibility, as highlighted above. Warriors hit things, but that's the only thing they can do, and there are too many ways to keep them from doing it.

As Meepo says, this method would permit warrior types to begin dealing decent damage while moving, which is fairly important, if not the only issue that needs to be dealt with.

However, I think that it doesn't have enough effect at the levels where it is acquired. I'd advise something like permitting a standard action attack to deal damage equal to 1/2 your BAB (rounded down). Maybe at BAB 9 or so, such a standard action attack deals double damage (doubling the extra dice along with the other bonuses).

Also, such a fix should work with Spring Attack, and the first attack of a charge.

[jmelesky]

??

According to my book, Vital Strike's only prerequisite is BAB +6.

There are three Vital Strike feats (Improved and Greater are available when you get your third and fourth attacks, respectively). They bump damage up in linear order (2 x weapon for Vital Strike, 3x for Improved, 4x Greater).

If they were applicable to attacks, rather than attack actions, i'd be fine with them being three separate feats. If applicable just to attack actions, i think a single feat which scaled with your BAB (up to 3x when you hit +11, 4x at +16) makes more sense.

[MeeposFire]

As Meepo says, this method would permit warrior types to begin dealing decent damage while moving, which is fairly important, if not the only issue that needs to be dealt with.

However, I think that it doesn't have enough effect at the levels where it is acquired. I'd advise something like permitting a standard action attack to deal damage equal to 1/2 your BAB (rounded down). Maybe at BAB 9 or so, such a standard action attack deals double damage (doubling the extra dice along with the other bonuses).

Also, such a fix should work with Spring Attack, and the first attack of a charge.

In 3.5 it does work with spring attack and charges I am thinking of only making it work with charges that lack pounce. Also I forgot to say it only applies to the first attack on your turn in case you get multiple attacks (and so it does not work with AoOs). Yea the damage bonus and formula are still in the air but I think it is good start (sometimes I think the damage should be based on the attack dice).

[The Glyphstone]

There are three Vital Strike feats (Improved and Greater are available when you get your third and fourth attacks, respectively). They bump damage up in linear order (2 x weapon for Vital Strike, 3x for Improved, 4x Greater).

If they were applicable to attacks, rather than attack actions, i'd be fine with them being three separate feats. If applicable just to attack actions, i think a single feat which scaled with your BAB (up to 3x when you hit +11, 4x at +16) makes more sense.

Or, maybe they could scale like TWF - Vital Strike would scale with your BAB like said, but only for your first attack/round, Improved Vital Strike would let you do it two/round, Greater Vital Strike would let you do it 3/round.

[jmelesky]

Or, maybe they could scale like TWF - Vital Strike would scale with your BAB like said, but only for your first attack/round, Improved Vital Strike would let you do it two/round, Greater Vital Strike would let you do it 3/round.

Since, as written, they only apply to the attack action (standard action, single attack) (and thus can't be applied to full attack actions, or the attack during PF's Spring Attack), that would be a major change, basically expanding the standard action to perform multiple attacks.

I'm not opposed to that result, but i don't think it's the right way to get there: if it's a feat (or feat chain), it becomes a "take this or lose" feat for melee attackers.

I'd prefer a class feature (or a simple mechanics change that applies to BAB generally) in that situation.

[The Glyphstone]

Since, as written, they only apply to the attack action (standard action, single attack) (and thus can't be applied to full attack actions, or the attack during PF's Spring Attack), that would be a major change, basically expanding the standard action to perform multiple attacks.

I'm not opposed to that result, but i don't think it's the right way to get there: if it's a feat (or feat chain), it becomes a "take this or lose" feat for melee attackers.

I'd prefer a class feature (or a simple mechanics change that applies to BAB generally) in that situation.

I guess you'd need to reword it then - the Improved and Greater versions wouldn't allow multiple attacks as a standard action, they'd allow the Vital Strike bonus to apply during a full attack (whose restrictions would still apply as normal).

[Seerow]

Or, maybe they could scale like TWF - Vital Strike would scale with your BAB like said, but only for your first attack/round, Improved Vital Strike would let you do it two/round, Greater Vital Strike would let you do it 3/round.

That would make the feats better, but does so by ignoring what the feats are supposed to do.

Currently, Vital Strike is a means to help melee with poor mobility, allowing them to make their standard action attack hit harder, so they can move and get a strong hit in at the end, without the need for a full attack or charge.

What you propose makes Vital Strike, just like everything else, require a full attack to take full advantage of. This completely ignores the point of the feat and turns it into yet another damage increase for a full attack, which isn't needed.

[The Glyphstone]

That would make the feats better, but does so by ignoring what the feats are supposed to do.

Currently, Vital Strike is a means to help melee with poor mobility, allowing them to make their standard action attack hit harder, so they can move and get a strong hit in at the end, without the need for a full attack or charge.

What you propose makes Vital Strike, just like everything else, require a full attack to take full advantage of. This completely ignores the point of the feat and turns it into yet another damage increase for a full attack, which isn't needed.

No...I'm proposing that Vital Strike by itself would function on a standard or full attack - it doesn't matter, so long as it's only the first attack you make in a round. The followup feats would expand the bonus damage to function on a full attack, but Vital Strike itself would still work even if you moved.

Vital Strike: If you make only one or less attack during your turn, add 1d6*BAB to the damage you deal on a successful hit.
Improved Vital Strike: If you make only two or less attacks during your turn, add 1d6*BAB to the damage you deal on a successful hit. This does not stack with Vital Strike.
Greater Vital Strike: If you make only three or less attacks during your turn, add 1d6*BAB to the damage you deal on a successful hit. This does not stack with Vital Strike or Improved Vital Strike.
Superior Vital Strike: Blah blah four or less blah does not stack blah.

This would in fact prevent Vital strike from being used during a full attack unless you had the followup feats, preserving its niche as a standard-attack booster.

[Seerow]

No...I'm proposing that Vital Strike by itself would function on a standard or full attack - it doesn't matter, so long as it's only the first attack you make in a round. The followup feats would expand the bonus damage to function on a full attack, but Vital Strike itself would still work even if you moved.

Vital Strike: If you make only one or less attack during your turn, add 1d6*BAB to the damage you deal on a successful hit.
Improved Vital Strike: If you make only two or less attacks during your turn, add 1d6*BAB to the damage you deal on a successful hit. This does not stack with Vital Strike.
Greater Vital Strike: If you make only three or less attacks during your turn, add 1d6*BAB to the damage you deal on a successful hit. This does not stack with Vital Strike or Improved Vital Strike.
Superior Vital Strike: Blah blah four or less blah does not stack blah.

This would in fact prevent Vital strike from being used during a full attack unless you had the followup feats, preserving its niche as a standard-attack booster.

But the question is, why have the followup feats at all? Why let it work at all with multiple attacks? I mean, only the first feat would help on a standard action attack at all (though it seems like that bonus scales better than the current vital strike which is nice), but even granting the option to pick up more feats to be able to use it as a part of a full attack IMO goes against the spirit of the feat.

I'd personally say just have that first feat, and don't even introduce the others. Leave it as exclusively a one attack benefit.

[The Glyphstone]

Fair enough.

[Boci]

I'd personally say just have that first feat, and don't even introduce the others. Leave it as exclusively a one attack benefit.

The question then becomes, would a fighter not focusing on mobility take it as a just incase feat. If the asnwer is almost always then its too powerful, but I doubt that would be the case.

[The Glyphstone]

The question then becomes, would a fighter not focusing on mobility take it as a just incase feat. If the asnwer is almost always then its too powerful, but I doubt that would be the case.

A fighter focusing on mobility is going to have tremendous damage output problems without it, so I wouldn't call it too powerful so much as minimal power needed. Now, if it pumps the average damage/round of a single-attacking fighter above a full-attacking fighter, that would be too powerful.

[Boci]

A fighter focusing on mobility is going to have tremendous damage output problems without it, so I wouldn't call it too powerful so much as minimal power needed. Now, if it pumps the average damage/round of a single-attacking fighter above a full-attacking fighter, that would be too powerful.

I meant more "would a full attacking fighter take such a feat (if it scalled automatically".

[The Glyphstone]

I meant more "would a full attacking fighter take such a feat (if it scalled automatically".

Even a full attacking fighter would probably want the feat, because it allows him to remain competitive in situations where he can't use his full attack. Though considering the number of feats fighters get, especially in PF, I wouldn't consider an 'always take' feat to be overpowered...they still run out of useful options pretty fast.

[subject42]

Based on the PFSRD, let's see what we can accomplish to compare. From what I can tell, it looks like the fighter doesn't completely fall apart until level 10 - 12, but then we start hitting problems in PF.

If we're lucky, maybe Ultimate Combat will help a little.



Level 1: Full BAB, Martial Weapon Proficiency in your weapon of choice, at least some armor, ability to do at least about ten damage on an average sword swing. Battlefield control optional.

Fighter 1:
Martial weapons proficiency - Check
Armor proficiency - Check
10 damage per swing: If two handed, you can get that with 14 STR and an earthbreaker hammer, but you'll need 20 STR to manage it with a longsword. That kind of STR is possible in PF -Maybe check?


Level 6: As level 1, as well as an effective mobile option of some sort (level 2 Tome of Battle strikes, pounce through some method or another, or maybe free movement to get full attacks that way). A bit of battlefield control is good to have here as well. Begin accumulation of anti-spell-defense effects. Damage per swing on a normal full attack should be at least around 20.

Fighter 6:
Damage Per Attack: +1 Earthbreaker Hammer + Power Attack + 18 STR + Weapon training can do this, but a longsword is falling behind because of the PF improved bonus from Power attack on two-handed weapons. - Half a check

Mobility: Pathfinder kind of falls on its face here. Things like Rhino charge, step up, and sidestep look like they might do some good, but are kind of underwhelming when you actually read the mechanics. Wind stance intrigues me, though. - Failure

Battlefield Control: About as good as core 3.5, if not a little better due to some of the setting stuff that's in the SRD. Weapon bonuses applying to maneuvers if the weapon has that maneuver quality is nice: it means that enhancements and fighter weapon training is starting to pay off. A fighter with improved trip, 20 STR, and a tripping +1 weapon will be putting a Xorn on the ground 55 ~ 60% of the time. Additionally, you can start getting access to stuff like Dazzling Display to do some demoralizing. - Mostly check

Anti-spell effects: Well, there's disruptive. Yeah, I've got nothing here. - Failure



Level 11: As level 6, plus flight/highly effective ranged attacks, and ways to pierce common magical defenses. Battlefield control weakens, as many enemies begin to have ways around it. Damage per swing should double once more


Things are totally starting to break down.

Flight: Fighters can use mighty bows + weapon training to pretend that they aren't useless, but damage doesn't keep up well. Oddly enough, a monk can handle some of the flight problem with the Cloud Step feat. - Largely a failure

Damage: Now we're starting to have trouble keeping up with your per-swing metric. Damage sources aren't scaling as quickly as necessary to meet this requirement. A Paladin (or maybe a THF Ranger) could probably manage it, but not a Fighter. - Failure



Level 16 & Level 20: As level 11, plus highly effective debuffs, or sufficient damage to grievously wound pretty much any given enemy. Good saves, and hopefully some way of avoiding being flatfooted.


If you burn three feats and have high Charisma, you can get flight at this level. In all other respects, I think the fighter is probably dead by now.

[MeeposFire]

I meant more "would a full attacking fighter take such a feat (if it scalled automatically".

He would if he was wise since being unable to contribute on a standard action is a common problem with most warrior classes. Further even with the scaling a warrior still wants to make a full attack since in most cases the extra attacks should be better than one attack with a large damage bonus (especially if you are hasted and the like).

[Doug Lampert]

Even a full attacking fighter would probably want the feat, because it allows him to remain competitive in situations where he can't use his full attack. Though considering the number of feats fighters get, especially in PF, I wouldn't consider an 'always take' feat to be overpowered...they still run out of useful options pretty fast.

Especially in Pathfinder? People sure are impressed by three extra feats added onto a chasis which gets 18 or 19 to start with.

Add six levels to a PF fighter, and he gets 6 more feats, add six levels to a 3.x fighter and he gets 5 more feats. That's not a big difference, especially when PF has split a bunch of feats in two and keeps telling us "it doesn't matter, because you get more feats".

If a PF fighter has both halves of one of the split in two feats at level 6, then he's behind the 3.x fighter. If a PF figher has both halves of two of the split in two feats at level 12 then he's behind the 3.x fighter. If a PF fighter has both halves of three of the split in two feats at level 18 then he's behind the 3.x fighter.

Since Combat Manuvers are one of the more heralded "improvements" in PF, I assume you are planning to take some of the CM improving feats, and that means you more than likely have FEWER spare feats than a 3.x pure fighter.

DougL

[The Glyphstone]

What are you talking about? Everything related to CM was an unfettered disaster - PF did good things, but that's one place they really dropped the ball.

[Rejakor]

Arena style class vs class means sweet crap all in terms of 'balance'. What people mean when they say 'balance' is 'what kind of challenges can the class defeat? How good is it at defeating those challenges?' This includes all kinds of challenges, like social, research, combat, all different kinds of combat, exploration, traps, blah.

The reason people say melee is worse in PF is that some of the options that could put melee up to nearly unoptimized caster level (ubercharging, lockdown, blender) have pretty much been removed (blender is still in there, but it's nerfed a touch and some of the things that made it good you can't do like martial rogue + swashbuckler daring outlaw) and while some good caster spells have been nerfed, most of them haven't been, and the base sorcerer and wizard class have been buffed considerably. So they still have win spells, and now they have more hp and free feats and class abilities that don't cost them anything.

Worse, a lot of the options in 3.5 that make melee good either work differently in pathfinder (tripping) or have been reprinted in pathfinder (power attack) to work differently/worse, making melee even less viable than before (and trust me, in any game where the wizard used colour spray instead of magic missile, and levitate instead of animate rope, it wasn't very viable to begin with).