Pathfinder - Did it fix ANYTHING?

[Lord_Gareth]

I ask this in earnest; Paizo claimed (and continues to claim) that Pathfinder solved many of the problems evident in 3.5 with party balance, especially against CR appropriate monsters. With that in mind, I'd like to propose a simple thought exercise for those familiar with Pathfinder so I can try to get this straight in my head:

- In this corner, we have an Erinyes straight from the Beastiary, jank feat choices and all. Our intrepid heroes will fight her in a dungeon with ten foot ceilings but plenty of corners, side rooms and doors, as well as on an open grassy field, in the streets of a city, and in a thick forest with tall trees - classic fantasy environments, in other words.

- And in this corner, we have a four-man party! They should be able to take on 4 of these ladies a day, in theory, and for the sake of easy use we'll say we have a Cleric, a Rogue, a Wizard or Sorcerer, and a Fighter. Replace the Fighter with a Barbarian, a Ranger, and a Paladin once each per battlefield so we've run them all through this one fight on all the battlefields.

My question to you is this: are the melee classes contributing anything to this fight, or are they doing what they always did starting at about level eight - slashing their wrists and sobbing while the spellcasters establish their dominance once and for all?

[WarKitty]

Pathfinder addressed a fair set of minor problems. They did not, however, do anything about the linear warriors quadratic wizards problem. The warriors are still dependent on magic items to keep up in effectiveness, and even that tapers off as the casters get more powerful. Pathfinder is pretty much 3.5 in that regard.

[Drachasor]

From what I've seen looking over PF, it doesn't seem to really solve the main problems. Fighters look to still be fairly inflexible (especially out of combat), casters are highly flexible (yet wizards still suffer greatly at low levels), etc, etc. Sure, fighters are a bit more powerful and slightly more flexible in combat (potentially) other classes have boosts, but singular power doesn't fix the problem, imho.

When looking over the spells, it didn't seem like they were modified much either. So yeah, seems like casters still dominate. Fighters and such are probably Tier 4 (up from 5) though.

That's my impression anyhow. I admit there are a ton of feats, so there could be something I am missing there.

[Blisstake]

Oh look, one of these threads again.

Well, I always find that first you have to ask "What needed fixing in 3.5?" I am not going to pretend to understand Paizo's design goals, but I don't believe that their goal was making fighters and rogues capable of doing everything a caster can. The fighting classes will still rely on magic to accomplish their goals (in terms of their gear and having magical buffs put on them), but unless they are in a very heavily optimized group, they should still feel like they are contributing a lot to the group.

Now, this is definitely a factor of how your group plays. As I often say, there isn't a right way to play Dungeons and Dragons. But I have run a number of Pathfinder and 3.5 games (I've had both go up to level 20), and in the Pathfinder games, I've never had a fighting character feel that they couldn't contribute to the group. With support from the casters, or sometimes even on their own (not every enemy is flying or invisible), the fighters would be able to dish out the majority of the damage in encounters, while the casters focued on buffing and control spells, but never individually being able to end encounters.

So what did Pathfinder change, then, that I find helped fighting-oriented characters manage to feel competent? I think it could have been one or more of the following.

1. More choice in character creation. While there are certainly some options that will be more powerful than others in Pathfinder, there appears to be a variety of builds one can use to be successful. In 3.5, it was an obvious choice that a warblade was a better option than a fighter. If you wanted to be a non-ToB melee class, it seemed like the only options were uber-charging or trip-focusing. Being someone who doesn't even know what Shock Trooper does or where it's found (only that it seems to be a mandatory feat), I really wasn't able to build any competing core fighters.

2. Altered spells. Some problematic spells have been altered so that they aren't completely overpowering. Yes, I know that PF spells can still be abused, but it certainly seemed like the amount of stuff a GM has to look out for has been reduced (no more polymorph shenanigans, solar-gating, celerity, divine metamagic, shivering touch or the like).

3. More powerful fighting classes. At some times (in the case of the fighter class especially), the buffs given to them feel like nothing really changed with them. However, when combined with what I feel are better and more balanced feat options (yes, I actually like PF power attack), I've seen a noticiable increase on the effect a fighting-class can have on the battlefield.

So is Pathfinder the perfect solution to 3.5's problems? Hell no. It has flaws (big ones), but that's to be expected for any game system. However, with my gaming group (and with the way we play D&D), Pathfinder has made successful changes to overall gameplay that allows even the fighters to feel like they're being useful in combat. I can easily see how Pathfinder would be nearly useless for some gaming groups, and I definitely see where people are coming from when they oppose most of the changes PF made. It all depends on what we feel was broken in 3.5, and what we, personally, felt needed to be changed.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The general answer to your title question is "yes, but not enough." Generally, low level spells got nerfed, but higher level ones got untouched. Glitterdust and Divine Power aren't that good now, but Gate and Miracle still work basically the same. Weird, I know, but understandable, if most play is seen at low levels.

With all the new content, there is a good spread of 2/3 casters: Bard, Summoner, Inquisitor, and Magus, with all their different archetypes, can cover a lot of ground. Also note that they're all T3. You can quite easily have a T3 party in a low op group without anyone having too high of an optimization floor (ToB).

[Lord_Gareth]

Oh look, one of these threads again.

To be fair, I started this thread because I bought Pathfinder material a few months back under the impression that Paizo's frequent claims of having fixed 3.5 were true. I want to make sure that my response of, "LIES! TREACHERY! BURN THE HERETICS!" is not entirely unwarranted.


1. More choice in character creation. While there are certainly some options that will be more powerful than others in Pathfinder, there appears to be a variety of builds one can use to be successful. In 3.5, it was an obvious choice that a warblade was a better option than a fighter. If you wanted to be a non-ToB melee class, it seemed like the only options were uber-charging or trip-focusing. Being someone who doesn't even know what Shock Trooper does or where it's found (only that it seems to be a mandatory feat), I really wasn't able to build any competing core fighters.

The phrase you're actually looking for is "more traps in character creation." The vast majority of feat options Paizo offered to non-casters are either useless or actively harmful/detrimental to take, and then they went and further nerfed or axed old saws that permitted melee to contribute in its one defined role - raw damage. Sure, it has a few other roles (like lockdown) but those have issues of their own.


2. Altered spells. Some problematic spells have been altered so that they aren't completely overpowering. Yes, I know that PF spells can still be abused, but it certainly seemed like the amount of stuff a GM has to look out for has been reduced (no more polymorph shenanigans, solar-gating, celerity, divine metamagic, shivering touch or the like)

Gate didn't get fixed. Celerity and DMM were never necessary for spellcaster dominance, just insult to injury - same with Shivering Touch. Polymorph was the only core spell list they even remotely touched and that did NOTHING to solve the issues of non-AC defenses (and with no more Mage Slayer, those are now king of the heap again), blinking/ethereal attacks, SoL's, SoD's and the various and sundry other core-only horrific rape devices that target the weak saves of both melee characters AND melee monsters - monsters which are likely to significantly out-class party melee.


3. More powerful fighting classes. At some times (in the case of the fighter class especially), the buffs given to them feel like nothing really changed with them. However, when combined with what I feel are better and more balanced feat options (yes, I actually like PF power attack), I've seen a noticiable increase on the effect a fighting-class can have on the battlefield

HP damage is literally hilarious sub-optimal; Power Attack is actually touted pretty heavily in the homebrew community as a well-balanced example of the kinds of trade-offs feats should offer. It was also one of the few nice things non-ToB melee got, which then died a slow gurgling death. The other feats are covered above, but let me re-iterate this - Paizo made it not only easy, but attractive-looking to blunder into a completely and utterly useless build in addition to providing phantom "buffs" for the fighting classes that literally did nothing to address ANY of their problems, from mind control monsters all the way to inferior damage output.

In short, Paizo lied to me and stole my money, and I'm seeking validation for my rage.

[HunterOfJello]

I think it would be good to also analyze a few of the other classes introduced in the Pathfinder system. There seem to be a number of interesting Bard-style classes that were added in including the Inquisitor, Magus, Summoner, and possibly the Alchemist (I haven't read through that class properly yet). Partial spellcasting classes that get 1st through 6th level spells were sadly missing from 3.5e other than the Bard, which I've found a shame for a long time now.

I don't have much experience with the Pathfinder system itself, but I do really like their inclusion of bard-esque classes, smoother prestige classes, and their 4e style race setup (no racial penalties! yay!). I'm sure others may disagree with me on some of these points.

~

From my journeyman's point of view, Pathfinder seems like a smoother version of d&d than 3.5e was. It looks like it could be more fun for several reasons, but I can't make the claim that it is for any specific ones since I haven't played a game of it.

[Ranos]

Yep, if you were expecting them to "fix" the class disparity in 3.5, you lost your money.
To be fair, there's an SRD right there on the net for everyone to see, so it's not like they're hiding it.

[Bhaakon]

In short, Paizo lied to me and stole my money, and I'm seeking validation for my rage.

I'm not going to pretend that Pathfinder is perfectly balanced, or even anything more than a marginal improvement, but they most certainly did not steal your money. Virtually their entire rule set is available free and legally on the internet; you should have tried it before buying.

[Sir Homeslice]

(no racial penalties! yay!)

There are racial penalties.

[Togath]

Yep, if you were expecting them to "fix" the class disparity in 3.5, you lost your money.
To be fair, there's an SRD right there on the net for everyone to see, so it's not like they're hiding it.
The pathfinder SRD even has a few creatures, items, and spells from some of their adventure modules, along with most of the classes they have introduced to PF(again, including non core ones as has been stated)

[Curious]

The way I look at Pathfinder is basically as a continuation of 3.5. It streamlines the game a little, evens out some rough patches, but it is essentially the same thing. And I'm okay with that. It keeps the game alive and provides further splat-book support, which is exactly what I want. So, I'm happy with Pathfinder.

[HunterOfJello]

There are racial penalties.

oh yeah, i forgot about that

correction: Better bonuses when racial penalties happen to be present! Yay!

[LordBlades]

I'd go as far as to say that Pathfinder is largely more imbalanced than 3.5. The casters got a very slight nerf on some spells, but are largely as powerful as in 3.5 past lower levels. Melee on the other hand had it's only competitive trick nerfed into the ground (ubercharging) and there's no Tome of Battle.

[Drachasor]

I'd go as far as to say that Pathfinder is largely more imbalanced than 3.5. The casters got a very slight nerf on some spells, but are largely as powerful as in 3.5 past lower levels. Melee on the other hand had it's only competitive trick nerfed into the ground (ubercharging) and there's no Tome of Battle.

I'd also like to point out that some casters (like wizards, sorcerers) definitely need buffs at very low levels, but this is seldom addressed and certainly not by Pathfinder.

[Ranos]

I'd also like to point out that some casters (like wizards, sorcerers) definitely need buffs at very low levels, but this is seldom addressed and certainly not by Pathfinder.
Actually, wizards and sorcerers had an HP buff, and there's that whole favored class thing that can give them even more. They're not quite as squishy at level 1 as they were in 3.5, and they can still end encounters with a well placed spell.

[Lord_Gareth]

Actually, wizards and sorcerers had an HP buff, and there's that whole favored class thing that can give them even more. They're not quite as squishy at level 1 as they were in 3.5, and they can still end encounters with a well placed spell.

Agreed. I've played plenty of low-level casters, and they didn't need jack.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder addressed a fair set of minor problems. They did not, however, do anything about the linear warriors quadratic wizards problem. The warriors are still dependent on magic items to keep up in effectiveness, and even that tapers off as the casters get more powerful. Pathfinder is pretty much 3.5 in that regard.

Whether this is a "problem" is really up to personal preference. In my mind, the folks who can rewrite reality by thinking about it should necessarily be more powerful than the folks who just hit things really hard.

D&D is the ultimate nerd fantasy - the folks who are book-smart and understand the system underlying existence have an inherent advantage over the jocks. Mess with that, and it's not really D&D anymore as far as I'm concerned. (Or Pathfinder.)

Being an archwizard is basically like being those guys who founded Google, only with guano instead of a search algorithm.

[Drachasor]

Actually, wizards and sorcerers had an HP buff, and there's that whole favored class thing that can give them even more. They're not quite as squishy at level 1 as they were in 3.5, and they can still end encounters with a well placed spell.

I'm not talking about health (though yeah, that's a mess too in 3.x). Doesn't it strike you as pretty poor design for casters to be so binary the first few levels? They are dependent on having an overpowered spell, and if that happens to fail (say the enemies make their saves), then they can either do almost nothing or risk being even more useless in later combats by expending more of their magic. To say nothing of the fact that overpowered spells at low levels typically don't work against a number of kinds of creatures.

Then further compare it to the fact there are many low level spells that if a caster could use AT WILL, it wouldn't be broken.

So yeah, low level casters are a mess.

[tyckspoon]

Whether this is a "problem" is really up to personal preference. In my mind, the folks who can rewrite reality by thinking about it should necessarily be more powerful than the folks who just hit things really hard.


Which is fine if your game communicates this fact to the player and is built around that concept. Everything in 3.5/Pathfinder says the Wizard and the Fighter are supposed to be equal- they take the same XP to hit the same level, they get an equal share of loot and experience, they are accorded the same value (officially) when determining what ELs the party should be able to handle. If the mechanics do not support that basic assumption, then yes, it is a flaw in the game's design, and if you're claiming to 'fix' 3.5 you need to address it in some mixture of strengthening the weak classes, bringing down the spellcasters, or just rewriting the system assumptions and player advice so they reflect how the system actually works.

[Lord_Gareth]

And at low levels if the melee misses his axe swing the orc's return axe swing has an incredibly high chance of straight-up one-shotting him. Low levels are swingy; that's the consequence of being low level.

[Greenish]

1. More choice in character creation.More than 3.5? Not yet, at least. Granted, PF core isn't (quite) as horrid and sucky as 3.5 core, but 3.5 has a million splats.

[Drachasor]

And at low levels if the melee misses his axe swing the orc's return axe swing has an incredibly high chance of straight-up one-shotting him. Low levels are swingy; that's the consequence of being low level.

That has more to do with how problematic Orcs as written are than anything else.

[Lord_Gareth]

That has more to do with how problematic Orcs as written are than anything else.

Replace 'orc' with 'goblin archers', 'fetid fungi', 'wolves' or any other CR 1 monster and the statement remains true. Low levels are swingy - mages happen to be slightly more swingy. This is not a problem with the encounter-ending mages.

[Safety Sword]

{Scrubbed}

[Kuma Da]

Oh, this thread. It is a good thread.

I like the thread called "Pathfinder: is it still totally fun?" That is a thread that should also exist.

[Anderlith]

Why aren't the melee classes throwing grappling hooks & such, bringing the things down & cutting them to pieces?

Or in the least have a prepped action to take a swing at the things when they swoop down

[Runestar]

They tried.

But as with a hundred other purported 3e fixes, I gather they didn't really know what was wrong with 3.5 or how to fix it. Yeah, they sought to rebalance the classes by nerfing improved trip and giving casters free metamagic. :smallannoyed:

The art by paizo was top notch though. :smallbiggrin:

[Drachasor]

Replace 'orc' with 'goblin archers', 'fetid fungi', 'wolves' or any other CR 1 monster and the statement remains true. Low levels are swingy - mages happen to be slightly more swingy. This is not a problem with the encounter-ending mages.

Not really. They aren't doing 2d4+4 damage with a 18-20 Crit like Orcs (srd has them wielding Falchions). Orcs are really messed up. They're a half-CR creature to boot.

All those others are very unlikely to kill a front-line fighter in one shot even on a crit (which would require a natural 20 for them).

And AGAIN, I wasn't talking about health here. I am talking about the ability to do stuff in combat. Health is another matter, and even addressing Health (and there are many options for this), the problem with wizards/sorcs doesn't go away and remains for a few levels.

[Psyren]

Which is fine if your game communicates this fact to the player and is built around that concept. Everything in 3.5/Pathfinder says the Wizard and the Fighter are supposed to be equal- they take the same XP to hit the same level, they get an equal share of loot and experience, they are accorded the same value (officially) when determining what ELs the party should be able to handle..

Yeah, so what? That's for simplicity's sake.

Indeed, the wizard gets the same XP and loot as the fighter - which he can then translate into better buffs for the party, and craft more gear, and better artillery/summons to assist in a difficult battle. That some players choose not to do this and hog the spotlight instead is a problem with the players, not with the system.

Do we return to 2e, which imposed arbitrary limiters on casting classes and still ended up with Quadratic Wizards, just with the added benefit of being nearly unplayable at low levels? Do we move on to 4e, where the lines have blurred to the point of being barely distinguishable?

Besides, if you really want to limit Wizards, just replace them in your games with a weaker base class instead.

[Drachasor]

Yeah, so what? That's for simplicity's sake.

Indeed, the wizard gets the same XP and loot as the fighter - which he can then translate into better buffs for the party, and craft more gear, and better artillery/summons to assist in a difficult battle. That some players choose not to do this and hog the spotlight instead is a problem with the players, not with the system.

Do we return to 2e, which imposed arbitrary limiters on casting classes and still ended up with Quadratic Wizards? Do we move on to 4e, where the lines have blurred to the point of being barely distinguishable?

Besides, if you really want to limit Wizards, just replace them with a weaker base class instead.

I think you go more 4E, honestly, though NOT that crappy system. In the sense of each class being able to contribute equally to combat in a variety of situations....and also able to contribute outside of combat in a variety of situations. I think the Ritual Magic idea in 4E is also really good, but their implementation leaves something to be desired.

The rough idea of 4E is good, but when you start getting to the details of their implementation...it sucks.

[MeeposFire]

I think you go more 4E, honestly, though NOT that crappy system. In the sense of each class being able to contribute equally to combat in a variety of situations....and also able to contribute outside of combat in a variety of situations. I think the Ritual Magic idea in 4E is also really good, but their implementation leaves something to be desired.

The rough idea of 4E is good, but when you start getting to the details of their implementation...it sucks.

Funny I often think the same of playing 3e and that is after years of playing it.

[Safety Sword]

Great, now we've gone from having that thread to having THAT thread...

[MeeposFire]

Great, now we've gone from having that thread to having THAT thread...

What no link... :smallwink:

I so thought there was going to be a link under that bolded that.

[Drachasor]

Funny I often think the same of playing 3e and that is after years of playing it.

3E has a lot of problems too, sadly.

[Lord_Gareth]

And AGAIN, I wasn't talking about health here. I am talking about the ability to do stuff in combat. Health is another matter, and even addressing Health (and there are many options for this), the problem with wizards/sorcs doesn't go away and remains for a few levels.

Fighter gets wolf-tripped. Suddenly he has nothing to do in combat.

Rogue fights skeletons. Replace 'rogue' with 'ninja, scout, or spellthief' to taste. Nothing to do in combat.

Wizard fails spell, nothing to do in combat (except plink damage).

Cleric fails spell...closes to melee. Might still get wolf tripped.

Druid laughs at everyone else and closes for melee with his wolf companion.

Again, low-levels are REALLY swingy and highly subject to lockdown and "whoever wins initiative wins the fight" deals.

[MeeposFire]

3E has a lot of problems too, sadly.

Sadly indeed. Being a DM haunts me still though I don't miind playing it time to time, just don't ask me to DM anymore for 3e (despite my players wanting me too every once in a while).

[Greenish]

Not really. They aren't doing 2d4+4 damage with a 18-20 Crit like Orcs (srd has them wielding Falchions). Orcs are really messed up.Not really. They're just strong and use two-handed weapons, which are pretty effective.

I notice 1st level aasimar cleric and 1st level tiefling rogue are also 1/2 CR critters.

[Drachasor]

Fighter gets wolf-tripped. Suddenly he has nothing to do in combat.

Really, nothing to do for the REST of combat? He can't attack from prone or get up? I didn't realize that getting tripped means you are out for an entire fight. Where is that in the rules again?


Rogue fights skeletons. Replace 'rogue' with 'ninja, scout, or spellthief' to taste. Nothing to do in combat.

Well, there are class options for that, but even without that they do better than a wizard. Not that I am saying this is the best state of affairs either.

[Safety Sword]

What no link... :smallwink:

I so thought there was going to be a link under that bolded that.

Anyone who's been here longer than 5 minutes knew exactly what i was referring to :smallsigh:

[Drachasor]

Not really. They're just strong and use two-handed weapons, which are pretty effective.

I notice 1st level aasimar cleric and 1st level tiefling rogue are also 1/2 CR critters.

Neither of which are as bad as the Orc.

And it is their strength and using a two-handed weapon that makes those orcs an inappropriate 1/2CR creature. It's pretty obvious example of a problem with how some monsters are measured in the CR system.

[MeeposFire]

Neither of which are as bad as the Orc.

And it is their strength and using a two-handed weapon that makes those orcs an inappropriate 1/2CR creature. It's pretty obvious example of a problem with how some monsters are measured in the CR system.

I think it is more an issue with low starting HP. SW Saga essentially gives 3x base hp at 1st level which is nice for this problem.

I will agree that CR is borked though.

[LordBlades]

Yeah, so what? That's for simplicity's sake.

Indeed, the wizard gets the same XP and loot as the fighter - which he can then translate into better buffs for the party, and craft more gear, and better artillery/summons to assist in a difficult battle. That some players choose not to do this and hog the spotlight instead is a problem with the players, not with the system.

Do we return to 2e, which imposed arbitrary limiters on casting classes and still ended up with Quadratic Wizards, just with the added benefit of being nearly unplayable at low levels? Do we move on to 4e, where the lines have blurred to the point of being barely distinguishable?

Besides, if you really want to limit Wizards, just replace them in your games with a weaker base class instead.

The problem with the system is that it does nothing to communicate that somehow the classes are not balanced.

Of course you can moderate yourself as a wizard not to overshadow a fighter, but 'I can fix it' doesn't mean 'it's not broken'.

Maybe somebody wants to play a druid because he thinks turning into a bear and beating people as such is fun. His buddy wants to play a fighter because he thinks being a good at fighting people in melee is fun. The alternatives for this group are: the druid turns into a bear, thus becoming way better than the fighter, has his fun but the fighter feels overshadowed and useless or the druid doesn't turn into a bear in order not to make the fighter feel under-powered, but then he's lost the main reason that drove him to play a druid.

I have no problem with a system that's not balanced, but at least the players should be warned about it.

[Lord_Gareth]

Really, nothing to do for the REST of combat? He can't attack from prone or get up? I didn't realize that getting tripped means you are out for an entire fight. Where is that in the rules again

Scenario 1: Fighter whiffs his horribly inaccurate attack and gets eaten alive by wolves.

Scenario 2: Fighter tries to stand and gets eaten alive by wolves.

You can see why I'd consider this having nothing to do.

[faceroll]

Grease, Web, and Glitterdust all got thoroughly nerfed, though I'm not so certain that's a good thing. That level of battlefield control is necessary when you've got melee in the party that needs to trade full attacks with dragons & giants. With the removal of effective tripping, melee doesn't really have any way to keep monsters locked down.

I'm not sure if the feat selection available for fighters can make them competent archers when they fight flying opponents, or if their feats will allows them to be able to deal with things with +35 grapple, or that are invisible, etc. I suspect not.


Scenario 1: Fighter whiffs his horribly inaccurate attack and gets eaten alive by wolves.

Scenario 2: Fighter tries to stand and gets eaten alive by wolves.

You can see why I'd consider this having nothing to do.

Uh, there's no "trying to stand" vs a wolf. The fighter simply spends a move action to stand up, gets bit, then makes an attack on the wolf. You can't be tripped when you're standing up from prone, as the action that provokes the AoO hasn't occurred yet, so while you're being attacks, you are still prone. This does mean that your AC is at -4, however, which sucks.

Even then, a level 1 fighter should have around 15 AC (+1 dex, +4 scale). A wolf only has a +2 to hit. The fighter is unlikely to be hit by the wolf, then it is unlikely that the wolf will be able to trip the fighter (+1 trip vs. a fighter with +2 or +3 or even +4, depending on pointbuy). Once on the ground, even at 11 AC, the wolf still suffers about a 50% miss chance of hitting the fighter.

So yeah, you're are greatly exaggerating the plight of a fighter vs. a wolf.

[Psyren]

If you don't like 3.5, you won't like Pathfinder either. I fully cede that point. In that respect, nothing is "fixed."

If you did like 3.5 overall, but had small problems like "too many books," "not enough feats/skills for my concept," "casters have nothing to do at low levels once they run out of spells," "No more designers to question on rules issues," then Pathfinder delivers.


The problem with the system is that it does nothing to communicate that somehow the classes are not balanced.
...
I have no problem with a system that's not balanced, but at least the players should be warned about it.

I disagree emphatically with this; the very class names communicate this fact.
You take a class called "Wizard" and one called "Fighter" - which one do YOU honestly expect to be capable of doing more?

Jokes about him being a solar aside, did anyone ever doubt that Gandalf was the strongest member of the Fellowship? Or that Saruman was their biggest threat next to Sauron himself? Was anyone honestly surprised in Harry Potter that the metahumans were running the show behind the scenes? Was anyone really shocked in Wheel of Time that channelers had to police themselves?


Of course you can moderate yourself as a wizard not to overshadow a fighter, but 'I can fix it' doesn't mean 'it's not broken'.

That word is so horribly misused on these boards :smallsigh:
"Broken" implies "does not function," but both 3.5 and Pathfinder function quite well, thank you. I sit down around the gaming table with my friends, and we all have fun, despite my T4 Barbarian being nowhere near as versatile as the T2 Sorceress and T1 Cleric I'm playing alongside. Part of that is because I'm better than they are at the game, but if we were all equally skilled, I would simply play a higher-tier class (or multiclass a gish if I really wanted to be a Barbarian for whatever reason) and we'd still have fun.

Is it possible for players to end up unbalancing the game with poor choices? Absolutely. But I'll take that risk, rather than give it up for dull class homogeneity.

[T.G. Oskar]

D&D is the ultimate nerd fantasy - the folks who are book-smart and understand the system underlying existence have an inherent advantage over the jocks. Mess with that, and it's not really D&D anymore as far as I'm concerned. (Or Pathfinder.)

Being an archwizard is basically like being those guys who founded Google, only with guano instead of a search algorithm.

Excuse me, good sir, but I pride myself on being a nerd. I treasure Return of the Nerds as one of my favorite movies, so much that I went and bought the DVD of the first one just to remember it, and I fondly remember the song with which Lambda Lambda Lambda pwned the Alpha Betas, even if I'm not a fan of techno. I don't look exactly like a nerd, I have pretty decent vision (at least 20/20 in one eye, so no contacts or glasses so far), and I'm pretty strong, not to mention that I have some experience playing baseball. That doesn't make me a jock, and I'm firmly rooted into the nerd camp.

The last thing I want to play is a Wizard. If you're replacing "Wizard" with "Tier 1" class, then I can concede because I do like playing a Cleric; it is, so to speak, my fantasy vocation, although not my favorite class. The class I prefer to play, mind you, is a Paladin, which by all means is basically a hero or a self-righteous jock, whichever you intend to consider. It is my favorite class, to an extent that I gauge which console RP game to play through many factors, but one is whether there is an equivalent of the Paladin to play with. Border on the obsessive or not, that doesn't make me any less of a nerd; quite the contrary, it appeals to my taste of righteous heroes empowered by the forces of Good to slay Evil enemies, alongside (quite probably) the drama of having to hold the weight of moral on its shoulders and be an example of others in a dark world. That can be done as a Wizard; that doesn't mean I want to play one. The one thing I ask is that the Paladin, with its limited spellcasting and stout hand, can do something aside from standing on a mount and skewering evil with a lance, because I'd rather prefer doing so with a large tower shield or a stout zweihander, being an enthusiast of medieval and Renaissance weaponry (particularly swords). I've learned the ropes of optimizing, and I still have much to learn; I have dabbled in homebrewing in order to truly master the system, and between learning how to optimize, homebrew and DM, I think I have a solid grasp on the system thus far. At least 3.5, to be honest.

I haven't seen a good reason why I should play a Pathfinder Paladin in comparison to a 3.5 Paladin. I instinctively know that the "Smite Evil" option of Pathfinder is far stronger, but I instinctively refuse it as a "smite" per se, being forced to call it a "Divine Mark" because that's essentially what it is. I still see the problems of spellcasting that a Paladin has, and that is exactly one of the reasons I can't happen to call the Crusader a "Paladin" and wing it; I have faith and trust on the limited Paladin spell list, and all I really ask is for that ability to truly manifest; the Pathfinder Paladin could have had a better spell list, but it failed at doing that, and I've yet to see why Paladins can't have full CL (as the DDO paladin does, which doesn't affect him at the very least). They're still a very front-loaded class, even though they've dispatched with Remove Disease. They're still a VERY feat-starved class, which is odd for a class that's meant to be the middle point between a Fighter and a Cleric. They have very nice buffs in terms of auras, but their allies can't benefit for anything, and I find that something important as the Paladin should be an inspiring character in the lines of a Marshal. Add that up to how melee characters are weakened a bit, and there's little reason why not to take up a Cleric and call it a Paladin, something I refuse because it belittles the Paladin as an archetype and because it reduces the perception of a Cleric, much as how unarmed Swordsages are only one of the many things a Swordsage can pull off and not merely a Monk. I find no problem in overlapping archetypes because it makes classes serve as merely the mechanical aspect of the archetype you intend to display through your character, but I'll be darned if I don't see a class that fits my archetype and has the name of my favored archetype and choose to favor it, even if there's more than one way to work with that archetype mechanically.

Yes, by definition the PF Paladin can be considered better than the 3.5 Paladin in just about any aspect, but they're making it harder to keep the backwards compatibility so that I can really exploit what I already know about the Paladin. The class doesn't really give me a reason why I shouldn't just play a Cleric, which currently is probably better than the 3.5 Cleric anyways. In that sense, it fixed some of the problems with the Paladin, but I can't call it a fix to the class at all, considering the Cleric just got the same revision and ended up probably better. That's but an example of what seems to expand within the classes; the Monk is really not any better than the old one (aside from the ki power which is a nice touch), and the already powerful classes are still better than the norm).

So I can understand Gareth when he says Pathfinder doesn't fix anything. It serves as a continuation of 3.5 and adds a few things, but not all of them are stuff I'd play with (the Alchemist feels quite too odd and it doesn't aid alchemical items as I'd like to, which are things I'd love to play with a bit more). It's much as how I can't call 4th Edition a true successor of D&D; it has some decent mechanics and I'd be willing to play with the system, but not THE 4th Edition of D&D. Maybe Gamma World. Same with Pathfinder; I could adopt some things, but I wouldn't play the system per se, merely treating it as a 3rd party publisher addendum to D&D much like, say, Arcana Unearthed. YMMV on that, but that's my opinion (honest or otherwise).


Not really. They aren't doing 2d4+4 damage with a 18-20 Crit like Orcs (srd has them wielding Falchions). Orcs are really messed up. They're a half-CR creature to boot.

All those others are very unlikely to kill a front-line fighter in one shot even on a crit (which would require a natural 20 for them).

Unless I've been ninja'ed already: a wolf can attempt to trip with each attack (and they have some decent Strength to counter), goblin archers are small but have better Hide checks and strike from a distance (and you haven't really considered to add one or two archers just to ready their shots against the spellcasters in order to disrupt their spells?). Shriekers are the DM's excuse to call these creatures, and Violet Fungi deliver a solid poison that by the moment you're hitting with them, it can take the Rogue or one of the squishies out, and the DC is enough to still affect the Fighter. The orc just happens to have huge Strength and fight with falchions which are already messed up. Kobolds have traps, and aren't scared to use them; those are 1/4 Challenge Rating and just as smart as the average individual (Int 10), and proficient with simple weapons which include the humble light and heavy crossbow. And goblins...well, there's a webcomic (http://www.goblinscomic.com/06262005/) that redefines their (http://www.goblinscomic.com/09242008/) Challenge Rating of 1/3 (http://www.goblinscomic.com/09242008/). Alright, THunt does some DM fiat and has them with class levels, but it does show that smart combat usually beats numbers.
Assuming that PCs are the only one allowed to use tactics and optimize is really a bad idea, because it gives them no challenge. Throw some curveballs here and there, surprise them, and they'll be remembering that battle more than they'll remember those in which they cleared the opposition very easily.

[LordBlades]

I disagree emphatically with this; the very class names communicate this fact.
You take a class called "Wizard" and one called "Fighter" - which one do YOU honestly expect to be capable of doing more?

Jokes about him being a solar aside, did anyone ever doubt that Gandalf was the strongest member of the Fellowship? Or that Saruman was their biggest threat next to Sauron himself? Was anyone honestly surprised in Harry Potter that the metahumans were running the show behind the scenes? Was anyone really shocked in Wheel of Time that channelers had to police themselves?

It all depends what fantasy archetypes you grew up with. I agree completely with your examples(in these stories mages are more powerful). There are however heaps of other stories that promote the contrary. Starting for example from the greek legends (you have tons of heroes like Hercules or Perseus going toe to toe with magical beings by their own abilities and skill at arms) to stuff like Conan and the Warcraft universe. Not to mention that games are usually supposed to be balanced.




That word is so horribly misused on these boards :smallsigh:
"Broken" implies "does not function," but both 3.5 and Pathfinder function quite well, thank you. I sit down around the gaming table with my friends, and we all have fun, despite my T4 Barbarian being nowhere near as versatile as the T2 Sorceress and T1 Cleric I'm playing alongside. Part of that is because I'm better than they are at the game, but if we were all equally skilled, I would simply play a higher-tier class (or multiclass a gish if I really wanted to be a Barbarian for whatever reason) and we'd still have fun.

I merely used the most common form of the Oberoni fallacy, didn't mean broken per se. What I said can be more accurately rephrased as 'I have a solution for this problem' does not mean 'there is no problem'.


Is it possible for players to end up unbalancing the game with poor choices? Absolutely. But I'll take that risk, rather than give it up for dull class homogeneity.

Completely agree to this.

[Thyrian]

If you're unwilling to bend mechanics you want to play a computer game instead of Dnd. Pathfinder has problems, 3.5 has problems, 4e has problems, you'll know when a system doesn't have problems because there will only BE one system left.

One of the aims of Pathfinder was to give benefits to people who were willing to stick with the same class for 12 levels straight as opposed to Multi-classing asap. They also wanted to simplify grappling and remove xp costs for every item creation. A lot of people regard this as 'limiting players to their base class', 'reducing the versatility of grappling' and 'making it too easy to make magic items'.

It depends on what you want out of a system. If you bought a $70 rulebook for a system you weren't sure you'd want to play on, perhaps a little bit more research should've been done before a purchase. That's like buying a large Warhammar army and THEN complaining you've picked the wrong army, this doesn't make the Army choice bad, it makes it an army choice you don't like. "Don't like" and "bad" are not permanently paired.

In future when looking at systems read the Author Notes, they will normally mention the changes the Author's feel most proud of, their gem ideas that they're proud to have added. Pathfinder works for some but it's clearly not for everyone....

Also is this the 2nd of 3rd time we've had this thread?

[Psyren]

@ T.G. Oskar: I never said "nerds like to play wizards," so I'm not sure that long reply had any bearing on my point. What I said was that the wizards of D&D represent the nerds of our world - the guy who is picked on in school and goes on to have the 6-figure income and hot wife. In short, I'm speaking from an in-universe perspective, not the metagame.


(you have tons of heroes like Hercules or Perseus going toe to toe with magical beings by their own abilities and skill at arms)

Both were demigods from birth. Hardly the same as a D&D Fighter.


to stuff like Conan

His setting is gritty/low-magic - incongruity with D&D and Golarion is expected.


and the Warcraft universe.

You couldn't possibly pick a worse example of magic running the show. The entire central conflict behind the series was caused by a single archwizard going bananas one morning.


Not to mention that games are usually supposed to be balanced.

No, MMOs are supposed to be balanced. Simulations of fantasy worlds don't have to be.

What does every single D&D setting - Greyhawk, Faerun, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Eberron, etc. - have in common? The dudes with magic run the show. This trend makes perfect sense. Why is continuing it in Pathfinder a bad thing? Especially when Pathfinder was never intended to be a huge departure from 3.5 from the very beginning?


I merely used the most common form of the Oberoni fallacy, didn't mean broken per se. What I said can be more accurately rephrased as 'I have a solution for this problem' does not mean 'there is no problem'.

I have a saying for you too: "it's not a bug, it's a feature."

[Coidzor]

Replace 'orc' with 'goblin archers', 'fetid fungi', 'wolves' or any other CR 1 monster and the statement remains true. Low levels are swingy - mages happen to be slightly more swingy. This is not a problem with the encounter-ending mages.

Indeed, it's a separate problem wherein the designers still think everyone gets off on a parade of quickly killed off characters.

[Daisuke1133]

I have a saying for you too: "it's not a bug, it's a feature."

And I have a fact for you: The Wizard being more powerful is a bug. One that has gone unfixed because the lead designer didn't want his favorite class getting some well deserved de-powering.

[Psyren]

And I have a fact for you: The Wizard being more powerful is a bug. One that has gone unfixed because the lead designer didn't want his favorite class getting some well deserved de-powering.

The guy who can rewrite reality by chanting, being more powerful than the guy who waves a pointy stick around - that's a bug to you? :smallconfused:

How do you even define "magic" anyway?

[Daisuke1133]

The guy who can rewrite reality by chanting, being more powerful than the guy who waves a pointy stick around - that's a bug to you? :smallconfused:

How do you even define "magic" anyway?

It is when the guy who can rewrite reality and the one who can wave a pointy stick around are expected to contribute an equal amount to the party's success, and are considered to be of equal value. Also, just because you think overshadowing everyone else at the table is great fun doesn't mean that they think being overshadowed by you is just as much fun.

And I define Magic as whatever the DM wants it to be.

[Infernalbargain]

PF did not fully address the caster imbalance. We can however ask the insightful question of when does that quadratic wizard really start to take off? Every time I see people go "yada yada PF didn't fix casters" they cite "they didn't fix <level 9 spell>, <level 7 spell>, <level 9 spell>". From my experience, things don't take off until about level 11 in PF, which is a significant step up from the level 7-9 that I was feeling with 3.5. Whether PF fixed 3.5 is not a binary question. Did they improve things? Certainly. Did they take it all the way to 20? Definitely not.

[Luckmann]

Well, no. At best, it bridged the gap slightly. But it didn't solve the major issue as you put it. I solve this by banning full casters. :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, I like Pathfinder better for all the other stuff.

Edit: I think that you cannot solve this fundamental issue and still be in the realm of 3.x. Especially not while maintaining the notion of what Wizards are, and what they do, in the described, default settings. The solution to this is, in my mind, simple. Stop having settings where Wizards are infinitely powerful. And for this, there are already a wide range of "alternative" spellcasting classes that are more balanced.

Don't like full casters? Don't. Use. Them. It is the only option and it is basically what you would have regardless, had Paizo -or anyone else- taken the time to nerf full casters, since they effectively wouldn't be full casters by the definition that we know them by presently.

[LordBlades]

Both were demigods from birth. Hardly the same as a D&D Fighter.


And what did demigodhood give them apart from superior strength and resilience? They fought most of what they fought with sword in hand (or spear/mace/whatever). I can't recall any classical heroes that are caster-types. Is the difference between hercules-strong and average greek-strong bigger than the strength difference between let's say a feral mineral warrior human with a starting str of 18 and the average human with 10 str?



You couldn't possibly pick a worse example of magic running the show. The entire central conflict behind the series was caused by a single archwizard going bananas one morning.

What I meant with Warcraft is that it provides quite a lot of examples where warrior types do well: Arthas has little magic of his own and yet he still defeats Varimathras, Thrall and Grom fight Mannoroth with weapons as well, Illidan's exploits.




No, MMOs are supposed to be balanced. Simulations of fantasy worlds don't have to be.

What does every single D&D setting - Greyhawk, Faerun, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Eberron, etc. - have in common? The dudes with magic run the show. This trend makes perfect sense. Why is continuing it in Pathfinder a bad thing? Especially when Pathfinder was never intended to be a huge departure from 3.5 from the very beginning?

What's bad is putting fighter and wizard in the same book, and labeling it 'here are your options', without adding a footnote: 'some of them suck badly'.



I have a saying for you too: "it's not a bug, it's a feature."

Most of what the designers of 3.5 wrote leads me to believe that the imbalance of the game was not something they intended. Especially parts like level x human monk being the same CR as level x human wizard.

[Psyren]

It is when the guy who can rewrite reality and the one who can wave a pointy stick around are expected to contribute an equal amount to the party's success, and are considered to be of equal value.
Also, just because you think overshadowing everyone else at the table is great fun doesn't mean that they think being overshadowed by you is just as much fun.

A player that goes around overshadowing his fellows either lacks the skill to properly limit himself or doesn't care about they feel. For the former, I enjoy that dimension of challenge being intrinsic to the game - when the designers remove any need for player balancing, you end up with either a nonsensical setting, or with 4e.

For the latter:


And I define Magic as whatever the DM wants it to be.

Exactly - the DM has full control over how much power Wizards possess in his game. So when you end up with the second type of player - the one that can control himself but chooses not to, then you need the DM to rein him in.

But in practice, I find the players that want to function as a unit outnumber the jerks.

[Greenish]

Did they improve things?Your mileage may vary. PF has neat stuff (psionics, paladins, actual class features, interesting-looking half-casters, skills), but it also messed up other stuff (most low level move+full attack, PA, tripping, made spiked chain yet another weapon not worth a feat, full BAB cleric, assassin, Vital Strike, still no more skillpoints…) and it (as of yet) lacks MoI, ToM and ToB.

I'd say "changed". There's enough good stuff to riffle through the SRD, but I for one am not convinced to swap over.

[Groverfield]

Wizard is more tempted to take item creation feats to help the warrior due to the lack of XP cost on it.

Skill system revamp did a ton for classes with poor skill selection (CC skills are 1 for 1, but you don't get the +3 class skill bonus)

Crossclass changes made rogue dips for skillmonkeys not gimped (lose out on your favored class bonus of 1 HP or SP)

It fixed a lot, but it didn't fix the warrior problems, however that's kinda inherent to the fantasy RPG system, either you gimp the wizard's out-of-combat abilities, or you make anime-warriors with ToB, and neither sit well with typical RPGers.

[FelixG]

In short, Paizo lied to me and stole my money, and I'm seeking validation for my rage.

No one lied to you, you could have looked up the SRD and see what they changed.

You spent money before investigating the product you were buying, heck, you dont even need to buy the product to play it, I was playing PF for 6 months off the SRD before I even opened one of the PF books!

You will get no validation for your rage as it is all, 100%, on you.

[Greenish]

you make anime-warriors with ToB, and neither sit well with typical RPGers.Are you trying to bait people? :smallannoyed:

[Groverfield]

Are you trying to bait people? :smallannoyed:

Sorry, no... just that and Magic of Incarnum didn't sit right in my stomach, I should've denoted that's my extended group's opinion on the book.

[Luckmann]

{Scrubbed}

[ImperatorK]

That's the beauty of refluffing. It doesn't have to be "anime warrior-ish".
But also it's cool that it can, because I like "anime warriors" and some time would like to make an anime-themed campaign. :smallbiggrin:

[Greenish]

{Scrubbed}Warlocks, barbarians, paladins, those are anime. :smalltongue:

[Luckmann]

{Scrubbed}

[Groverfield]

Warlocks, barbarians, paladins, those are anime. :smalltongue:

Warlocks... yeah when you start doing fey heritage stuff, but I don't see a faustian style character in a standard fantasy setting.
I definitely cannot see Conan or Krull with big eyes and a small mouth.
Paladins can range anywhere on the scale, belonging easily in both, but not exclusive to an anime AT, though modern western fantasy is usually acting too grimdark for there to be any sort of organization properly in line with a righteous cause.

[Ranos]

Warlocks, barbarians, paladins, those are anime. :smalltongue:
Well, you see paladins and barbarians just as much in western and eastern medias. They're no more anime than a warblade or crusader, really. Warlocks though, those are anime as hell. They might as well come with obligatory pointy dyed hair :smalltongue:

[Luckmann]

Well, you see paladins and barbarians just as much in western and eastern medias. They're no more anime than a warblade or crusader, really. Warlocks though, those are anime as hell. They might as well come with obligatory pointy dyed hair :smalltongue:

I thought they did. Either that, or fashionably bald. :smallamused:

[Eldariel]

I'd also like to point out that some casters (like wizards, sorcerers) definitely need buffs at very low levels, but this is seldom addressed and certainly not by Pathfinder.

They do not. I've run a Pathfinder Society Wizard for 3 modules now (you start level 1, I've played to level 2 by now). I've more than done my part: Two of the three bosses I've simply destroyed with either Sleep or Color Spray. Most of the more challenging encounters I've defeated with Grease (notably, an encounter of two Lemures ended with them doing 0 damage to the party in spite of us being unable to penetrate their damage reduction thanks to Grease), Enlarge Person & Daze and I have Scrolls for Silent Image, Magic Weapon, Mage Armor and such in case I need to extend my endurance. At 25gp a pop, I can afford a bunch.

Oh, and I have a Light Crossbow. While my attack bonus isn't quite as high as a dedicated Archer's, my +3 (now +4 on level 2) is competitive with any but max Dex types and I've landed more than my share of shots on various trivial opponents as necessary. I also have Alchemist's Fire for if we happen to ever face anything that is not immune to fire and needs killing (Lemures, Fire Elementals and that friggin' Devil all were; Humanoids I have Daze for so no need to waste time). I also made that one cultist talk with simple 3 castings of Charm Person the next day (after dropping him to sleep and tying him up) where the whole party's worth of social skills wasn't accomplishing anything (due to poor rolls).


In other 3.5 campaigns, I've also defeated Orcs, Ogres and such on level 1 (turns out their Will-saves and Ref-saves tend to be awful and it's incredibly convenient to bypass Ogres' HP). Hell, the only reason we were able to take down a Tendriculous on level 1 was the presence of a Wizard to Enlarge the Barbarian and Ray of Enfeeblement the Tendriculous so the Barb could trip it and wail down on it.

Low level Wizards are anything but weak. You can get 3-5 1st level slots (1-2 from stat; in PF you have 3 races that can get 20 Int for +2 - 1-2 from Specialization/Elf Generalist/Focused Specialization) each of which is an AOE spell capable of destroying most level appropriate opponents. I've yet to even go to sleep with all my spells spent in the PF Society campaign; 4-5 encounters in a row is absolutely fine.


For the record, my default spell list (20 Int, Conjuration specialist Elf) is:
Sleep
Color Spray
Enlarge Person
Grease (Specialist Slot)

with Daze, Detect Magic and Resistance in my Cantrip slots (in PF you can use cantrips without daily limit; I'd have 3 Dazes in 3.5).

Yes, opponents save but the chance of opponents saving against a Wizard's spell is far, far lower than the chance of a Fighter missing. A Wizard can often hit 2-3 opponents with one spell, each of which needs to roll 16 or higher to succeed; that is, we're talking about 75% odds of success per opponent. Fighters rarely have over 50% chances of hitting and they get to hit one target a turn.

If all the Wizard's targets make their saves, he can expend another daily resource for another insanely efficient action. Yes, he'll run out of spells but at least he's getting the job done; if a Fighter rolls poorly for 3 turns in a row (equivalent to Wizard's spell failing on all targets), he has no option but to be useless in the fight. In short, Wizards are more than fine on low levels. I wouldn't worry.

[Ranos]

I thought they did. Either that, or fashionably bald. :smallamused:
That works too, all they'd need is a third eye and some sort of triangular blast shape :smallbiggrin:

[Cerlis]

It fixed everything it was suppose to. Because it wasnt suppose to bring Fighter and wizard on the same level.


.............


thats what 4th edition was for.


Pathfinder is for people who are OK with the way classes work in 3.5. Just tweeking a few things to make them better or less broken. Full casters where meant to be able to do superpowerful things to allow their allies to fight in otherwise impossible situations.

its like saying Football is broken because the quarterback, offensive line, defensive line, water boy, cheerleaders, and coach all contribute in different ways and to different effectiveness in the game.

If you want to play a wizard, play a wizard.

[Leon]

The way I look at Pathfinder is basically as a continuation of 3.5

This is the biggest and most important thing it fixed (whether or not anything else is fixed/needs fixing is open to debate) One company dropped it and another picked it up to allow it to continue mostly the same with little change.

[Luckmann]

That works too, all they'd need is a third eye and some sort of triangular blast shape :smallbiggrin:You just made some kind of reference to something that means nothing to me. This pleases me more than it should. :smallbiggrin:

[LordBlades]

Pathfinder is for people who are OK with the way classes work in 3.5. Just tweeking a few things to make them better or less broken. Full casters where meant to be able to do superpowerful things to allow their allies to fight in otherwise impossible situations.
Thing is they failed to achieve that in many cases. They left many of the most powerful spells almost unchanged, while taking away melee's only good toy(power attack)


its like saying Football is broken because the quarterback, offensive line, defensive line, water boy, cheerleaders, and coach all contribute in different ways and to different effectiveness in the game.

If you want to play a wizard, play a wizard.

The issue is not that classes contribute in a different way, is that some classes contribute more, while others are left with very little to do. To use your football example: let's consider 2 players. Player A is a quarterback. That's all he does and he's quite good at it. Player B however not only is a better quarterback than player A, but he can also play in the offensive and defensive lines, he can provide tactical advice like a coach and if need be can also turn into an attractive cheerleader. Which one would you rather have in the team?

[Sir Homeslice]

The guy who can rewrite reality by chanting, being more powerful than the guy who waves a pointy stick around - that's a bug to you? :smallconfused:

How do you even define "magic" anyway?

So you're telling me the guy who utilizes complex fighting styles that involves a mass/mess of counters, counter-counters, and incredible need to exploit the living crap out of every single opportunity available while simultaneously having to protect himself from leaving himself open isn't stronger than the guy who waves his arms around saying weird words?

That's supposed to be a feature?

{Scrubbed}

[Drachasor]

The guy who can rewrite reality by chanting, being more powerful than the guy who waves a pointy stick around - that's a bug to you? :smallconfused:

How do you even define "magic" anyway?

Here's the problem with that reasoning. You can easily have various power levels for manipulating reality. From something like the Warlock to something like a Dread Necromancer, to something like the Wizard. There's no particular reason why Wizards need to be overpowered.

Ostensibly, rewriting reality could be a bit easier at low levels (well, after adjusting a handful of spells) and quite a bit harder at high levels.

[Drachasor]

For the record, my default spell list (20 Int, Conjuration specialist Elf) is:
Sleep
Color Spray
Enlarge Person
Grease (Specialist Slot)


My point was a class that hinges on 5 chances/day to successfully implement an overpowered spell is...not the best sort of game design. So alright, yeah, in some cases they are OP (due to particular spells that are broken), but ignoring that they are underpowered.



Well, you see paladins and barbarians just as much in western and eastern medias. They're no more anime than a warblade or crusader, really. Warlocks though, those are anime as hell. They might as well come with obligatory pointy dyed hair :smalltongue:

I don't see the class features that determine a particular art style for Warlocks.

I really feel like people toss out "anime" without knowing what it means (or caring). I mean, heck, all of D&D is anime if you consider Record of the Lodoss War and somehow thing vague similarities in setting mean its the same thing. Does that make any sense? Does it really mean anything? No, it doesn't.

Now, I suppose one could make the argument that ToB enables a certain level of regular "action hero"-like stunts, or perhaps superhero-esque stuff that someone like Captain America or Batman might be capable of. To an extent, this seems true to me. Then again, when Doctor Strange might be in your party, is that really out of line?

[Wings of Peace]

So you're telling me the guy who utilizes complex fighting styles that involves a mass/mess of counters, counter-counters, and incredible need to exploit the living crap out of every single opportunity available while simultaneously having to protect himself from leaving himself open isn't stronger than the guy who waves his arms around saying weird words?

That's supposed to be a feature?

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I'm not saying I side with Psyren but I do find your argument somewhat flawed in that you assume he's wrong because he wanks it to wizards.

No matter how complex a fighting style is the reality is that in this hypothetical fantasy world one person has chosen to specialize in bending reality while another has gotten very good at working within the rules of reality.

The root of the problem in my opinion isn't even the rules for magic, it's that the fluff for magic essentially spells magic out as a supreme force so it's unsurprising that the magic rules reflect it as a supreme force.

[Drachasor]

I'm not saying I side with Psyren but I do find your argument somewhat flawed in that you assume he's wrong because he wanks it to wizards.

No matter how complex a fighting style is the reality is that in this hypothetical fantasy world one person has chosen to specialize in bending reality while another has gotten very good at working within the rules of reality.

The root of the problem in my opinion isn't even the rules for magic, it's that the fluff for magic essentially spells magic out as a supreme force so it's unsurprising that the magic rules reflect it as a supreme force.

Technically Wizards are working within the rules of reality too.

Technically both a primitive Tribal Warrior and a Tank are working within the rules of reality. Does that mean mixing them up together in the same party is a good idea for game design? Not really.

And again, nothing about this even touches on the fact that just because the wizard is dealing with arcane forces that can do things a sword can't, doesn't mean this should be really easy or dominate the game.

[Eldariel]

My point was a class that hinges on 5 chances/day to successfully implement an overpowered spell is...not the best sort of game design. So alright, yeah, in some cases they are OP (due to particular spells that are broken), but ignoring that they are underpowered.

PF's "Cantrips at Will" actually helps a ton on that front (Daze in particular is good). That and the daily 3+Int offensive ability (depends on specialization but it's by default offensive; there's some ACFs that are not though, I've got swift action 5' teleportation on my Conjurer for example) gives Wizards a less on-off curve with the 3-5 encounter nukes in your level 1 slots.

Though I reiterate: On level 1, "I shoot at it with a Crossbow" or "I throw an Alchemist's Fire at it" is a perfectly valid action, doubly so on a 16 Dex type. Level 1 armed combat is mostly a bunch of stat checks anyways so Wizard can actually do just fine there if they have the stats for the job. Being 1 point behind full BAB types and even with Medium BAB types makes little difference compared to the stat bonuses.


But yeah, spells being "too strong" is what defines the whole system; Wizard isn't OP because of his Poor BAB, one good save and 2+Int skills or even his bonus feats. A Wizard is OP because the spells he casts are too strong (or too easy; I hold that AD&D 2e was "balanced" after a fashion and spells were still incredibly powerful, just harder to get off or with severe risks associated, and Mages leveled slower than any other class). It's the same story on all levels.

[Saph]

Pathfinder is 3.5, but with minor tweaks and changes. This means that it's basically the same system as 3.5.

This means that if you hate the balance/progression/randomness/theme/shoe size/whatever of 3.5, Pathfinder is NOT going to change your mind. I'll say this again: If you don't like 3.5, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE PATHFINDER. If you expect Pathfinder to fix all the problems of 3.5 despite being in all significant respects the same system, you are foolish. If a marketer tells you "We've fixed all this product's problems despite making no major changes!" and you believe them, you are even more foolish.

Pathfinder has two main advantages over 3.5:

• There are various minor improvements to the PHB. Classes have extra class features; combat maneuvers have been simplified; some of the problematic spells have been toned down.
• It's being supported.

It also has two major disadvantages compared to 3.5:

• There's a much wider range of 3.5 material than Pathfinder books, and the 3.5 material has been tested and analysed more, so its strengths/weaknesses are better known.
• You're going to have to learn a new rulebook.

One thing that has not changed is that spellcaster types generally have more options and versatility than melee characters. (Note: this does not translate directly to power, although it can be leveraged that way by a skilled player.) There is basically no way of changing this without completely rewriting the 3.5 system.

[Gnaeus]

I haven't seen a good reason why I should play a Pathfinder Paladin in comparison to a 3.5 Paladin. I instinctively know that the "Smite Evil" option of Pathfinder is far stronger, but I instinctively refuse it as a "smite" per se, being forced to call it a "Divine Mark" because that's essentially what it is. I still see the problems of spellcasting that a Paladin has, and that is exactly one of the reasons I can't happen to call the Crusader a "Paladin" and wing it; I have faith and trust on the limited Paladin spell list, and all I really ask is for that ability to truly manifest; the Pathfinder Paladin could have had a better spell list, but it failed at doing that, and I've yet to see why Paladins can't have full CL (as the DDO paladin does, which doesn't affect him at the very least). They're still a very front-loaded class, even though they've dispatched with Remove Disease. They're still a VERY feat-starved class, which is odd for a class that's meant to be the middle point between a Fighter and a Cleric. They have very nice buffs in terms of auras, but their allies can't benefit for anything, and I find that something important as the Paladin should be an inspiring character in the lines of a Marshal. Add that up to how melee characters are weakened a bit, and there's little reason why not to take up a Cleric and call it a Paladin, something I refuse because it belittles the Paladin as an archetype and because it reduces the perception of a Cleric, much as how unarmed Swordsages are only one of the many things a Swordsage can pull off and not merely a Monk. I find no problem in overlapping archetypes because it makes classes serve as merely the mechanical aspect of the archetype you intend to display through your character, but I'll be darned if I don't see a class that fits my archetype and has the name of my favored archetype and choose to favor it, even if there's more than one way to work with that archetype mechanically.

Yes, by definition the PF Paladin can be considered better than the 3.5 Paladin in just about any aspect, but they're making it harder to keep the backwards compatibility so that I can really exploit what I already know about the Paladin. The class doesn't really give me a reason why I shouldn't just play a Cleric, which currently is probably better than the 3.5 Cleric anyways. In that sense, it fixed some of the problems with the Paladin, but I can't call it a fix to the class at all, considering the Cleric just got the same revision and ended up probably better.

??? I find 3.5 paladin almost unplayable, and PF paladin quite enjoyable. Smite evil becomes useful. Lay on hands becomes useful. Spell progression about 25% better (actually more because spells now key off Charisma, so less MAD). Divine bond is better for some paladins (those whose adventuring locales are not warhorse friendly). They have an awesome core PRC option in Dragon Disciple.

I will admit (Psyren please don't hit me) that 3.5 with all splats paladin is better than Pathfinder with all PF but no 3.5 splats paladin. But if your group is either a group that doesn't play with Spell Compendium & Complete Champion, or if you allow 3.5 material in your PF, Paladin is much much better.

Cleric is still T1 + awesome, but strategic spell nerfing, loss of heavy armor, and (depending on rules) loss of DMM quicken/persist makes it much less viable as a paladin than it was before (not that it can't do it, it is still T1, but its harder.) If my concept is Holy Warrior, and if I want a mechanically strong character, I might play Paladin in PF. 3.5, not really.


My point was a class that hinges on 5 chances/day to successfully implement an overpowered spell is...not the best sort of game design. So alright, yeah, in some cases they are OP (due to particular spells that are broken), but ignoring that they are underpowered.

Uhm, really not so much. I am playing a PF sorcerer through low levels right now. I have my 5 spells per day. I have daze at will. I have 8 uses of a combat maneuver usable at 15 feet with a maneuver bonus better than the fighter (verdant bloodline). I am wearing armor (10% spell failure chance does not extend to bloodline abilities or charisma). I have more HP than the rogue (I only need to concentrate on Charisma, so Con is my second stat, he needs several good stats). I can intimidate at range 30 for a debuff that usually lasts several rounds with almost no chance of failure. I can ALWAYS contribute to a fight. (OK, I had some difficulty with the shadows, but most characters have trouble with shadows at level 3).

If I were a wizard, I wouldn't have the Intimidate with 20 charisma to fall back on, but a low level pathfinder wizard has 7-9 skill points per level (depending on race, exact INT, and favored class +). He can easily spend points in stealth, acrobatics, perception, and maybe a social skill, while remaining good in his knowledges (no more concentration skill). He still has several spells per day, + daze at will, + specialization abilities, + scrolls if he wants, and he can start crafting scrolls before he even begins adventuring (12.5 gp each, no xp cost with a DC 6 spellcraft check that I can't fail? yes please). Underpowered? I seriously don't think so.

[Psyren]

I'm not saying I side with Psyren but I do find your argument somewhat flawed in that you assume he's wrong because he wanks it to wizards.

Actually, I wank it to psions. Involving guano in my wank-sessions just gets messy. :smallwink:

"Wizard" just happens to be a much more commonly-found word in fantasy works/settings. I suppose I can amend that to "caster" but it doesn't really change my underlying point. Some avenues of study are inherently more effective than others.

Would I have been happy had Pathfinder had simply published a class called "Fighter" that was effectively the Warblade, complete with maneuvers? Absolutely. But then we'd have another round of complainers with a different grievance, and we'd also have paizo jumping through hoops to make their "not-warblade" in such a way that they'd be lawsuit proof, since PF hadn't been proven yet.


Technically Wizards are working within the rules of reality too.

It would be more accurate to say "meta-reality." They have their own natural rules they have to follow, but these are not the same as the natural rules the fighter is subject to - things like gravity, the size and shape of their bodies, their senses etc.

And I still have no problem with this. In most settings, fighters far outnumber wizards because it's not an easy path. It's easy for PCs, who only have to say "I want to be a wizard!" (/cleric/druid/sorcerer etc.) but not in an in-universe sense. And it's no different than the smart people being successful in our world. It's unrealistic to expect the thinker and the musclehead to be equally successful here, and we can't even fly/teleport/summon extraplanar backup etc.

[Drachasor]

It would be more accurate to say "meta-reality." They have their own natural rules they have to follow, but these are not the same as the natural rules the fighter is subject to - things like gravity, the size and shape of their bodies, their senses etc.

No, that is not more accurate. They follow the EXACT same rules. The wizard is just focusing on a different subsection. The wizard is subject to gravity as much as the fighter. If either wants to get to a higher place, they have to deal with gravity. Both might use a spell (the wizard can cast it, the fighter can get a magical item), but both have to deal with the very real effects of gravity.


And I still have no problem with this. In most settings, fighters far outnumber wizards because it's not an easy path. It's easy for PCs, who only have to say "I want to be a wizard!" (/cleric/druid/sorcerer etc.) but not in an in-universe sense. And it's no different than the smart people being successful in our world. It's unrealistic to expect the thinker and the musclehead to be equally successful here, and we can't even fly/teleport/summon extraplanar backup etc.

It doesn't matter what a "setting" looks like in terms of class disparity, that has nothing to do with game balance. The core problem with you arguments is you might as well propose a Wizard can cast Wish at first level, because they "bend reality to their will" (or whatever). Of course, they also don't provide any support for why wizards need to be more powerful at ANY level either. If they were just as powerful as non-magic-users, then they'd still be violating the laws of OUR reality. You're just arguing for the status quo for the sake of the status quo, but that doesn't remotely make it good GAME design.

Also, a warrior isn't necessarily a "muscle-head".

[Yora]

Pathfinder fixed one major thing:

3.5e was discontinued and out of print. PF fixed that. :smallbiggrin:

[Lastgrasp]

PF just streamlined things from 3.X. It's still 3rd Edition and that is what I love. I'm very happy Paizo continue to support 3.X with Pathfinder and keeps the system moving. Yeah, it's not a perfect system but I've been using it for the pass 11 years.

[Drachasor]

Uhm, really not so much. I am playing a PF sorcerer through low levels right now. I have my 5 spells per day. I have daze at will. I have 8 uses of a combat maneuver usable at 15 feet with a maneuver bonus better than the fighter (verdant bloodline). I am wearing armor (10% spell failure chance does not extend to bloodline abilities or charisma). I have more HP than the rogue (I only need to concentrate on Charisma, so Con is my second stat, he needs several good stats). I can intimidate at range 30 for a debuff that usually lasts several rounds with almost no chance of failure. I can ALWAYS contribute to a fight. (OK, I had some difficulty with the shadows, but most characters have trouble with shadows at level 3).

If I were a wizard, I wouldn't have the Intimidate with 20 charisma to fall back on, but a low level pathfinder wizard has 7-9 skill points per level (depending on race, exact INT, and favored class +). He can easily spend points in stealth, acrobatics, perception, and maybe a social skill, while remaining good in his knowledges (no more concentration skill). He still has several spells per day, + daze at will, + specialization abilities, + scrolls if he wants, and he can start crafting scrolls before he even begins adventuring (12.5 gp each, no xp cost with a DC 6 spellcraft check that I can't fail? yes please). Underpowered? I seriously don't think so.

Well, perhaps there are things that make it better buried deep in there if you know the right feats. It is a bit better for sorcs than wizards at base from what I saw. Hmm, I didn't realize they removed the experience cost for crafting items.

[Psyren]

No, that is not more accurate. They follow the EXACT same rules. The wizard is just focusing on a different subsection. The wizard is subject to gravity as much as the fighter. If either wants to get to a higher place, they have to deal with gravity. Both might use a spell (the wizard can cast it, the fighter can get a magical item), but both have to deal with the very real effects of gravity.

This is little more than splitting hairs. Who makes the items that the fighter uses to fly? And the wizard can do it by himself, while the fighter can't - and that's assuming a setting where magic items are easily acquirable/creatable, rather than relics of a bygone age or only usable by those with the "gift."


It doesn't matter what a "setting" looks like in terms of class disparity, that has nothing to do with game balance.

The problem here is that you're treating game balance as the desired endpoint. I'm not, because that would break verisimilitude and harm the simulation aspect. 3.5 (and Pathfinder) trend closer to the simulationist end of the fantasy spectrum than the gamist end. If you want a system closer to the gamist end, where every class has equal capabilities with every other, 3.5 and PF simply won't be for you. (But you should know by now which one does meet that objective.)


The core problem with you arguments is you might as well propose a Wizard can cast Wish at first level, because they "bend reality to their will" (or whatever).

Just like the nerd in school immediately has a better life than the jocks? Nonsense; it takes time.

And you can alter reality in many degrees without getting to Wish. Something as simple as Bull's Strength is an alteration - powerful physique without training or chemicals. Or, naturally, Fly.


Of course, they also don't provide any support for why wizards need to be more powerful at ANY level either. If they were just as powerful as non-magic-users, then they'd still be violating the laws of OUR reality. You're just arguing for the status quo for the sake of the status quo, but that doesn't remotely make it good GAME design.

I provided several non-D&D examples where wizards lord it over non-wizards. If there's a status quo here, it is intrinsic to the high-fantasy genre, not merely D&D/Pathfinder, and they can't be blamed for invoking the trope.

It sounds to me like your problem is with high fantasy in general, not Pathfinder - in which case, I suggest another system like Iron Kingdoms instead.


Also, a warrior isn't necessarily a "muscle-head".

No matter how high their int-score is, clearly they lack something mentally or they would be casting spells too. (Barring the gishes of course.)

[Lastgrasp]

And honestly the best thing Paizo does is produce Adventure Paths. I've purchased a few of them and they are top quality. 96 pages of awesomeness.

[LordBlades]

Cleric is still T1 + awesome, but strategic spell nerfing, loss of heavy armor, and (depending on rules) loss of DMM quicken/persist makes it much less viable as a paladin than it was before (not that it can't do it, it is still T1, but its harder.)


This is one of the main issues with PF design IMHO. One of the points they spent a lot of energy on (and therefore I assume they identified as one of the major flaws of 3.5) was a class being able to fulfill the role of other class, sometimes even better than the intended 'primary' class. Most of the things that allowed casters to be melee monsters for example(polymorph, wildshape, divine power etc.) have been nerfed quite heavily. They did almost nothing to address the underlying issue: that pretty much all roles apart from full caster can be made obsolete and unnecessary by a couple of spells. Fighter isn't bad because a wizard can use polymorph to turn into a better fighter. Fighter is bad due to the metric ton of battlefield control effects that make melee unnecessary (and in some cases impossible).

[Psyren]

"Fixing 3.5" was at best a secondary concern for Paizo. Their focus was more on "continuing 3.5," which I'm sure is primarily because they saw the writing on the wall for the edition.

[Paul H]

Hi

I love playing PF, even more so than 3.5, so I'm definitely biased.

Reading other boards I see a lot of flames because someone didn't buy ToB and many other less known splat books to make an awesome character. Spending, no doubt, a lot of money doing so.

Pathfinder creates more powerful versions of the basic 3.5 characters, and rewards not multiclassing. Even the Prestige Classes are more powerful. Rangers gain Favoured Terrain bonuses, Fighters no longer have a 'dead' level at level 5, etc.

Seems the OP hates the game, and just wants to rubbish it to vent their anger. No problem, but I believe the game system itself is generally far superior.

If they want to complain, concentrate on the Bestiary layout, where things are far harder to find, especially if you're used to the comparitive order of 3.5 Monster Manuals. It makes me angry, and the first thing I'd change in PF.

I agree with the recent posts, if you want an even more balanced game, try something else. (Call of Cthulu, etc).

Thanks
Paul H

[Drachasor]

The problem here is that you're treating game balance as the desired endpoint. I'm not, because that would break verisimilitude and harm the simulation aspect. 3.5 (and Pathfinder) trend closer to the simulationist end of the fantasy spectrum than the gamist end. If you want a system closer to the gamist end, where every class has equal capabilities with every other, 3.5 and PF simply won't be for you. (But you should know by now which one does meet that objective.)

It's an arbitrary standard you are advocating, and one that is indeed bad for the game. While it is true there are some fantasy novels where magic users are better then non-magic users, there are also plenty where this isn't the case. Advocating a game go the unbalanced path is just not good for the game. There's no good reason for it and it is bad for the game.

You want to play a game where mages are king? Play Mage: The Ascension or something. D&D has always had the problem at upper-mid to high levels where wizards dominate for no good reason. Yet, it does seem to like to pretend things are balanced and that balance is important.

I do find it funny you think D&D is focused on being a simulation...that's really not the sort of game it has ever tried to be.


"Fixing 3.5" was at best a secondary concern for Paizo. Their focus was more on "continuing 3.5," which I'm sure is primarily because they saw the writing on the wall for the edition.

That much is certain, otherwise they'd have given Fighters more skill points for one.

[Gnaeus]

This is one of the main issues with PF design IMHO. One of the points they spent a lot of energy on (and therefore I assume they identified as one of the major flaws of 3.5) was a class being able to fulfill the role of other class, sometimes even better than the intended 'primary' class. Most of the things that allowed casters to be melee monsters for example(polymorph, wildshape, divine power etc.) have been nerfed quite heavily. They did almost nothing to address the underlying issue: that pretty much all roles apart from full caster can be made obsolete and unnecessary by a couple of spells. Fighter isn't bad because a wizard can use polymorph to turn into a better fighter. Fighter is bad due to the metric ton of battlefield control effects that make melee unnecessary (and in some cases impossible).

I think we have had this discussion before, and I still disagree. Protecting class roles does improve playability of certain classes. Yes, it isn't the most powerful spell in a caster's arsenal, but Polymorph and Divine Power were big problems. Polymorph in particular was versatile enough that it was always worth a spell slot, and it completely let you own a fighter in melee. Power imbalance is still there, sure. But in 3.5, if you wanted to be a top melee guy, fighter was a trap. In PF, a fighter can usually do his job competently (compared with other melee options). Yes, his job still sucks, but at least he doesn't have to reroll a druid or a dmm cleric just to be good at melee if that is what he wants from his character.


Well, perhaps there are things that make it better buried deep in there if you know the right feats. It is a bit better for sorcs than wizards at base from what I saw.

I believe that every wizard gets a combat power usable 3+int per day from his specialization. Most are offensive, a few are buffs. NOTHING I mentioned required a feat, except for scribing scrolls which wizards get for free.

[Drachasor]

I believe that every wizard gets a combat power usable 3+int per day from his specialization. Most are offensive, a few are buffs. NOTHING I mentioned required a feat, except for scribing scrolls which wizards get for free.

I don't see anything like that in the srd.

[ImperatorK]

I don't see anything like that in the srd.
You're not looking hard enough. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard#TOC-Arcane-School)

[Blisstake]

(Sorry for this delayed response. My internet crapped out as I was posting)


To be fair, I started this thread because I bought Pathfinder material a few months back under the impression that Paizo's frequent claims of having fixed 3.5 were true. I want to make sure that my response of, "LIES! TREACHERY! BURN THE HERETICS!" is not entirely unwarranted.

I am arguing completely disregarding Paizo as a company. I am only looking at Pathfinder as a system. However, I think it may be good that there's a thread for this, rather than random threads involving Pathfinder devolving into arguments over the system.


The phrase you're actually looking for is "more traps in character creation." The vast majority of feat options Paizo offered to non-casters are either useless or actively harmful/detrimental to take, and then they went and further nerfed or axed old saws that permitted melee to contribute in its one defined role - raw damage. Sure, it has a few other roles (like lockdown) but those have issues of their own.

Give me some examples, and I'll attempt some counter examples. Do keep in mind the main point of my arguments is that Pathfinder's value is heavily dependent on a group's optimization. However, based on all my games using Pathfinder compared to 3.5, their raw damage output has been noticably increased.


Gate didn't get fixed. Celerity and DMM were never necessary for spellcaster dominance, just insult to injury - same with Shivering Touch. Polymorph was the only core spell list they even remotely touched and that did NOTHING to solve the issues of non-AC defenses (and with no more Mage Slayer, those are now king of the heap again), blinking/ethereal attacks, SoL's, SoD's and the various and sundry other core-only horrific rape devices that target the weak saves of both melee characters AND melee monsters - monsters which are likely to significantly out-class party melee.

Gate requires an expensive material component for summoning now, and has a more restricted HD limit. I was also just mentioning only a few of the spells that were an issue in 3.5 - not the entirety of them. Non-AC defenses can still be an issue, yes, but keep in mind they take a whole turn to cast, and burn up spell slots. Unless every single day consists of a wizard going into a singular fight they're prepared for, the spell slots really do become an issue for them. I also have no idea what SoL or SoD stands for; proof that we play games of different optimization levels, I imagine.


HP damage is literally hilarious sub-optimal; Power Attack is actually touted pretty heavily in the homebrew community as a well-balanced example of the kinds of trade-offs feats should offer. It was also one of the few nice things non-ToB melee got, which then died a slow gurgling death. The other feats are covered above, but let me re-iterate this - Paizo made it not only easy, but attractive-looking to blunder into a completely and utterly useless build in addition to providing phantom "buffs" for the fighting classes that literally did nothing to address ANY of their problems, from mind control monsters all the way to inferior damage output.

I'm not sure I agree that HP damage is sub-optimal. Damage focused fighters can quite easily dish out enough damage to take out enemies of around their CR +2-4 in 1-3 rounds. Most wizards spells that would permanently take an enemy out of a fight require a save of some sort (which often have many ways to work around), or have some other way to bypass the spell.


In short, Paizo lied to me and stole my money, and I'm seeking validation for my rage.

If Paizo said they would fix every problem with 3.5, then by all means, you have every right to be angry at them. However, my arguments are about Pathfiner as a system - not involving Paizo in any way at all.

[Drachasor]

You're not looking hard enough. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard#TOC-Arcane-School)

Ahh, ok, the put it on the far right of the screen. Ok, I kinda hate their SRD format.

Sidenote: I do find it odd why they feel they have to limit pretty minor effects. I mean, the vast majority of these things would be fine as pure at will powers.

Anyhow, I guess things are a bit better at lower levels for wizards and sorcs, though things are evidently still quite broken at higher levels.

[ImperatorK]

Ahh, ok, the put it on the far right of the screen. Ok, I kinda hate their SRD format.
They also talk about the powers in the Arcane School feature description, so it's a little hard to miss them.

[Drachasor]

They also talk about the powers in the Arcane School feature description, so it's a little hard to miss them.

I admit I skimmed through looking for power descriptions or links.

[LordBlades]

I think we have had this discussion before, and I still disagree. Protecting class roles does improve playability of certain classes. Yes, it isn't the most powerful spell in a caster's arsenal, but Polymorph and Divine Power were big problems. Polymorph in particular was versatile enough that it was always worth a spell slot, and it completely let you own a fighter in melee. Power imbalance is still there, sure. But in 3.5, if you wanted to be a top melee guy, fighter was a trap. In PF, a fighter can usually do his job competently (compared with other melee options).



I do agree with this part. Although I've come to accept it, I've never really liked how the best fighter was a caster


Yes, his job still sucks, but at least he doesn't have to reroll a druid or a dmm cleric just to be good at melee if that is what he wants from his character.

This I disagree. Pathfinder has kind of removed the concept 'good at melee' from the game(the fighter is good only by comparison, just because everybody is rather bad now). In 3.5 if you wanted to be good at melee in a mid- or high-powered game, you could roll one of the above options. In PF they're gone. All you're left with is a slightly better fighter (on average, peak PF fighter is still worse than ubercharger) and that's about as far as melee goes.

[Drachasor]

This I disagree. Pathfinder has kind of removed the concept 'good at melee' from the game(the fighter is good only by comparison, just because everybody is rather bad now). In 3.5 if you wanted to be good at melee in a mid- or high-powered game, you could roll one of the above options. In PF they're gone. All you're left with is a slightly better fighter (on average, peak PF fighter is still worse than ubercharger) and that's about as far as melee goes.

Hmm, really? How awful.

[subject42]

Rogue fights skeletons. Replace 'rogue' with 'ninja, scout, or spellthief' to taste. Nothing to do in combat.

In Pathfinder, at least, the rogue can sneak attack skeletons. They changed that so only really elementals, oozes, and swarms, are immune.

[Saph]

All you're left with is a slightly better fighter (on average, peak PF fighter is still worse than ubercharger) and that's about as far as melee goes.

Given that uberchargers reduce every battle to a binary solution set (option 1: you hit with a charge and kill the target, option 2: you don't hit with a charge and your character is largely useless) I don't see how being worse than an ubercharger is a bad thing.

Your claim that melee is useless is not supported either by the numbers or by my experience in PF games. In actual play as opposed to TO, most combats are ended by HP damage. PF Fighters are good at doing HP damage, so they have a useful role to play in the party. Just because you can't OMGWTFPWN an entire encounter with one standard action, that does not make your character 'useless'.

Our current Pathfinder campaign has run from level 1 to level 9, and the party includes a Sorcerer, a Wizard, a Fighter, and a Monk. According to you the Fighter and Monk should be completely useless and permanently bored. This isn't how it works in practice at all. The Fighter and Monk consistently do the most damage, get the most kills, and are generally active contributors to every battle.

[Midnight_v]

Hmm...
Two Words stick out for me when I think about pathfinder, as I was there from the very day the decided they'd keep 3.5's torch burning.
"Backward Compatibility"
Okay 3 words: "Backward Compatibility... Liars"
Thats what they offered initially, it wasn't true, so regardless of why it didn't play out that way. It didn't. So yeah they have a credibility issue w/me. . .
and not even a remotely debatable one. So ymmv.
I will tell you one thing it fixed. Psionics.
Now they have have some good buisness sense in some ways and hiring DreamScarredPress to do PF psionics was one of the best choices they could have made. So yeah. . .
Pathfinder, fixed psionics.

If you're questioning is did they fix anything that REALLY matters? No, as others have said its still generally 3.5

I actually think Pathfinder made things "WORSE" in someways. Mostly for melee.
Some people seem to think that having 1 book is better. I find that having more options to achieve concepts to be better regardless of the exact numberics of literature involved.
Finally...
The existence of the TOME by frank and k being so much better, as far as "Balance" (even if it is up to tier1) and being free for and around for a longer time makes it seem a regression to what I see as a WORSE set of houserules.

Some people will argue otherwise.


In actual play as opposed to TO, most combats are ended by HP damage
Since "actual play" is not opposed to "TO" by any means, it just hits the chord of:
"I don't think that word means what you think it means..."
Not that even if you did pick the right word, your annecdotal evidence would count for much. It really doesn't. Too many factors go into what you may or may not be doing to establish a measurable rubric of "most combats end in hp damage." so, meh.

[Blisstake]

This I disagree. Pathfinder has kind of removed the concept 'good at melee' from the game(the fighter is good only by comparison, just because everybody is rather bad now). In 3.5 if you wanted to be good at melee in a mid- or high-powered game, you could roll one of the above options. In PF they're gone. All you're left with is a slightly better fighter (on average, peak PF fighter is still worse than ubercharger) and that's about as far as melee goes.

This is a good point. While an ubercharger probably will be doing more damage than a PF character, it does mean that you have more options for creating a character, instead of being forced to go one route.

Of course, for mostly non-optimized groups, the fighter will be performing better in Pathfinder than they would in 3.5.

[Gnaeus]

This I disagree. Pathfinder has kind of removed the concept 'good at melee' from the game(the fighter is good only by comparison, just because everybody is rather bad now). In 3.5 if you wanted to be good at melee in a mid- or high-powered game, you could roll one of the above options. In PF they're gone. All you're left with is a slightly better fighter (on average, peak PF fighter is still worse than ubercharger) and that's about as far as melee goes.

Depends on optimization level. Yes, nothing in PF is on the ubercharger level. PF is generally unfriendly to those of us who play in high-op land.

Compare the rogue. More HP, more class abilities (many equivalent to low-mid power feats) gets to sneak attack lots more stuff. Low-mid op player would say rogue is much stronger, and he would be right. High op player's rogue is heavily nerfed. No sneak attack from grease or ring of blinking. Can't SA with touch attacks from vials. He has lost a lot of his ability to make 6-8 successful sneak attacks per round against enemies immune to invisibility (The low op DM already banned this as being broken). No swift action wands to UMD in wand chamber in his weapons. He was already using ACFs to sneak attack immune critters. So high-op rogue is weaker. Fighter is similar.

But then, if you are a high op 3.5 player, you can always play PF + 3.5.

[Psyren]

It's an arbitrary standard you are advocating, and one that is indeed bad for the game. While it is true there are some fantasy novels where magic users are better then non-magic users, there are also plenty where this isn't the case.

Do you have any examples? I honestly can't think of a single setting where mages take a back-seat to muggles in terms of capability. They may be hated, feared and oppressed, but that is almost always due to superiority of numbers on the part of the mundanes, not individual superiority.


Advocating a game go the unbalanced path is just not good for the game. There's no good reason for it and it is bad for the game.

If imbalanced play is so horrible, why are so many people buying and playing PF instead of 4e? It has near-perfect balance, after all.

Clearly the decision to carry forward 3.5's heterogeneity - imbalance and all - did not cause the experience to wither on the vine.


You want to play a game where mages are king? Play Mage: The Ascension or something.

Or D&D. Or Elder Scrolls. Or Ultima. Or...


D&D has always had the problem at upper-mid to high levels where wizards dominate for no good reason. Yet, it does seem to like to pretend things are balanced and that balance is important.

Balance is important - to a point. It simply makes sense to me that the person who relies on his body gets weaker over time, while the person who relies on his mind gets stronger, or that the person whose power comes from a deity gains greater capabilities as his understanding of that being grows.


I do find it funny you think D&D is focused on being a simulation...that's really not the sort of game it has ever tried to be.

And you're basing this on what, exactly? All the internally consistent fantasy settings they created to frame the mechanics? The need for food, water and sleep? Mechanics based as much around popular fantasy tropes as they are on game balance?

If it wasn't intended to be a simulation, they wouldn't have needed any of that. Just make it Diablo - here's "town," leave town, here's monsters. No need for rules on social interaction, eating/drinking/breathing, any of it.

But they included these details, so clearly they're trying for at least somewhat of a simulationist approach.


That much is certain, otherwise they'd have given Fighters more skill points for one.

They did (indirectly) via skill consolidation - e.g. rolling Jump, Balance and Tumble into one, and Spot/Listen into another, etc.

[Drachasor]

Do you have any examples? I honestly can't think of a single setting where mages take a back-seat to muggles in terms of capability. They may be hated, feared and oppressed, but that is almost always due to superiority of numbers on the part of the mundanes, not individual superiority.

Conan is the most obvious.

[Yora]

There's no problem with spellcasters being more powerful than non-casters.
But then have the most powerful spellcastrs be 16th level and the non-casters 12th level.
If everyone is 10th level, they should all be eqally powerful.

[Gnaeus]

Conan is the most obvious.

Both right. Psyren is talking about high fantasy. Drach is discussing Sword + Sorcery. Different sub-genres. D&D is high fantasy, and does not mimic S&S well.

[hamishspence]

In the Conan novels, mages are still pretty terrifying, even if they're fragile.

Conan didn't defeat the evil mage in Tower of the Elephant, for example- instead he freed the mage's enslaved entity, by killing it- and it's spirit went after the evil mage.

[Saph]

Yeah, if I remember right, Conan generally beats the evil mages by outwitting them, or by getting help from another spellcaster. Spellcasters in Conan are greatly feared, more so than warriors.

[Gnaeus]

But in Conan, spellcasters are NOT T1. They are mostly summoners. They cannot destroy armies or wrestle elephants. Conan kills them, when he does, by sticking 3 feet of non-magic steel through them. Do not try this at home in your 3.5 game. It will hurt if you do.

[Psyren]

Conan is the most obvious.

Not a single D&D (or PF) setting was ever intended to be Cimmeria. You want Iron Kingdoms for that.

Also, what Saph/hamish said.

[Amphetryon]

Question for the OP:

In your opinion, how could they have gone about "fixing" 3.5 while making magic still able to alter reality and without making combats binary? In other words, what "fixes" were you looking for?

[Midnight_v]

Conan is the most obvious.
+1


If imbalanced play is so horrible, why are so many people buying and playing PF instead of 4e? It has near-perfect balance, after all.
For a HUGE number of issues OTHER than the one you're advocating.
Myself I like the options 3.5 allows. I like the multiclassing and huge number of feats, and 4.0 lost me when the Half-Orc barbarian wasn't in the first book, replaced with the dragon born... whatever..
The last straw with paizo was earlier but when I saw what they did with improved trip... and how the wizard generalist worked. I knew they didnt' know enough about game mechanics.

However. . .
Near perfect balance, where everyone sucks equally... does a good number on that system, though.
The Tome Series does "Near perfect balance where everone's awesome" but many people can't deal with that either honestly.

So you need to find "baby bear" balance. Likely something like tier 3.

I reject the notion fully that "wizards DESERVE" because of nerdom, realilty strings or whatever.
Especially when barbarians should be drawing on some "Primal Force" for thier ability set.
Players deserve a chance to be equally as good or it needs to be spelled out that options are not equal.

Its tough to find that spot where tier 3 is the balancing point, people have tried. *shrug*.


Not a single D&D (or PF) setting was ever intended to be Cimmeria. You want Iron Kingdoms for that
You failed to specify, lol. Now that you have, let it be said that the very issue we're discussing applies to why you DON'T see that.
Why? The system needs to be fixed. . .

[Psyren]

For a HUGE number of issues OTHER than the one you're advocating.

So you agree that "balance" as a systemic goal is actually incidental to the gaming experience then?

And I haven't seen a single response to Saph's point about TO vs. actual PF play.

[Drachasor]

Both right. Psyren is talking about high fantasy. Drach is discussing Sword + Sorcery. Different sub-genres. D&D is high fantasy, and does not mimic S&S well.

I think it is fair to say that D&D pays lip service to the idea that the classes are balanced. The devs too. This is particularly true of 3rd edition (which is part of the reason 4th is the way it is). High Fantasy doesn't have to mean "casters rule!" by any stretch of the imagination.

[Midnight_v]

So you agree that "balance" as a systemic goal is actually incidental to the gaming experience then?

And I haven't seen a single response to Saph's point about TO vs. actual PF play.
No. I'm saying that you need to find the "correct" balance. Further, that NOT having balance as one of your major design objectives leads to a system that doesn't work well, and will be wholly unsatisfying to vast portions of your target demographic. They mays still play it but that works best when you're essetially "the only game in town".

Also. . . I responded to Saph's *ahem* point.


Since "actual play" is not opposed to "TO" by any means, it just hits the chord of:
"I don't think that word means what you think it means..."
Not that even if you did pick the right word, your annecdotal evidence would count for much. It really doesn't. Too many factors go into what you may or may not be doing to establish a measurable rubric of "most combats end in hp damage." so, meh.

[Psyren]

High Fantasy doesn't have to mean "casters rule!" by any stretch of the imagination.

That's pretty much exactly what it means.

Literally. Like, magocracies, magic-as-technology/medicine, routine interplanar travel, that sort of thing.


Further, that NOT having balance as one of your major design objectives leads to a system that doesn't work well, and will be wholly unsatisfying to vast portions of your target demographic. They mays still play it but that works best when you're essetially "the only game in town".

Pathfinder isn't "the only game in town" by the remotest stretch of the imagination. There are tons of alternatives; pick one. It's just more popular than the others because 3.5 is what the people want.

[Saph]

I think it is fair to say that D&D pays lip service to the idea that the classes are balanced. The devs too. This is particularly true of 3rd edition (which is part of the reason 4th is the way it is). High Fantasy doesn't have to mean "casters rule!" by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't think it's possible to have a class-based system with as much variety as 3.5 and also have all the possible classes well-balanced against each other in all possible settings. You just have to accept that you're sacrificing balance in exchange for a greater choice of mechanics.

The best you can get, IMO, is for every class to have a role and be able to contribute something useful.

[Sucrose]

That's pretty much exactly what it means.

Literally. Like, magocracies, magic-as-technology/medicine, routine interplanar travel, that sort of thing.

Not really. Lord of the Rings is high-fantasy, and in that, a warrior with no combat-related magic is the most powerful non-demigod in the world. A pair of supremely skilled, but nonetheless mundane warriors killed the greatest lieutenant of the source of all evil in hand-to-hand combat, after mustering a force sufficient to defeat the one that he bolstered by foul sorcery.

Manipulating reality is indeed more powerful than swinging a sword. It is also far more difficult. 3.5 and Pathfinder's tendency toward magic being actually easier than swinging a sword repeatedly (since you can do that and still move in six seconds) is really rather aberrant. Even Gandalf fought using his sword.

[Midnight_v]

I think it is fair to say that D&D pays lip service to the idea that the classes are balanced. The devs too. This is particularly true of 3rd edition (which is part of the reason 4th is the way it is). High Fantasy doesn't have to mean "casters rule!" by any stretch of the imagination

WOW. THIS! No matter what Psyren happens to argue. The people who made D&D 3.X intended to make it balanced. (generally there was that "We meant to do that" blog.)

No matter how it panned out it was "SUPPOSED" to be balanced. NOT CoDzilla, and BATMEN/GODS... and vanilla melee's.
The problem was Frank was smarter than the sage, the Co Boards playtested more than the devs... and NONE of the people making the game had the gist of the system. They actually thought it was balanced.
So yeah. The system is MEANT to be balanced. Each class contributing equally. Or having the potential to. That pies not cut correctly, and reasonable people aren't happy playing a fighter that doesnt' stack up to wolverine or storybook drizzt or whoever they imagine.



I don't think it's possible to have a class-based system with as much variety as 3.5 and also have all the possible classes well-balanced against each other in all possible settings. You just have to accept that you're sacrificing balance in exchange for a greater choice of mechanics.

The best you can get, IMO, is for every class to have a role and be able to contribute something useful.
"With as much variety" is a bit vague but...

I disagree. Take a tier. Lets say tier 3 (ftw)
Make the party of people from 1 tier. Filling whatever rolls as you wish.
Ta-da.
You have a players handbook
Now that "in all possible settings" gives you too much wiggle room for getting out of the point you're hinting at but... for the existing settings.
This works.
We have all the same Class archtypes, and much less of the nonsensical "uber".


Pathfinder isn't "the only game in town" by the remotest stretch of the imagination. There are tons of alternatives; pick one. It's just more popular than the others because 3.5 is what the people want
Hey, psyren... I was talking about D&D 3.5 there not Pf, sorry I wasn't clear.
3.5 is what people want yeah. So that being the case... they'll totally settle for 3.p. even if its not particularly an improvemnt.

Funny. Here at Gitp. We have Pathfinder Mondays, and Tob/tuesdays/thursdays.

[faceroll]

Wow, wizards get a huge buff in PF.

[Midnight_v]

Wow, wizards get a huge buff in PF.
Yeah, that was one of those defining moments of WT@ that system!

[Psyren]

Not really. Lord of the Rings is high-fantasy, and in that, a warrior with no combat-related magic is the most powerful non-demigod in the world. A pair of supremely skilled, but nonetheless mundane warriors killed the greatest lieutenant of the source of all evil in hand-to-hand combat, after mustering a force sufficient to defeat the one that he bolstered by foul sorcery.

I don't consider LotR to be high fantasy. There are what, 3 wizards left in the whole world? Artifacts nobody can actually use? 1 demon? No dragons left?

How were the injured healed? Long convalescence until the one dude with "healing magic" made his rounds. How were the battles fought? Mobs of people charging each other with pointy sticks, and lots of arrows. That's not "high fantasy" to me.


I disagree. Take a tier. Lets say tier 3 (ftw)
Make the party of people from 1 tier. Filling whatever rolls as you wish.
Ta-da.
You have a players handbook
Now that "in all possible settings" gives you too much wiggle room for getting out of the point you're hinting at but... for the existing settings.
This works.
We have all the same Class archtypes, and much less of the nonsensical "uber".


I would have actually been fine with an all-T3 PHB. Problem is that WotC already came up with the best T3 classes we can envision, and made every single one of them closed content. Blame them, not Paizo.

[Saph]

I disagree. Take a tier. Lets say tier 3 (ftw)

And you've just cut out 80% of the classes in the game. As I said, you can't balance 3.5 without massively reducing its mechanical variety.


The problem was Frank was smarter than the sage

I've read Frank and K's Tome series. They're good as an ideas source but very mediocre as an actual rules supplement.

Frank's also notable for posting one of the most vitriolic and uninformative reviews of Pathfinder that I've ever seen. I read it while I was writing my 3.5/Pathfinder guide and honestly, I might just as well have not bothered for all the useful information it had in it. With hindsight, perhaps the reason Frank hated PF so much was because he realised that the Pathfinder 'houserules' were going to be successful whereas his own ones would largely be ignored . . .

[Psyren]

With hindsight, perhaps he saw that the Pathfinder 'houserules' were going to be successful whereas his own ones would largely be ignored . . .

That would add a bit of bite to one's pen. :smallwink:

[hamishspence]

I don't consider LotR to be high fantasy. There are what, 3 wizards left in the whole world? Artifacts nobody can actually use? 1 demon? No dragons left?

How were the injured healed? Long convalescence until the one dude with "healing magic" made his rounds. How were the battles fought? Mobs of people charging each other with pointy sticks, and lots of arrows. That's not "high fantasy" to me.

Wikipedia doesn't define high fantasy as high magic.

"The conflict between good and evil" seems to be a bigger factor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Fantasy

[faceroll]

I don't consider LotR to be high fantasy.

Funny, cause Tolkien kind of pioneered the high fantasy genre.

[Boci]

And you've just cut out 80% of the classes in the game. As I said, you can't balance 3.5 without massively reducing its mechanical variety.

Only if you look at it as numbers. What does removing 17 16 levels from the knight class do mechanically to the game? Some people would say not that much.

[Psyren]

Funny, cause Tolkien kind of pioneered the high fantasy genre.

I know, right? It's weird!


Wikipedia doesn't define high fantasy as high magic.

"The conflict between good and evil" seems to be a bigger factor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Fantasy

Even if we use "high magic" instead - it's pretty clear that was also D&D's intention, and has been uniform in every published setting.

[Gnaeus]

Not really. Lord of the Rings is high-fantasy, and in that, a warrior with no combat-related magic is the most powerful non-demigod in the world.

I highly doubt that. Galadriel and Elrond are almost certainly the two most powerful, described non-demigods in the world. And that is only because the term demigod seems to include all wizards and most of the world's most powerful beings. If I say, "you are the most powerful guy in the world, except for all the powerful ones", that doesn't mean much, does it.

Edit: oh, and since Smaug seems to be described as "one of the last great fire drakes" you would probably have to include any other living dragons on the list of most powerful non-demigods who are still stronger than a swordsman.


A pair of supremely skilled, but nonetheless mundane warriors killed the greatest lieutenant of the source of all evil in hand-to-hand combat, after mustering a force sufficient to defeat the one that he bolstered by foul sorcery.

Leaving aside the fact that Merry's sword was magic, that the witch king could only be beaten in pretty much that exact set of circumstances, and not, for example, by any other combination of warriors on that battlefield except maybe by Gandalf (can't be stopped by men), that the good guys had their own magical army that was also required, and, of course, that the witch king was not actually SLAIN, only beaten. He's like a wizard with a badly worded Contingency.

[Lord_Gareth]

Question for the OP:

In your opinion, how could they have gone about "fixing" 3.5 while making magic still able to alter reality and without making combats binary? In other words, what "fixes" were you looking for?

- Allow characters with sufficient BAB to make multiple attacks even if they move.

- Buff or cut trap feats. Introduce options like feats, skill tricks and class features that allow characters to contribute in combat in ways aside from damage (imagine, if you would, a fighter-type with a hamstring effect or rogues that take Evasion to its logical conclusion and teleport).

- Rework the metamagic system, cut or make highly expensive methods of metamagic reduction. Allow spellcasters to deal nonlethal damage natively rather than requiring obscure spells/sourcebooks. Cut casting/manifesting defensively entirely.

- 5-foot steps provoke AoOs (put those ranks in Acrobatics!), tumble check is vs. the attack roll for the AoO instead of a static DC. More skills should be universal - there's no reason every class shouldn't have Perception, for example. I'd even make a case for Ride.

- Nerf or remove SoL's across the board. Begin Save-or-Die effects at fifteenth level or higher. Move healing effects to necromancy, move damage back into Evocation, reduce or remove the number of SR: No spells. Reduce the power of summon effects, slice Gate entirely (a lot of nines just need the slice/rewrite). For something with serious cajones, try reducing full casters to six levels of casting (keep Bard the same) to go along with the buffs to fighter-types.

- Stop being beholden to the idea that melee primary = mundane = can't break "realism". Rogues give physics the finger at second level and never look back, there's no reason my fighter, barbarian, or ranger shouldn't be doing the same. With that in mind, draw inspiration from sources like myth & legend (Ireland has some seriously sick warriors), television, videogames (like Devil May Cry or God of War) and, yes, anime and wuxia in order to get effects that let fighters and casters dance.

- Throw out current monster stats. Yes, all of them. Rewrite them with the ten+ years of 3.X knowledge that Paizo has access to into something that's tactically interesting instead of being "caster" and "non-caster". If they're really stuck on ideas, they can read MMV for them.

That's just a few off-the-cuff thoughts, and is by no means comprehensive.


Give me some examples, and I'll attempt some counter examples. Do keep in mind the main point of my arguments is that Pathfinder's value is heavily dependent on a group's optimization. However, based on all my games using Pathfinder compared to 3.5, their raw damage output has been noticably increased.

Well, let's try the Improveds: Imp Sunder/Disarm/Bull Rush/Overrun, et cetera. Because of how CMB vs. CMD is calculated, not only are they natively difficult to use, but their benefits from 3.X have been reduced as well. Cleave and its older brother Great Cleave never stopped being traps. Power Attack is now, objectively, a trap, as by the time you can strike with any semblance of reliability with it, it's no longer worth the accuracy hit.


Gate requires an expensive material component for summoning now, and has a more restricted HD limit. I was also just mentioning only a few of the spells that were an issue in 3.5 - not the entirety of them. Non-AC defenses can still be an issue, yes, but keep in mind they take a whole turn to cast, and burn up spell slots. Unless every single day consists of a wizard going into a singular fight they're prepared for, the spell slots really do become an issue for them. I also have no idea what SoL or SoD stands for; proof that we play games of different optimization levels, I imagine.

SoL - Save or Lose, also known as Encounter Enders. In 3.5, classic low-level ones included Sleep, Grease, Daze, Hold Person, and Color Spray. Pathfinder gave some of those the thumbscrews, but not all, and not after about 3rd or 4th level spells.

SoD - Save or Die, such as Phantasmal Killer or Finger of Death. Pretty simple, no further explanation needed.

And non-AC defenses are much more than just buffs - the various fog spells, for example, double as a defense and a method of control. Wind Wall. Wall of Ice. Planar Binding/Ally gets you a being that can buff you all you like (4th level spells again), and readied action spells can still disrupt the field with ease.


I'm not sure I agree that HP damage is sub-optimal. Damage focused fighters can quite easily dish out enough damage to take out enemies of around their CR +2-4 in 1-3 rounds. Most wizards spells that would permanently take an enemy out of a fight require a save of some sort (which often have many ways to work around), or have some other way to bypass the spell.

Please, explain how this works past level eight or so. No, seriously - tell me. Because that's when the nasty stuff like DR, flight, teleportation, and monsters with far greater HD than CR show up - like fiends, dragons, and aberrations. Gods both above and below forbid you're the melee dude forced to fight an advanced HD mimic or carrion crawler.


If Paizo said they would fix every problem with 3.5, then by all means, you have every right to be angry at them. However, my arguments are about Pathfinder as a system - not involving Paizo in any way at all.

In perfect fairness, I didn't know the PFinder SRD existed until after I made my purchase. The company has touted PF as balanced for years, and a quick trawl through their forum archives reveals that threads like this one in concept but much more polite find themselves banned by the mod squad, which is the design equivalent of sticking one's head in the sand. Paizo has precisely no respect from me - and, well, the system comments are above.

[Amphetryon]

- Allow characters with sufficient BAB to make multiple attacks even if they move.

- Buff or cut trap feats. Introduce options like feats, skill tricks and class features that allow characters to contribute in combat in ways aside from damage (imagine, if you would, a fighter-type with a hamstring effect or rogues that take Evasion to its logical conclusion and teleport).

- Rework the metamagic system, cut or make highly expensive methods of metamagic reduction. Allow spellcasters to deal nonlethal damage natively rather than requiring obscure spells/sourcebooks. Cut casting/manifesting defensively entirely.

- 5-foot steps provoke AoOs (put those ranks in Acrobatics!), tumble check is vs. the attack roll for the AoO instead of a static DC. More skills should be universal - there's no reason every class shouldn't have Perception, for example. I'd even make a case for Ride.

- Nerf or remove SoL's across the board. Begin Save-or-Die effects at fifteenth level or higher. Move healing effects to necromancy, move damage back into Evocation, reduce or remove the number of SR: No spells. Reduce the power of summon effects, slice Gate entirely (a lot of nines just need the slice/rewrite). For something with serious cajones, try reducing full casters to six levels of casting (keep Bard the same) to go along with the buffs to fighter-types.

- Stop being beholden to the idea that melee primary = mundane = can't break "realism". Rogues give physics the finger at second level and never look back, there's no reason my fighter, barbarian, or ranger shouldn't be doing the same. With that in mind, draw inspiration from sources like myth & legend (Ireland has some seriously sick warriors), television, videogames (like Devil May Cry or God of War) and, yes, anime and wuxia in order to get effects that let fighters and casters dance.

- Throw out current monster stats. Yes, all of them. Rewrite them with the ten+ years of 3.X knowledge that Paizo has access to into something that's tactically interesting instead of being "caster" and "non-caster". If they're really stuck on ideas, they can read MMV for them.

That's just a few off-the-cuff thoughts, and is by no means comprehensive.




Divine Power, Knowledge Devotion, and the Cleric Archer Problem all exist without any immediately apparent changes with your suggestions, so I'm probably missing something as to how these would "fix" balance. In other words, anything that a caster could do to improve their ability to melee is still extant with these suggestions, in addition to the fact that they'd still be a caster.

[Sucrose]

I highly doubt that. Galadriel and Elrond are almost certainly the two most powerful, described non-demigods in the world. And that is only because the term demigod seems to include all wizards and most of the world's most powerful beings. If I say, "you are the most powerful guy in the world, except for all the powerful ones", that doesn't mean much, does it.

The only reason that the 'wizards' are more powerful than pure warriors are because the 'wizards' are quite literally minor gods. As for Galadriel and Elrond: their deeds prove otherwise. Both only managed to hold their own lands (where their powers were stronger), while under the shield of the forces of Men. Further, I should note that the world of Middle-Earth does indeed have sorcerors beyond the Istari: the only one that amounts to anything is the Witch-King, who, as you were kind enough to point out, was killed by two mundane, lower-levelled warriors.


Leaving aside the fact that Merry's sword was magic, that the witch king could only be beaten in pretty much that exact set of circumstances, and not, for example, by any other combination of warriors on that battlefield except maybe by Gandalf (can't be stopped by men), that the good guys had their own magical army that was also required, and, of course, that the witch king was not actually SLAIN, only beaten. He's like a wizard with a badly worded Contingency.

Was referring to Sauron himself, actually. Elendil and Gil-galad killed Sauron. No mystical army of the dead required- just the strength of men and elves.

[Lord_Gareth]

Divine Power, Knowledge Devotion, and the Cleric Archer Problem all exist without any immediately apparent changes with your suggestions, so I'm probably missing something as to how these would "fix" balance. In other words, anything that a caster could do to improve their ability to melee is still extant with these suggestions, in addition to the fact that they'd still be a caster.

Again, it was an off-the-cuff set of ideas (and I still don't know what the hell Knowledge Devotion is), but ideally the phrase "add real class features" would be the reason the DP and CAP are no longer issues - you know, kinda like how a cleric popping DP without extensive further buffing is still inferior to a Warblade in melee. A comprehensive fix for 3.5 would take a lot of work and effort, and Paizo had the time, resources, and team to do it - I don't, and they either were too ignorant or too stubborn to do so themselves.

[Boci]

(and I still don't know what the hell Knowledge Devotion is),


A feat that gives up to +5 to hit and damage for your knowledge checks against opponents.

[Amphetryon]

Again, it was an off-the-cuff set of ideas (and I still don't know what the hell Knowledge Devotion is), but ideally the phrase "add real class features" would be the reason the DP and CAP are no longer issues - you know, kinda like how a cleric popping DP without extensive further buffing is still inferior to a Warblade in melee. A comprehensive fix for 3.5 would take a lot of work and effort, and Paizo had the time, resources, and team to do it - I don't, and they either were too ignorant or too stubborn to do so themselves.I'd be willing to wager that, had Paizo released a version that exactly fixed 3.5 to your desired specifications (assuming that such an exact fix is possible), there would be much howling and gnashing of teeth about how they didn't fix the right things from other quadrants. Therein lies one of the major problems with any proposed fix to a system with a large enough user base.

[Big Fau]

In short, Paizo lied to me and stole my money, and I'm seeking validation for my rage.

+9001.

Sidenote: Claiming that you are accepting community input during Beta and then banning the people who are actually pointing out the major issues (Candle of Invocation for starters) is not good for PR.

[Psyren]

The only reason that the 'wizards' are more powerful than pure warriors are because the 'wizards' are quite literally minor gods. As for Galadriel and Elrond: their deeds prove otherwise. Both only managed to hold their own lands (where their powers were stronger), while under the shield of the forces of Men.

Yep, when it's one wizard vs. 10k orcs he may need an army of his own. What exactly does this prove?


Further, I should note that the world of Middle-Earth does indeed have sorcerors beyond the Istari: the only one that amounts to anything is the Witch-King, who, as you were kind enough to point out, was killed by two mundane, lower-levelled warriors.

Due to plot/prophecy, not any kind of real skill on their part. It was just the "no man of woman born shall harm Macbeth" clause being invoked all over again in an exciting new way.


Was referring to Sauron himself, actually. Elendil and Gil-galad killed Sauron. You are mistaken, however: the army of the dead was not actually able to kill anything in the books- they just gave the baddies a taste of their own medicine, overwhelming fear.

So they were a giant plot-spell that imposed a massive morale penalty to the opposing force, like a Ritual or Incantation. Even low-magic can have those.

[subject42]

Here's a short list that I've seen in-game. Your mileage may vary, but this is what I've seen as a player and DM.

Things that Pathfinder made better

Sneak Attack: This works on undead and constructs. Hooray!
Monks: Monks are more viable now than they were in 3.5, particularly if you focus on combat maneuvers. I had a player with a trip/sunder monk that would knock people over and then stomp holes in their armor as part of a flurry. I'm kinda glad that he didn't have access to Ultimate Combat's dimensional dervish feat at the time.
Skill points: Pathfinder skills are so much nicer than 3.5 that I backport them to 3.5 games.
Enhancement Bonuses: These can help bypass DR now! I've only seen this in use once in a game, but I liked it.
More sources of class-based supplemental damage: I've actually seen a viable dex-based fighter and as well as a crossbow fighter. They were in a more "traditional" party, so your mileage may vary.


Things that Pathfinder changed enough to impact the game (YMMV)

Concentration checks: These aren't quite the gimmes that they were in 3.5, especially at low levels, but I wouldn't mind seeing them be even harder.
CMB/CMD: This can go both ways. I like the fact that weapon enhancements and fighter weapon group bonuses can apply to CMB, though. It gives more value to flat enhancements.
Polymorph: As a DM I love this. As a player I hate it.
Favored Class: I think humans get it too good here, but some of them offer nice options for flavor customization.


Things Pathfinder changed that don't really change anything

Grease: It's not the same, but it's still right powerful.
Rage as rounds: The overall difference in effectiveness is rarely more than a round or two, so the only net change is more bookkeeping.
Power Attack: Since I don't allow characters that can deal arbitrary levels of damage at my tables, the lack of ShockTrooperPowerLeapChargerPouncers hasn't been a problem.
Cleric Proficiencies: Clerics lost heavy armor proficiency, which they can get back with a feat. Clerics get more feats than they did in 3.5. It's a wash.


Things that Pathfinder changed that made things worse

Bardic Music as rounds: This has put a cramp in the style of the one player I've seen play a bard. It's not huge, but it's noticeable.


There are also things that they added that I absolutely love, as well as things that underwhelm me (eg: vital strike), but I won't cover that for now.

[Sucrose]

Yep, when it's one wizard vs. 10k orcs he may need an army of his own. What exactly does this prove?

That magic is not all powerful. That a general can be mightier than a wizard. Mostly, though, just pointing out that there's no real reason to believe that the wielders of the elven rings (not counting Gandalf) are stronger, in the end, than those who place their faith in other things. The societies that depend on the rings are dying, while the societies placing their emphasis on courage and strength of arms are eroding far less rapidly.


Due to plot/prophecy, not any kind of real skill on their part. It was just the "no man of woman born shall harm Macbeth" clause being invoked all over again in an exciting new way.

That's like claiming that because Ao foresaw Raistlin becoming the god of a barren world, all of his accomplishments toward that end are not the result of his own ability. The Witch-King went in with an undeserved sense of invincibility, and it cost him.

[Gnaeus]

The only reason that the 'wizards' are more powerful than pure warriors are because the 'wizards' are quite literally minor gods.

And so is ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE in LOTR. Wizards, Balrog (and other existing demons) Sauron. You could just as well say that the only reason that demigods are more powerful than pure warriors is because the demigods are quite literally wizards. The magic folk are stronger than the non magic folk. I don't care what their backstory is.

Yeah, the underdogs win. That is why it is exciting. It isn't because guys with swords are stronger than magic. Gandalf makes that quite clear. It is because Sauron forged himself a giant weakness.


As for Galadriel and Elrond: their deeds prove otherwise. Both only managed to hold their own lands (where their powers were stronger), while under the shield of the forces of Men.

Not really. Both used their MAGIC to keep their realms hidden from enemy forces. Both had their forces in lands near enemy forces (the goblins and other evils of the Misty Mountains) and both were quite successful in lands that had no real protection from men. The rangers of the north were 30 guys, and it was pretty clear (from the descriptions of Glorfindel) that an elf lord was more powerful than a tower full of orcs.



Further, I should note that the world of Middle-Earth does indeed have sorcerors beyond the Istari: the only one that amounts to anything is the Witch-King, who, as you were kind enough to point out, was killed by two mundane, lower-levelled warriors.

Actually, I was kind enough to point out that he WASN'T killed by those folks, and was only defeated by them because of extreme circumstances. The powers of the sorcerers, aka they who do not appear anywhere in the books, are pretty unclear. I think we can safely put them below the elf-lords (who use magic) and the dragons (who use magic), but where they rank vs. sword guy is never tested.


Was referring to Sauron himself, actually. Elendil and Gil-galad killed Sauron.

No, they didn't. Gollem and Frodo killed Sauron.


You are mistaken, however: the army of the dead was not actually able to kill anything in the books- they just gave the baddies a taste of their own medicine, overwhelming fear.

I am not mistaken. I didn't say that they killed anyone. I said that they were necessary for the defeat of Sauron's army.

[Midnight_v]

And you've just cut out 80% of the classes in the game. As I said, you can't balance 3.5 without massively reducing its mechanical variety.

Except thats not what you said... :smallwink:


I don't think it's possible to have a class-based system with as much variety as 3.5 and also have all the possible classes well-balanced against each other in all possible settings. Changing what you said to include adding words like "Mechanical Variety" hugely change the meaning of your statement. My statement is the same whoever, and just as strong.
As I said:

"With as much variety" is a bit vague but...

We have all the same Class archtypes, and much less of the nonsensical "uber".
So... you may be trying to change your arguement from vague and bravo, but my point stands. You get ride of some of the excess classes yet keep the concepts. Mechanical excess not variety is what you're dealing with. Further, I said: Now you have a players handbook. You can start at least from a balanced point.

Frank(and Keith)

I read it while I was writing my 3.5/Pathfinder guide
Ahh well your bias is showing. If you're already at the point taking the time to write a guide, you've already bought in. Someone starts telling you, things you don't want to hear... well yeah, it's gonna feel uninformative.

I've read Jason Bulhman's Pathfinder series. Its not particularly good in world crafting sense and actually very mediocre as an actual rules replacement for 3.5.

There's a lot of people who practically begged Frank and K, to become a buisness, that "Is Frank smarter than the sage thing" was actually a multipart thread on the Wizard D&D boards. Started by people other than frank who wanted rules questions answered by somone other than the sage "skip" at the time iirc.
Now after F&K Wrote the Tome Series (which really did balance the game to tier 1 and 2) people pretty much begged him to actually start a company. Right then. Frank however, while working on shadowrun and WoD, was actually getting out to work on his doctoral thesis or somesuch and doing peace work in czech republic. So making game stuff had to take a back seat. Running a company for years hasn't been an option. So if he didn't have more important things outside the hobby... yeah. No more pathfinder.

Now the thing that cheese'd so many people off about PF? That got frank all vitrolic about Buhlmans & Co's Pathfinder houserules?

The lies. The lies about backwards compatibility, the lies about open playtesting, the lies about working out the balance issues (which again is a case of people who don't know jack about the game controling the direction of the game.)

So yeah... pathfinder is winning but only because there's no 3.5 support,
and I heard recently on the net that they're thinking of bringing support for older systems of D&D. (I presume they mean 3.5 too)
YAY!

[Psyren]

That magic is not all powerful. That a general can be mightier than a wizard.

That I need 1000 muggles to match 1 wizard proves that wizards are stronger, actually.

And I never said wizards were "all powerful."


The societies that depend on the rings are dying, while the societies placing their emphasis on courage and strength of arms are eroding far less rapidly.

Sounds like low-magic to me.


That's like claiming that because Ao foresaw Raistlin becoming the god of a barren world, all of his accomplishments toward that end are not the result of his own ability. The Witch-King went in with an undeserved sense of invincibility, and it cost him.

Right - he fell due to his own hubris (just like the mages that Conan took down), not because he actually put his Int score to any use. In short, he caught the Idiot Ball just long enough to get outwitted by a chick and a hobbit. Plot.

[Big Fau]

and it (as of yet) lacks MoI, ToM and ToB.

It isn't likely to get them either. Those are not covered under the OGL, and they would need explicit permission from WotC to reprint those books for PF use.


WotC has stated that they have discontinued 3E support entirely, and I doubt they would allow Paizo (or anyone else) to pick up those books and port them into a fix.

[MeeposFire]

Not a single D&D (or PF) setting was ever intended to be Cimmeria. You want Iron Kingdoms for that.

Also, what Saph/hamish said.

I have to disagree. If you look at the history of D&D by reading old Dragon mag and the like emulating Conan in particular was a very common theme. There were at least three different attempts to make a barbarian class to emulate Conan and it was a common subject back then. Then again magic back then was more dangerous and vulnerable.

3e magic is the single most powerful edition for magic in D&D. None of the other editions have it that good. It is also probably the worst for warriors at the same time even with their ability to kill in one hit as warriors just don't survive (too rocket tagish for too many levels).

[Forbiddenwar]

Wow heated fast paced thread. Pardon if this has been said before:

On class balance:
Varsuvius had a good point in the recent book, If rogues are as powerful as wizards, why would someone spend tons of money and time to become a wizard, when they get the same power from bumming around a town for a few months picking pockets? Would class balance make classes go extinct?

On melee classes short sticked: Knowing nothing about PF, how hard is it to port in Tome of Battle? I understood it to be easy.

On arguments: It seems that few are saying that Pathfinder is worse than 3.5. Some are saying it's a wash, while others are saying it is an improvement on various degrees. Glad we have options. Think 3.5 is better than Pathfinder then stay with 3.5. (maybe house rule things like skills). Think PF is better than 3.5 than play Pathfinder. Think 4.0 is better than either, then play 4.0.

But buying a system without playing it? Caveat emptor my friend. Buying blind from hype rarely yields good results. Yes, being upset that the product doesn't match the hype is a valid response. But not atypical. Few products compare to their PR.

[T.G. Oskar]

??? I find 3.5 paladin almost unplayable, and PF paladin quite enjoyable. Smite evil becomes useful. Lay on hands becomes useful. Spell progression about 25% better (actually more because spells now key off Charisma, so less MAD). Divine bond is better for some paladins (those whose adventuring locales are not warhorse friendly). They have an awesome core PRC option in Dragon Disciple.

Regarding Smite Evil, I have my qualms about it. For starters, it IS good, but it doesn't feel like a smite. Certainly, it does less damage than a sneak attack, but it already does more damage than the Barbarian's range or the Fighter with (Greater) Weapon Specialization and huge reserves of Strength. The qualm lies in that it doesn't feel like a smite. I would have probably accepted it better if they had called it a "mark" or something, because you're really marking the enemy to deal that much damage. Essentially, it's that the ability suggests one thing (burst damage) but delivers another (think the Hunter's Quarry ability from 4e Ranger). It is borderline with what a daily ability should be (since it's an extended duration ability that provides a very strong bonus as well as defense), but extra damage doesn't offset the fact that, in the end, you still need to save your smites. In the case of the Barbarian, even with the daily limitations on Rage, you can pretty much rage all day. Same as Bardic Music. Both affect a large number of allies (or self, but applies to more enemies) and is far less situational. It's too strong to be an encounter ability but still not enough to be a daily.

Lay on hands was already a fine ability (which needed a good boost, but there were feats, spells, and magic items that could improve it), but something I really would have envisioned as part of a cleric ability. I really can't understand why a double-power Lay on Hands couldn't be a domain feature for the Healing domain (the ability on the PF Healing domain is a joke at any case). I can't say it's a horrible change what they did; it's just that it feels a bit too powerful; it kinda defeats the point of why giving them Cure X Wounds if that ability is a thousand times better (can be used as a swift action, more uses per day, heals more, cures status effects). It even surpasses the Cleric's healing ability (the ability to turn all its spells into healing spells can't still beat 1d6 per 2 paladin levels + mercies done 1/2 paladin level + Charisma times per day).

Regarding spells, as I mentioned I can't see why they need to be any less than full caster level. They already get limited spellcasting and delayed progression; a CL three levels lower won't really buff the Paladin to unheard of levels. A great deal of the Paladin's spells are buffs, so DC is less important for them than to a Bard, which has up to 6th level spells; as well, reducing the spell level of some spells makes their DC even lower, so that's one point in which Charisma helps little (since you still need to keep it low given that you need Strength and Constitution high). Finally, speaking of Core PF only you get pretty much the same spells that the 3.5 Paladin gets, which means they still have poor spellcasting aside from a few gems (like Lesser Restoration). Of the new spells, few are really worth mentioning (Knight's Calling REALLY depends on a good save DC in order to work; Righteous Vigor is basically a Death Knell that keeps the enemy alive, Vestments of the Champion has a silly requirement but otherwise is really useful; Sanctify Armor could have provided a sacred bonus just to allow it to stack, Fire of Judgment is far too limited compared to Mark of Doom which is a Paladin 2 spell from Player's Handbook II that does exactly the same but to any single enemy, no save/no SR, Wrathful Mantle is nice until Conviction + Superior Resistance kicks in; Stay the Hand does at 4th level what Peacebond could do at 1st with a few caveats, Burst of Glory does at 5th level what Mass Aid could do at 3rd for a Cleric, so it's kinda bizarre, and Bestow Grace of the Champion essentially makes having a Paladin at 13th level pointless because a Cleric can cast it on itself or an ally that's LG anyways). They still don't get spells they should have gained (Shield of Faith, Entropic Shield) and spells too late for usefulness (Dispel Magic but no Greater Dispel Magic, Prayer, delayed Cure Serious Wounds). Thus, that 25% estimated improvement in spellcasting might only apply if you consider the direct improvement over 3.5 Paladin spellcasting, something they should have gone 100%+ instead.

Divine Bond is continuing a trend already initiated in 3.5, but I will admit its quite decent. Essentially, it allows you to recover an ability they had lost on AD&D 2nd Edition (the ability to get a holy sword, +5 sword Holy Avenger). Speaking of that; the original Holy Avenger was awesome beyond belief, because it was essentially a permanent Globe of Invulnerability that affected only evil creatures; the Magic Circle against Evil was basically a Paladin feature anyways. I would have admired them just a tiny bit more if they had recovered that old version of the Holy Avenger.

Finally: are you really, really, REALLY sure that Dragon Disciple is intended for Paladin? It advances arcane spellcasting and no Paladin class features, so that's as much as saying "Paladins have Hierophant as a great core PrC". It advances nothing, but they get a few bonuses from it...if they could actually enter the class at all.


I will admit (Psyren please don't hit me) that 3.5 with all splats paladin is better than Pathfinder with all PF but no 3.5 splats paladin. But if your group is either a group that doesn't play with Spell Compendium & Complete Champion, or if you allow 3.5 material in your PF, Paladin is much much better.

This is a bit bizarre, since it basically indicates the following: PF Paladin > 3.5 Paladin, but 3.5 Paladin + 3.5 splats > PF Paladin + PF splats. I would have expected that the options for Paladins at PF would be just as good as that of the Paladin, or probably you mean Battle Blessing and Holy Champion/Underdark Knight alone (plus spells)? I could mention Cursebreaker, the Mystic Fire Knight, Divine Spirit, Charging Smite and the PHB II Spells as equal benefits, which are just as good options as those from SpC and CC. All Paladin spells from PHB II are great (Crown of Smiting not that much because it's once per minute, Meteoric Strike is one of the few Paladin damage options that's really worthwhile although it could use a different energy type). I could say that if the group doesn't allow SpC, Comp. Champion, Complete Divine, Player's Handbook II, Dungeonscape and Champions of Valor, the Paladin is sorta behind, and even then there's the slim chance a DM is crazy enough to allow stuff from the Book of Exalted Deeds, which is like taking a kid to a candy store for the Paladin (Starmantle Cloak! Sanctified Spells! Saint Template! Gift of Grace! Hands of a Healer!)


Cleric is still T1 + awesome, but strategic spell nerfing, loss of heavy armor, and (depending on rules) loss of DMM quicken/persist makes it much less viable as a paladin than it was before (not that it can't do it, it is still T1, but its harder.) If my concept is Holy Warrior, and if I want a mechanically strong character, I might play Paladin in PF. 3.5, not really.

I'd like to point out how the War domain says otherwise. The main ability of the War domain alone provides a much needed boost for the war-inclined Cleric, as it's essentially a floating bonus feat (much like the Chameleon's, but limited to Fighter feats). The Cleric no longer gets heavy armor (unless it's mithral full plate, which in case they still get that), no full BAB (which is really a loss of one iterative and 5 less points of BAB, but they still get Righteous Might which is actually better than its 3.5 incarnation), but they get better domains (hint as to the War domain's benefit), still got the actually good spells, Divine Power is nerfed but still useful, and while they can no longer Persist their spells (since Persistent Spell is unavailable in PF), they can still fight with the best ones in their repertoire. Then comes Bestow Grace of the Champion and you're left to wonder why not take a Cleric full circle, since you're already fighting with better spells and just as more options.

So yeah...I don't see how having a spell that essentially makes you an entire different class for a while without penalties doesn't make the Cleric strictly worse than the Paladin for the "Holy Warrior" archetype. A Cleric with a dip on Fighter does the same in any case.

[Boci]

On class balance:
Varsuvius had a good point in the recent book, If rogues are as powerful as wizards, why would someone spend tons of money and time to become a wizard, when they get the same power from bumming around a town for a few months picking pockets? Would class balance make classes go extinct?

Because they have different abilities. Maybe someone likes the idea of summoning creature to fight for them appeals to them more than sneaking from shadow to shadow and back stabbing unwary targets.

Or maybe they cannot sneak or fence to save their lives but seem to pick up arcane lore pretty well.

[subject42]

On melee classes short sticked: Knowing nothing about PF, how hard is it to port in Tome of Battle? I understood it to be easy.

The only thing I've had to do is figure out how to handle concentration checks, since it's no longer a skill.

As a rule, I've followed the standard 1d20 + Caster Level + Casting Stat Pattern from Pathfinder. For "casting" stat, I used INT for Warblades, WIS for Swordsages, and CHA for Crusaders.

[Saph]

Ahh well your bias is showing. If you're already at the point taking the time to write a guide, you've already bought in. Someone starts telling you, things you don't want to hear... well yeah, it's gonna feel uninformative.

*facepalm*

I wrote my 3.5/Pathfinder guide because a lot of people wanted to know what had changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder, and whether it was any good. Since I'd played 3.5 for many years and had also played PF through the Beta to the final release, I'd had the chance to get a fairly good overview of the differences, and I wanted to produce as good a guide as possible for people who were trying to decide whether to try the system. I didn't write the guide because I'd "bought in" to PF, and I don't particularly care whether you think I did or not.

Honestly, I still find the level of vitriol in the 3.5/Pathfinder flamewars ludicrous. The 3.5/4e edition wars were kind of understandable because 4e really was a big change from 3.5, but 3.5 and PF are 90% the same system.

Oh, and regarding the OP:


In short, Paizo lied to me and stole my money, and I'm seeking validation for my rage.

My 3.5/Pathfinder guide's been up on these forums for one and a half years. It's stickied on the Gaming forums under 'Notable Threads', and it's in my signature. Do a search for '3.5 Pathfinder guide' and it's the number two result on Google.

I mean, it's not like I can force you to read it or anything, but I SPECIFICALLY wrote it to answer EXACTLY these kind of questions! I even included "Does PF fix all the problems with 3.5?" in the FAQ section!

[Drachasor]

And so is ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE in LOTR. Wizards, Balrog (and other existing demons) Sauron. You could just as well say that the only reason that demigods are more powerful than pure warriors is because the demigods are quite literally wizards. The magic folk are stronger than the non magic folk. I don't care what their backstory is.

Characters with a divine origin in LotR have magical powers, sure. Dragons are better than the average mortal. Legendary figures are also better than the average mortal. Nothing here is surprising, is it?

Of course, a Dragon gets killed by a normal bloke. Sauran gets defeated for a long time by a normal bloke. Lots of magic types get defeated by normals. Having magic lets you do things that couldn't be done without magic, but in LotR it isn't a trump card. They're all vulnerable to swords and/or arrows.

Heck, with only rare exceptions, even Gandolf, a demigod-like figure, doesn't dominate the fights he is in.


Not really. Both used their MAGIC to keep their realms hidden from enemy forces. Both had their forces in lands near enemy forces (the goblins and other evils of the Misty Mountains) and both were quite successful in lands that had no real protection from men. The rangers of the north were 30 guys, and it was pretty clear (from the descriptions of Glorfindel) that an elf lord was more powerful than a tower full of orcs.

Elves are super-special. Standard trope. Of course, it is far to say Aragorn was more powerful than a Tower Full of Orcs. Samwise too.


Actually, I was kind enough to point out that he WASN'T killed by those folks, and was only defeated by them because of extreme circumstances. The powers of the sorcerers, aka they who do not appear anywhere in the books, are pretty unclear. I think we can safely put them below the elf-lords (who use magic) and the dragons (who use magic), but where they rank vs. sword guy is never tested.

Where legendary figures rank with a sword guy is pretty clear in LotR. Sword guy can kill them all (well, sometimes Bow Guy, though the two aren't mutually exclusive). Quite different from D&D.


No, they didn't. Gollem and Frodo killed Sauron.

Well, it was..hmm...a couple thousand years before that when a human beat Sauran in one-on-one combat during a major conflict. Pretty good there, sword guy.


I am not mistaken. I didn't say that they killed anyone. I said that they were necessary for the defeat of Sauron's army.

Eh, what does this have to do with anything? AFAIK, a wizard didn't make that ghost army. A wizard wasn't needed to control it. Getting it on the good guy side was all done by normal people. Using fantasy elements in a fantasy world is not the same as having casters better than swordfolk. So this is an irrelevancy.

[Gnaeus]

Regarding Smite Evil, I have my qualms about it. For starters, it IS good, but it doesn't feel like a smite. Certainly, it does less damage than a sneak attack, but it already does more damage than the Barbarian's range or the Fighter with (Greater) Weapon Specialization and huge reserves of Strength. The qualm lies in that it doesn't feel like a smite.

So the class is stronger. Even stronger than competing classes, but you don't like the feel. OK. I can't tell you what to like. Paladin was radically improved in mechanical playability. No fluff is going to please everyone.


Lay on hands was already a fine ability it's just that it feels a bit too powerful; it kinda defeats the point of why giving them Cure X Wounds if that ability is a thousand times better (can be used as a swift action, more uses per day, heals more, cures status effects). It even surpasses the Cleric's healing ability (the ability to turn all its spells into healing spells can't still beat 1d6 per 2 paladin levels + mercies done 1/2 paladin level + Charisma times per day).

??? It helps the paladin stand in combat while being beaten on while continuing to fight his enemies. That seems iconic to me. How do you argue that this and smite are too strong, but the paladin is too weak? Also, see above regarding how things feel. Is it mechanically competitive with other mundane or mostly mundane tanks and damage dealers? Yes! Is that an improvement over 3.5 core? Yes! Is it possible to do this without angering someone over differing fluff? NO.


Regarding spells, as I mentioned I can't see why they need to be any less than full caster level. Thus, that 25% estimated improvement in spellcasting might only apply if you consider the direct improvement over 3.5 Paladin spellcasting, something they should have gone 100%+ instead.

Could they have done more? Yes. I note that they are continuing to print new paladin spells. The shift to charisma isn't important because of DC, it is important for bonus spells, for highest level castible spells, and for being less MAD. If they had radically improved spellcasting, there would be someone else arguing that they had destroyed the feel of paladin by making it too much like a full casting cleric. No win for Pathfinder!


Finally: are you really, really, REALLY sure that Dragon Disciple is intended for Paladin? It advances arcane spellcasting and no Paladin class features, so that's as much as saying "Paladins have Hierophant as a great core PrC". It advances nothing, but they get a few bonuses from it...if they could actually enter the class at all.

IMO, Paladin 4/Sorcerer1/DD10/Paladin 5 is in the running for strongest core melee. Flight, Blindsense, good stats, great saves, bonus combat feats, lots of cha synergy, arcane + divine casting, nice immunities. It looks like it was intended for paladins to me.


This is a bit bizarre, since it basically indicates the following: PF Paladin > 3.5 Paladin, but 3.5 Paladin + 3.5 splats > PF Paladin + PF splats. I would have expected that the options for Paladins at PF would be just as good as that of the Paladin,

Give 'em time. They have a lot fewer splats. And the other thing from CC that you didn't mention was Domain feats, especially travel (move + full attack) and animal (fly), which you could power with turn undead.


So yeah...I don't see how having a spell that essentially makes you an entire different class for a while without penalties doesn't make the Cleric strictly worse than the Paladin for the "Holy Warrior" archetype. A Cleric with a dip on Fighter does the same in any case.

Cleric with 3 rounds of buffing beats paladin in combat most of the time. (There are still situations where the paladin has advantages, such as where his immunities or high saves come into play). In the high lethality environment of the games in which I play, if you need 2-3 rounds of casting before you charge the enemy, the battle is won or lost before you enter. Different classes do benefit from different style games. I never said the paladin was BETTER, cleric isn't strictly worse (at melee. Obviously cleric is still far stronger at the parts of the game that aren't melee). I said that for this role paladin is competitive. There are advantages and disadvantages on either side.

[ImperatorK]

Well, it was..hmm...a couple thousand years before that when a human beat Sauran in one-on-one combat during a major conflict. Pretty good there, sword guy.
Actually no, the king had his ass wooped, but then defeated Sauron by cutting of his finger with The Ring on it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbELQq10eJ0).

[Starbuck_II]

It isn't likely to get them either. Those are not covered under the OGL, and they would need explicit permission from WotC to reprint those books for PF use.


WotC has stated that they have discontinued 3E support entirely, and I doubt they would allow Paizo (or anyone else) to pick up those books and port them into a fix.

Actually, Stances are back in Ultimate Combat. They have the same rules (but require feats and skill requirements to take).
There are 12 currently with 2 feats that grant additional benefits with stances.

Only one stance is obtainable at 1st, the rest are 5th level minimum (due to skill requirements).
The exception is Master of Many Style archetype Monk. This archetype also lets you have 2 stances active at same time.

Dragon Style (stance) grants 1.5 Str bonus with 1st unarmed strike/rd. Also +2 save vs stun, sleep, paralysis. Ignore difficult terrain while charge, run, withdraw (charge thr allies).
The boosted Dragon Style feat Ferocity: While im dragon stance grants 1/2 Str mod to all unarmed (thus 2x Str for 1st unarmed/rd). Additional benefit for Crits/stuning fist.
Additionally, removes prereques to take Elemental fist feat (if you wanted to).

So they brought back ToB stances but limited 70% them unarmed only.

[subject42]

IMO, Paladin 4/Sorcerer1/DD10/Paladin 5 is in the running for strongest core melee. Flight, Blindsense, good stats, great saves, bonus combat feats, lots of cha synergy, arcane + divine casting, nice immunities. It looks like it was intended for paladins to me.

I would argue that using Barbarian instead of Paladin is competitive with Paladin due to rage power synergy, as well as being more "intentional", but I believe we've had that conversation before.

[Drachasor]

Actually no, the king had his ass wooped, but then defeated Sauron by cutting of his finger with The Ring on it.

Which is why he won the fight with no magic and just a sword. Point is, he won.


Actually, Stances are back in Ultimate Combat. They have the same rules (but require feats and skill requirements to take).

More to the point, IIRC, you can't copyright game mechanics. They could certainly make something similar to ToB mechanics with different "disciplines" and classes and be perfectly fine.

[ImperatorK]

Which is why he won the fight with no magic and just a sword. Point is, he won.
I don't think that such "victory" proves your point.

[Drachasor]

I don't think that such "victory" proves your point.

And Smaug got taken out with a lucky shot so it doesn't count?

It does indeed prove my point that in LotR even extremely powerful casters are quite vulnerable to sword guys (and gals). Having magic, even powerful magic, isn't a license to roflstomp over powerful swordguy heroes. Now granted, you can do a bit of roflstomping if you are maybe halfway towards being a god like Sauran, but if you get even a bit carried away you could lose.

[ImperatorK]

And Smaug got taken out with a lucky shot so it doesn't count?
No, because that was skill in archery. Sauron was defeated only because he had a huge weak-point and Isildur got lucky.

[Major]

I only read a few pages, but I have to point out yes Pathfinder did solve SOMETHING.

The thread isn't "Did it fix everything?", the thread is "Did it fix anything?" And the answer is yes.

It fixed the lack of 3.5 new content. With Wizards ditching 3.5 and moving onto 4.0 it left Pazio to make all the 3.5 content they could want. As long as they keep Pathfinder, my 3.5 games get new content that is easily added in to my games.

[Drachasor]

No, because that was skill in archery. Sauron was defeated only because he had a huge weak-point and Isildur got lucky.

Because magic doesn't let him ignore things like pointy swords. Take note he got taken out by a guy far below his level. All those goes back to the idea that in LotR magic isn't some trump card that laughs at people with swords, and there are many fantasy worlds like that. D&D 3.X pretends to be like that, but falls short.

[ImperatorK]

The Ring. Huge, plot-powered weak-point.

[Psyren]

Because they have different abilities. Maybe someone likes the idea of summoning creature to fight for them appeals to them more than sneaking from shadow to shadow and back stabbing unwary targets.

Or maybe they cannot sneak or fence to save their lives but seem to pick up arcane lore pretty well.

Then you should play 4e where your stabbing is equal to my spheres of mystic insta-death. I won't follow, I promise!

[Drachasor]

The Ring. Huge, plot-powered weak-point.

Also, near god-like being. Someone on Gandolf's level would be much more vulnerable to swords.


Then play 4e where your stabbing is equal to my spheres of mystic insta-death. I won't follow, I promise!

4E has a problem with a crappy ruleset. The balance is fine, but how they went about it stinks.

[ImperatorK]

My point stands.
Gandalf.

[Boci]

Then play 4e where your stabbing is equal to my spheres of mystic insta-death. I won't follow, I promise!

Yes because it is impossible to have classes with different mechanics that still balance out overall. That's why there is 1 tier per base class in 3.5...wait...

[Drachasor]

My point stands.
Gandalf.

Well, then your point is irrelevant. Much like spelling.

[FMArthur]

More to the point, IIRC, you can't copyright game mechanics. They could certainly make something similar to ToB mechanics with different "disciplines" and classes and be perfectly fine.

The mechanics, the way all the pieces come together, can't be copyrighted (not that WotC wouldn't send some ineffectual warning letters regardless of that). But I don't think you could simply rewrite the names of the content itself; the maneuvers and classes could not be taken wholesale out of the ToB into a Pathfinder update unless the maneuvers all undergo changes, o you can't actually include the existing material for replicating ToB as it is. You can make things like it in flavor and activation and even somewhat similar in function, but you can't just paraphrase the maneuver descriptions. You'd have to write it so that WotC would be unable to demonstrate to a court case that even a handful of maneuvers are the same, and toeing the line is risky; the similar mechanics can't be sued for, but they would certainly be convincing supporting information for a plagiarism case made for the actual copied content.

Paizo could make a ToB-like system, but it wouldn't be the ToB you know and they would need to avoid having too many overt similarities, defeating the whole point somewhat.

[Drachasor]

The mechanics, the way all the pieces come together, can't be copyrighted (not that WotC wouldn't send some ineffectual warning letters regardless of that). But I don't think you could simply rewrite the names of the content itself; the maneuvers and classes could not be taken wholesale out of the ToB into a Pathfinder update unless the maneuvers all undergo changes, o you can't actually include the existing material for replicating ToB as it is. You can make things like it in flavor and activation and even somewhat similar in function, but you can't just paraphrase the maneuver descriptions. You'd have to write it so that WotC would be unable to demonstrate to a court case that even a handful of maneuvers are the same, and toeing the line is risky; the similar mechanics can't be sued for, but they would certainly be convincing supporting information for a plagiarism case made for the actual copied content.

Yes, but it isn't like it is hard to come up with a unique spin on it.

[Psyren]

Also, near god-like being. Someone on Gandolf's level would be much more vulnerable to swords.

While wearing a dress, he led the charge into a mass of orcs that had all set their pikes against him, and didn't suffer a scratch. Vulnerable indeed.

[ImperatorK]

While wearing a dress, he led the charge into a mass of orcs that had all set their pikes against him, and didn't suffer a scratch. Vulnerable indeed.
And he was the only one of the Fellowship that had ANY chance in fighting Balrog. Not to mention that Gandalf was pretty proficient in sword-fighting himself.

And my point still stands. If you can't accept that then that's your problem. Sauron isn't the representative of all casters. Even in the same book(s) there are casters that prove our point. Sauron is a special case. The Witch-King also. Both where story-plot driven and it was the story-plot that defeated them, not fighting skill.

[Midnight_v]

Honestly, I still find the level of vitriol in the 3.5/Pathfinder flamewars ludicrous People are passionate about what they will Saph.
Though honestly this is the one thing you've said that I whole heartedly agree with. The fact that you played through the whole beta... in my book does mean you bought in, yeah. Still hey you're entittled not to care. I did however get a pdf of the book. So the second thing you've said that I really agree with is this.


The 3.5/4e edition wars were kind of understandable because 4e really was a big change from 3.5, but 3.5 and PF are 90% the same system
So in my opinion they that 10% they fixed isn't worth the time to bother. I dm a lot, and if someone really wanted to play the pf fighter w/pathfinder feats, I figure I'd let them, as it's nothing more than some non-quadratic homebrew.
Honestly, though... they didn't do anything signifigant. Made combat a little bit worse at first. Made the Wizard BETTER (which is dumb but hey its houserules).

I find that the cool thing about this point in gaming 3.5 is that the system is closed except what you let in.
If you want to play 3.5 versions of pf adventure paths it takes basically nothing to convert, and you keep what I see as being some people favorite things. Warlocks, Tob, Tom, incarnum(Though I don't know to this day EXACTLY how that works, LOL) cause as you said heck it 90% the same game.
Playing pf is just a little bit worse than going to you buddies house and playing his houserules. So if you're like the op and you paid for those books, it sucks, but NO. they didn't *Fix* anything.
They made LATERAL changes, more interesting than good.
.................
addendum: I like the fluff of some of the classic monsters revisited. The bugbear was pretty awesome.
And again: Psionics, but honestly its Dreamscarred Press that fixed that and more accolades to them for it.

[T.G. Oskar]

So the class is stronger. Even stronger than competing classes, but you don't like the feel. OK. I can't tell you what to like. Paladin was radically improved in mechanical playability. No fluff is going to please everyone.

If it were only that, I could concede. Thing is, it really doesn't reach the right amount of mechanics that could make it a great daily.

For starters, it's limited only to one character; Rage's benefit applies against all enemies (because it buffs you) and Bardic Music applies to all allies. Even Sneak Attack, which has lots of counters, has better applicability than Smite Evil, and it's essentially at-will (as long as you can pull it off). The damage is sorta decent at first (1-5 points of damage is reasonable), then later it gets good (6-10) and finally it gets scary. If you attempt to MC out before that, it'll hurt the smite.

Second, it depends on gameplay. If a battle takes less than one round, 3.5 Smite Evil is almost strictly better (because you can use it while charging via Charging Smite, then there's stuff like Improved Smiting and Awesome Smite to power it up). The longer it lasts, the better it is; but, it competes to how many rounds you actually use per day. At latter levels, where Smite starts to get good, Bards and Barbarians finally get the right amount of rounds per day to use their own daily abilities, which have less restrictions than those of Smite.

Finally, you'll still want to save those uses. At 1st level, if you have more than 4 battles you'll be wanting to save it for the most dangerous enemy and if you have less than 2 battles there's a slight chance that you won't use it anyways. At latter levels you MIGHT have more chances to use it, and by level 20 you'll have about 7 uses so you *could* use it almost twice per encounter.

Fluff is merely one of the qualms I have with it. It is better than its competitors because its competitors got nerfed. Compare that Smite Evil vs. the rage from 3.5 (extra damage and bonuses vs. 1 enemy against 2-6 points of attack and 2-9 damage bonuses against all enemies plus an increase in hit points and Will saves) or bardic music (up to +4 bonus on all allies, no matter what the enemy). While it is competitive when the stars are right, it can't deliver against the enemies that Smite can't apply, and once that enemy is gone (and it should be, if the smite applies to all attacks), the benefit is also gone. It is quite situational, almost as situational as Sneak Attack, but works like rage/bardic music which got nerfed. So evidently it'll seem (and will be) stronger, but once those restrictions are gone the latter provide a bit more bang for the buck. Aura of Justice is what makes it much better than the rest, and that is because you turn Smite into an area buff against specific enemies.


??? It helps the paladin stand in combat while being beaten on while continuing to fight his enemies. That seems iconic to me. How do you argue that this and smite are too strong, but the paladin is too weak? Also, see above regarding how things feel. Is it mechanically competitive with other mundane or mostly mundane tanks and damage dealers? Yes! Is that an improvement over 3.5 core? Yes! Is it possible to do this without angering someone over differing fluff? NO.

Well...the way the Paladin is written would imply that he'd use his LoH on others rather than on himself; you know, while trying to stay alive is one thing, another is to keep others alive. And in that, which is one of the traits of Lay on Hands, it still doesn't deliver as appropriate because you can't use it and also deliver an attack or provide a benefit without wasting your turn (the problem with healing in 3.5).

I argue the weakness when compared to the Cleric geared towards resembling a Paladin, which is usually the concern regarding the Paladin (an ubercharger already pulls as much damage as any other damage dealer with raw damage alone). Its mechanical competitiveness stems from a general weakening of the others (a Fighter with Full Attack and enough bonuses to strike should cause far more damage than the Paladin's smite with each hit, but because Power Attack got nerfed the Paladin suddenly is more viable; likewise with the Barbarian having the duration of Rage nerfed ON TOP of Power Attack being nerfed). The Paladin still needs far too many feats to pull off lockdown (as much a source of tanking as soaking damage and dealing damage); a Fighter could still pull off Combat Reflexes/Improved Greater Trip...but it loses Stand Still and has less ways to provoke attacks of opportunity, so... Essentially, what I can see is that the Paladin is mechanically viable because the best options for melee combat were reduced in power. Sorta like the situation in stories like Harrison Bergeron but with a twist: the guys that are good in melee got nixed while the Paladin got boosted, so the Paladin seems mechanically far more viable than them, yet those who do needed the nerf are still just as good. And as long as that happens, it's hard to figure whether the Paladin is mechanically viable, since you're not just working with the melee characters but with the casters that fight on melee.


Could they have done more? Yes. I note that they are continuing to print new paladin spells. The shift to charisma isn't important because of DC, it is important for bonus spells, for highest level castible spells, and for being less MAD. If they had radically improved spellcasting, there would be someone else arguing that they had destroyed the feel of paladin by making it too much like a full casting cleric. No win for Pathfinder!

Why would radically improving their spellcasting would have destroyed the feel of the Paladin? That's a bit of an exaggeration, good sir; the Paladin would still have its feel with better spellcasting or with none.

Continuing to print new paladin spells isn't as important as printing actually worthwhile Paladin spells. If you print 100 new spells, but all those spells are stuff that would rather be scrolled rather than prepared, it's not much of a difference. Most of the bonuses are too small to expend a spell slot on them; it's debatable their use through scrolls or wands, but you'd be expending that slot to use them (no Battle Blessing, but I'd generally disregard that) instead of, you know, exploiting your smites.

Keying off Charisma rather than Wisdom is more a convenience move rather than anything else; a Paladin was just fine with a 14 Wis, since it also gained a +2 on Will saves (one of their weaker saves), Listen and Spot (why can't the Paladins get perception skills after all? They're still missing that, and they're meant to be frontliners...) and Sense Motive. Plus, if you were gonna make spellcasting anything worthwhile, that opened the door to Combat Focus feats which are pretty nice (Combat Vigor, for example, is pretty nice for endurance). Then, consider that they still need to have their Strength and Constitution at decent levels (a Cleric doesn't need that high of a Strength, unless it wants to engage in melee, and even then it has several bonuses that make it less important to pull it off) and that they can't increase Charisma as high as they'd like to increase (not being "SAD" classes)... So I really can't consider Charisma as revolutionary to the spellcasting without considering what else they could have done to the Paladin; is it really that much of a hassle to, for example, lower Dispel Magic to a point in which it can still be used? Is it really a sin to grant them Greater Dispel Magic as a spell, even if it's a 4th level spell? Is it an offense to what a Paladin represents to give them something such as Aid, which would really benefit more a Paladin than a Cleric (a bonus on attack rolls and several temporary hit points in case the Cleric didn't prepare Mass Aid or if you really need the temp. hit points and the Wizard doesn't have False Life or something)? If I'm asking for a proper improvement for the Paladin, I don't stop at just a bit.


IMO, Paladin 4/Sorcerer1/DD10/Paladin 5 is in the running for strongest core melee. Flight, Blindsense, good stats, great saves, bonus combat feats, lots of cha synergy, arcane + divine casting, nice immunities. It looks like it was intended for paladins to me.

I'd say it was intended for Sorcerers that wanted to have an edge on melee combat. It doesn't progress Smite (9 points is 9 points, and 3 uses is not enough, but no Aura of Justice really dents the Paladin's power; worse when you have to delay your smite progression thus getting only 2 uses per day until 19th level), you get up to 2nd level divine spells (the Paladin gets much nicer spells at 3rd, and you'll essentially be perennially at 1st level spells with 1-2 spells per day) and up to 4th level arcane spells (which he can't use on his full plate armor without ASF, and IIRC there's no Twilight over here). You can fly, but your mount cannot (unless you're going for Divine Bond), and you can't use armor in order to fly (and besides, you get the Fly spell one level earlier in that progression!). As far as I can see, you only have immunity to fear up until 8th level when you get immunity to compulsions; at no moment do I see from DD that you get the draconic immunities; after all, you CAN'T get to effective Sorcerer 20th for purposes of the draconic bloodline, and what you get is really resistance to an energy type and more natural armor). I have a hard time thinking how DD can be a great Paladin PrC more than thinking that a dip (well, a moderate dunk) in Paladin makes for a great Sorcadin build. Nor I can't see why I wouldn't get levels in Fighter instead (even a dip in Fighter, just one single level) instead of Paladin levels (I can grant Divine Grace and MAAAAAYBE the spellcasting, but little else; immunity to fear is cool but so is a very high Will save, and immunity to compulsions is very nice but so is a very high Will save).


Give 'em time. They have a lot fewer splats. And the other thing from CC that you didn't mention was Domain feats, especially travel (move + full attack) and animal (fly), which you could power with turn undead.


The intention was to mention that CC/SpC weren't the only nice things for the Paladin in 3.5. Ignoring the buffs, however slight, that the Paladin gets in PHB is unforgivable (pretty much all classes got nice buffs from there, from Charging Smite and Weapon Supremacy to the Wizard's Celerity line which is pretty much one of the few broken spells outside of Core). Those few splats have quality content for Paladins; that is what should be important, the quality stuff. Champions of Valor has quality stuff for Paladins but also horrible stuff (anything that replaces Turn Undead without allowing you the use of divine feats, for example), and there are equally worse things (Complete Warrior's first attempt to make a spell-less Paladin), but the quality stuff...


Cleric with 3 rounds of buffing beats paladin in combat most of the time. (There are still situations where the paladin has advantages, such as where his immunities or high saves come into play). In the high lethality environment of the games in which I play, if you need 2-3 rounds of casting before you charge the enemy, the battle is won or lost before you enter. Different classes do benefit from different style games. I never said the paladin was BETTER, cleric isn't strictly worse. I said that for this role paladin is competitive. There are advantages and disadvantages on either side.

Ideally, for that role, the Paladin should be BETTER. Not merely Competitive, but BETTER. Granted; that is hard without essentially reworking the system...and that is the thing. Pathfinder had the chance, but sorta missed the point; they could serve as not merely a continuation of 3.5 but a culmination of it, and it doesn't seem to deliver in that regard. Just consider that at 13th level, arguably a pretty late level for it but still noticeable, the Cleric has a spell that basically grants all the things the Paladins get. That SHOULDN'T have been a Cleric spell, much like how Divine Power shouldn't have been a Cleric base spell (maybe part of the War domain because it fits thematically). It continues the trend of "one spell replaces an entire class", which is bad design all over it. That spell makes the Cleric stop being a "menace" and become a "far better replacement", and you can choose just not to apply it, but the fact that it still looms there just turns that idea off. You could argue that the Paladin gets more smites, more lay on hands, and all of this earlier, but you can't argue that the Paladin can be replaced at nearly a 45% with a simple scroll. No matter how much the Paladin is competitive, it can't beat that. Unless you're strictly going core, but then again you're losing on many of the nice things the Paladins should get through splats, no?

[ThunderCat]

That much is certain, otherwise they'd have given Fighters more skill points for one.Between the consolidated skill list, the favoured class bonus, the changed headband of intelligence, and easier access to cross class skills, getting more skills for your fighter is vastly easier than in 3.5.

[MeeposFire]

Silly double post what are you doing here...

[MeeposFire]

Yes because it is impossible to have classes with different mechanics that still balance out overall. That's why there is 1 tier per base class in 3.5...wait...

Besides even 4e are not exactly the same. The knight, thief, and slayer have no dailies, set encounter powers, and at will stances instead of at will attack powers. Vampires subvert the entire healing surge mechanic. The bladesinger has wizard encounter powers as dailies. Executioner assassins use poisons instead of daily powers. All are within a band of quality that they all can contribute. This was lately proven on the OP boards in a series of tests that were surprising at the time as their were many that thought the newer classes that did not follow the original pattern may fall so far behind that they could not contribute. This was found to not be the case. 4es balance is not because of using a similar format for everything, it is the lowering of the expectations of what magic could do in a short time (such as a standard action).

This is analogous to ToB being balanced to magic because they both use a 9 level system as a format for their abilities. Anybody who knows the system knows that is not true as spells outstrip maneuvers handily because of what the designers over the decades have decided is alright (while simultaneously removing the restrictions that used to be in place) for spells to do during a fight. The 9 level design feature for maneuvers does not add or remove balance, it was an organization feature used due to the experience that D&D players already had using magic power as a guideline. Maneuvers could have been just as effective if they were shown just as specialized feats with more writing in the descriptions (it just would be more unwieldy and confusing that way hence why it is shown as is).

You can definitely balance a game without using similar formats though it can be easier to balance if you put everything in similar formats.

[Drachasor]

While wearing a dress, he led the charge into a mass of orcs that had all set their pikes against him, and didn't suffer a scratch. Vulnerable indeed.

In a high fantasy setting, what hero can't do that? It isn't like the Fellowship doesn't go through worse stuff than that without a scrape. Heck, they fought a bunch of goblins and a CAVE TROLL in closed quarters and came out of it easily.

[Boci]

Besides even 4e are not exactly the same.

True, but they are still based off the same template. I haven't checked out the essentials, but I doubt they offer the versatility of the full tier 3 spread for 3.5.

[LordBlades]

Given that uberchargers reduce every battle to a binary solution set (option 1: you hit with a charge and kill the target, option 2: you don't hit with a charge and your character is largely useless) I don't see how being worse than an ubercharger is a bad thing.

If you're playing low power, where wizards throw around fireballs and cones of cold as opposed to cloudkills and stinking clouds then yes, a guy that can instagib 1 (maybe 2-3 if they're close together) enemies is a bit much. If you're playing high-powered, where a wizard plays something like 'I've got a dozen ways to instagib the whole battlefield, and there's nothing you can do about it unless you're a caster too' uberchargers are a bit on the weak side.
Yes, it's a one trick pony, but a one trick pony is vastly superior to a no trick pony.


Your claim that melee is useless is not supported either by the numbers or by my experience in PF games. In actual play as opposed to TO, most combats are ended by HP damage. PF Fighters are good at doing HP damage, so they have a useful role to play in the party. Just because you can't OMGWTFPWN an entire encounter with one standard action, that does not make your character 'useless'.

I've played a lot of high-optimization games (which are by no means TO), mainly 3.5, and status effects and battefield control are king of the hill. Since most such spells are largely unchanged in PF, I don't see stuff playing much different.

[Starbuck_II]

The mechanics, the way all the pieces come together, can't be copyrighted (not that WotC wouldn't send some ineffectual warning letters regardless of that). But I don't think you could simply rewrite the names of the content itself; the maneuvers and classes could not be taken wholesale out of the ToB into a Pathfinder update unless the maneuvers all undergo changes, o you can't actually include the existing material for replicating ToB as it is. You can make things like it in flavor and activation and even somewhat similar in function, but you can't just paraphrase the maneuver descriptions. You'd have to write it so that WotC would be unable to demonstrate to a court case that even a handful of maneuvers are the same, and toeing the line is risky; the similar mechanics can't be sued for, but they would certainly be convincing supporting information for a plagiarism case made for the actual copied content.

Paizo could make a ToB-like system, but it wouldn't be the ToB you know and they would need to avoid having too many overt similarities, defeating the whole point somewhat.

It is basically.

Only stances (renamed Styles): same mechanics but obtaining. A few Maneuvers (renamed).

So far, Desert Wind stance that gives Fire resistance in ToB comes in 4 flavors: Cold (Marid), Fire (Effreti) Acid (Shainti), or Electric (Djinni).

Then Shocktrooper from 3.5 as a Stance (Tiger + Tiger Pounce).

Dragon lets you ignore difficult terrain.

Crane: Grants deflect arrows for melee attacks (mechanically) while fighting defensively or total defense. Other feats of chain reduce Figthting defensively penalty.

Janni: Lowers penalty for being Flanked or when you Charging by 1 (enemies get +1 hit when flanking you and -1 AC penalty when charging).

Kirin Style + Spirit: Achivist Dark knowkledge ability (DC 15 + CR to identify though) + 2 x Int bonuds damage vs target identified (swift action, minimum damage bonus +2).

Snake Style: When hit, as immediate action, can use Sense Motive check as a AC if higher.

Snapping Turtle Style: When one hand is free, gain Shield bonus to AC (only +1 but another feat makes it +2 and -4 hit when enemy attempts to confirm crits). A third feat apples Shield bonus to CMD and Touch AC.

So Stance do exist and a few maneuvers have been kind of created.

Snake Style is a renaming of the manuever: Baffling Defense from ToB.

[Boci]

I've played a lot of high-optimization games (which are by no means TO), mainly 3.5, and status effects and battefield control are king of the hill. Since most such spells are largely unchanged in PF, I don't see stuff playing much different.

Yes but don't those spells usually just put the enemy into a better position to be HP damaged killed by your minions followers companions?

[Big Fau]

uberchargers

It irritates me so much to see this term being flung around in reference to GOD/Batman Wizards. They are in a different ballpark of optimization people. One is theoretical (and doesn't really work if the DM says you don't get Mounter Combat bonuses if you jump off of your mount for Leap Attack), and the other is a practical use of the class.

[LordBlades]

It irritates me so much to see this term being flung around in reference to GOD/Batman Wizards. They are in a different ballpark of optimization people. One is theoretical (and doesn't really work if the DM says you don't get Mounter Combat bonuses if you jump off of your mount for Leap Attack), and the other is a practical use of the class.

Nobody's talking about record breaking damage builds. Most of the time it's just whirling frenzy+leap attack+shocktrooper+valorous weapons or something like that.


@Boci: I don't really call mopping up blinded, stunned and -50 to everything enemies contributing, but that's a matter of personal perspective:smallwink:

[MeeposFire]

True, but they are still based off the same template. I haven't checked out the essentials, but I doubt they offer the versatility of the full tier 3 spread for 3.5.

I am not exactly sure what you mean but I will try to answer as best I can.

1) You could write up 3e using a more unified format (in fact I think that is a large part of Legend actually) but doing so does not really help the game at this point since everybody is used to the old way.

2) You could write up 4e using an older format but once again there is not much of a benefit. For one using a similar format helps the design team and helps players organize things. That is why ToB uses the 9 levels as it helps players organize the abilities and the devs in designing them.

3) 4e still shouldn't have the depth of 3e looking different for the above reasons. If you don't like using something in a similar format for every class 4e still won't be for you since that hasn't changed. Only the details have changed for the most part (for instance many classes now rely on their basic not a traditional at will attack power). However in some cases like the bladesinger the format has been heavily changed since they lack encounter attack powers, at will attack powers, and their dailies are actually what used to be encounter powers. Instead the use basic attacks and when they hit they can use these at will magic effects to do different things to that enemy or another enemy, they have an encounter ability that is called bladesong that makes them really nasty for a short time, and they choose wizard encoutner spells to be used as daily spells (meaning they have more dailies than other classes but they are weaker). So they are willing to mess with the format but it is still based on that format.

4) If however it is little details you did not like (such as warriors using named powers) then essentials do help since they use basic attacks and use their abilities to modify them. Personally I think this is a great idea. Instead of using a specific attack power you use your basic attack and then use things like stances to show how you are changing them for the situation (such as using hammer hands to push enemies away or hold the line to slow enemies).

Newer classes are starting to experiment a bit like they did in mid to late 3.5 but they will always stick to the format (though they may play with it in different ways like the blade singer). Hopefully the 4e player will allow them to do it (4e has players as much against these mechanics as 3.5 did for many of its late mechanics such as ToB).

[Midnight_v]

It irritates me so much to see this term being flung around in reference to GOD/Batman Wizards. They are in a different ballpark of optimization people. One is theoretical (and doesn't really work if the DM says you don't get Mounter Combat bonuses if you jump off of your mount for Leap Attack), and the other is a practical use of the class.

Its because generally fighters are bad so the first time they get a trick that works, Dm's have have to release some bricks. So people who have no clue about how the system works, and one of them suddenly gets a trick where it actually does something releavant, so it really hurts them. Funny thing is most people dont' even know what the "uber charger" is, they're ignorantly talking about any build with shocktrooper I've come to find. meh.
I got irked earlier when someone was trying to say "actual play" vs "TO". So obviously some people have heard of various optimizations but don't have a concrete idea,and sometimes only a vague understanding of what the terms mean...
like...
at ...
all.

Edit:

Nobody's talking about record breaking damage builds. Most of the time it's just whirling frenzy+leap attack+shocktrooper+valorous weapons or something like that.
Which is to say... they're not talking about The Uber Charger. They're just talking about things they don't understand.
"Omg! Haley's comet is so broken, we should totally ban all Haley's comets from the solar system" when some people say "ubercharger" they seem oblivious that they're referencing a specific thing, to a huge chunk of the audience. It took me a good while to deduce that they in fact WEREN'T talking about the same thing that Big Fau and others think of when the term gets pulled out.

Even at that... ShockChargers are good for envoirns in someways as it keeps there from being 1 boss easily killed. Save or Die casters do that too, and likely better. Except... monster saves get rolled behind the screen and everyone knows 100 hp kills mosnter X.

[Saph]

If you're playing low power, where wizards throw around fireballs and cones of cold as opposed to cloudkills and stinking clouds then yes, a guy that can instagib 1 (maybe 2-3 if they're close together) enemies is a bit much. If you're playing high-powered, where a wizard plays something like 'I've got a dozen ways to instagib the whole battlefield, and there's nothing you can do about it unless you're a caster too' uberchargers are a bit on the weak side.
Yes, it's a one trick pony, but a one trick pony is vastly superior to a no trick pony.

The point is that in the vast majority of 3.5 games, you do not need to be able to one-shot the Tarrasque to effectively contribute to a fight. You're setting this up as a dichotomy: either a character is crazy powerful, or they're useless.

But in actual practice, in a moderately but not heavily optimised party, it doesn't really work that way. Sure, the spellcasters in our Pathfinder party will sometimes take an enemy out of the battle with save-or-X spells, but more often the party fighters will kill them first. Most often, what happens is that the spellcasters use buff and debuff spells to help the meleers kill the targets faster, since this is usually the most efficient way to win a battle.

[LordBlades]

The point is that in the vast majority of 3.5 games, you do not need to be able to one-shot the Tarrasque to effectively contribute to a fight. You're setting this up as a dichotomy: either a character is crazy powerful, or they're useless.

But in actual practice, in a moderately but not heavily optimised party, it doesn't really work that way. Sure, the spellcasters in our Pathfinder party will sometimes take an enemy out of the battle with save-or-X spells, but more often the party fighters will kill them first. Most often, what happens is that the spellcasters use buff and debuff spells to help the meleers kill the targets faster, since this is usually the most efficient way to win a battle.


You missed my point. I said that in a high optimization game a character is either very powerful or useless.

3.5 offers one the possibility of building a strong melee if I want to(uberchargers, tome of battle, gishes or CoDzilla). Pathfiner does not, and that's one of the things that irritates me about it.

[Midnight_v]

3.5 offers one the possibility of building a strong melee if I want to(uberchargers, tome of battle, gishes or CoDzilla). Pathfiner does not, and that's one of the things that irritates me about it.

I find this to be true as well. Though some people say the ultimate combat may do something.
System would need more time to grow, before its at that level, because it took the same errors 3.5 had and kept them.

[Big Fau]

Nobody's talking about record breaking damage builds. Most of the time it's just whirling frenzy+leap attack+shocktrooper+valorous weapons or something like that.

In which case it isn't an Ubercharger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36lSzUMBJnc), it's just a Charger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36lSzUMBJnc).

[Saph]

3.5 offers one the possibility of building a strong melee if I want to(uberchargers, tome of battle, gishes or CoDzilla). Pathfiner does not, and that's one of the things that irritates me about it.

Just because you can't one-shot everything in the Monster Manual in a single charge, that doesn't mean your melee character is weak. The greatsword-wielding Fighter in our PF group wasn't an ubercharger, but he had the highest damage output of the party by a long way and was most definitely not useless.

It's a matter of expectations. If you're going to judge every fighter against a baseline of one-round-killing anything you can hit, then yes, anything you can build in PF is going to disappoint you. But you don't need that level of attack power to win encounters.

[JaronK]

It irritates me so much to see this term being flung around in reference to GOD/Batman Wizards. They are in a different ballpark of optimization people. One is theoretical (and doesn't really work if the DM says you don't get Mounter Combat bonuses if you jump off of your mount for Leap Attack), and the other is a practical use of the class.

The Ubercharger is a very specific build TO build. However, somehow a bunch of people decided to start using the word to mean "chargers" which is to say "characters that hit so hard on the charge they kill enemies." But that's not what an Ubercharger is... an Ubercharger is a build designed to hit the maximum theroetical charge damage using Power Attack/Shock Trooper mechanics. The people you're talking about however are actually just comparing chargers to God/Batman Wizards, which is reasonable enough. They're just using the word "ubercharger" wrong.

JaronK

[Big Fau]

They're just using the word "ubercharger" wrong.


And it bugs me!

[JaronK]

Yeah, me too. I kept trying to get people to be correct about it but gave up after a while. I just try to make sure to use the words correctly (referring to "effective chargers" or similar when talking about the optimized builds) and hope others catch on.

But yeah, it's kind of like people using "Pun Puns" to refer to any optimized Kobolds.

JaronK

[FMArthur]

The difference is academic. "Charger" doesn't totally describe what's being referenced: a melee character who deals so much damage on a charge that he one-hit kills anything he can reach with the charge. It doesn't take much to reach that point - far less than the actual Ubercharger build. Shock Trooper + Leap Attack + Pounce and a couple multipliers is all it takes to kill anything with a CR within shouting distance of your ECL. Killing a foe with a million damage doesn't confer any greater benefit than killing him with five hundred.

"Charger" doesn't convey enough. "Ubercharger" may be the wrong term, but it's closer to the mark. Think of it being used as an exaggerated metaphor if it helps you digest that usage.

[Gnaeus]

If it were only that, I could concede. Thing is, it really doesn't reach the right amount of mechanics that could make it a great daily.

Fluff is merely one of the qualms I have with it. It is better than its competitors because its competitors got nerfed. Compare that Smite Evil vs. the rage from 3.5 (extra damage and bonuses vs. 1 enemy against 2-6 points of attack and 2-9 damage bonuses against all enemies plus an increase in hit points and Will saves) or bardic music (up to +4 bonus on all allies, no matter what the enemy). While it is competitive when the stars are right, it can't deliver against the enemies that Smite can't apply, and once that enemy is gone (and it should be, if the smite applies to all attacks), the benefit is also gone. It is quite situational, almost as situational as Sneak Attack, but works like rage/bardic music which got nerfed. .

Assuming that your paladin is fighting mostly evil enemies (b/c if he isn't, you have much bigger problems than smite mechanics), I would rather have PF smite than rage. 3.5 or otherwise.

Rage adds +2 to hit. All the way up to +4 (+8 strength) at level 20. Smite can add more than that at level 1, going higher as charisma goes up. This also adds to your CMB rolls, making a smiting paladin one of the best battlefield controllers in PF.

Rage adds 2xlevel to hp. But it also reduces your AC so that things will hit you more. Smite adds charisma to AC vs your big enemy (which also increases your CMD), but does not harm you against everyone else.

Level 20 rage gives +4 will, +4 fort saves. Paladin probably has that at level 2.

Smite evil bypasses DR. Any DR.

Rage has other associated penalties. Stuff you can't do, feats you can't use, fatigue, etc. Smite evil...has no penalties.

My games often have encounters with one or two enemies at CR +2-4. If your game often has battles with many small mooks, smite evil would be less useful. Still, assuming that your game includes bosses at all, smite evil in PF is much better than you give it credit for.



Why would radically improving their spellcasting would have destroyed the feel of the Paladin? That's a bit of an exaggeration, good sir; the Paladin would still have its feel with better spellcasting or with none.

It makes just as much sense as suggesting that the change to smite or lay-on-hands destroys the feel of the paladin. Feel is subjective, it is whatever you make it. IMO, the paladin has its feel with PF Lay-on-hands and smite. As I understand it, your big argument here is that PF COULD HAVE completely rewritten paladin casting. Sure. They could have balanced fighters with Tier 1s by giving them 9th level spellcasting refluffed as swinging their swords. The fact that they didn't make Paladins tier 1 doesn't mean that they didn't improve them a lot.



Ideally, for that role, the Paladin should be BETTER. Not merely Competitive, but BETTER. Granted; that is hard without essentially reworking the system...and that is the thing. Pathfinder had the chance, but sorta missed the point; they could serve as not merely a continuation of 3.5 but a culmination of it, and it doesn't seem to deliver in that regard. Just consider that at 13th level, arguably a pretty late level for it but still noticeable, the Cleric has a spell that basically grants all the things the Paladins get. That SHOULDN'T have been a Cleric spell, much like how Divine Power shouldn't have been a Cleric base spell (maybe part of the War domain because it fits thematically). It continues the trend of "one spell replaces an entire class", which is bad design all over it. That spell makes the Cleric stop being a "menace" and become a "far better replacement", and you can choose just not to apply it, but the fact that it still looms there just turns that idea off. You could argue that the Paladin gets more smites, more lay on hands, and all of this earlier, but you can't argue that the Paladin can be replaced at nearly a 45% with a simple scroll. No matter how much the Paladin is competitive, it can't beat that. Unless you're strictly going core, but then again you're losing on many of the nice things the Paladins should get through splats, no?

If you are still talking about Bestow Grace of the Champion, color me unimpressed. You can lay on hands, once, with no mercies. You can smite as a paladin half your level, but the paladin is optimized for charisma, and the cleric probably isn't, so he will be lucky if he gets half the paladin's bonuses to Cha, to Hit, and AC. Most importantly, the paladin Charisma and anti-fear bonus protects him from things before he fights them. If we walk into a room full of mummies, you are paralyzed with fear before you read your scroll. If it is full of Medusas riding Basilisks, you are already petrified, etc. And you have to spend a round reading/casting it, during which time the paladin is already laying the smackdown. If it lasted all day, maybe if you let your cleric import DMM persist or quicken, you might have something. But that spell does not remotely make the cleric a paladin.

[Doug Lampert]

You know, D&D was based very heavily on a set of BOOKS called Lord of the Rings. Strangly, in these BOOKS the stuff below did not happen.


No, because that was skill in archery. Sauron was defeated only because he had a huge weak-point and Isildur got lucky.

Nope, Isildur and Elrond beat the crap out of Sauron and took his ring off the body by cutting his finger off after he was down.


While wearing a dress, he led the charge into a mass of orcs that had all set their pikes against him, and didn't suffer a scratch. Vulnerable indeed.

Nope, he lead the MARCH of the forces of Ekenbrand to relieve the siege, and they attacked on foot. No charge vs. set pikes, since there's no mention of the orcs having pikes and they're already flinching back from the rising sun's light.

Those scenes in the books are part of what the game is SUPPOSED to emulate, and that you have to go with the quite different movie scenes shows nicely just who's depending on a limited set of wuxia based settings.

[Boci]

You know, D&D was based very heavily on a set of BOOKS called Lord of the Rings. Strangly, in these BOOKS the stuff below did not happen.

I'm not too sure 3.5 is based HEAVILY on LotR.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm not too sure 3.5 is based HEAVILY on LotR.

Heck, I'm not sure Basic was based 'heavily' on LotR. It was based off Chainmail, which could be said to be based on LotR as much as Warhammer is based off LotR, both of them being wargames in fantasy worlds.

[randomhero00]

It balanced a bit, but not much. If anything when I first took a look, I was annoyed at what they had nerfed (a lot of melee powers like stand still) vs almost nothing on the magic/wizard end.

[Psyren]

Nope, he lead the MARCH of the forces of Ekenbrand to relieve the siege, and they attacked on foot. No charge vs. set pikes, since there's no mention of the orcs having pikes and they're already flinching back from the rising sun's light.

Pikes or no, he still charged an armed host while wearing a dress and didn't even get his beard trimmed. Unless he found some mithril lining for it that was never mentioned. So yeah, Wizard: 1, Throng of Muggles: 0.

[SITB]

I'm not too sure 3.5 is based HEAVILY on LotR.

D&D by large mutated enough that it's basically, "D&D is based on D&D is based on D&D is based on...". I mean, who many stories had the whole dugeon crawling philosopy with the standard Mage/Warrior/Cleric/Thief beforehand?

[Infernalbargain]

You missed my point. I said that in a high optimization game a character is either very powerful or useless.

3.5 offers one the possibility of building a strong melee if I want to(uberchargers, tome of battle, gishes or CoDzilla). Pathfiner does not, and that's one of the things that irritates me about it.

{Scrubbed}


PF is generally unfriendly to those of us who play in high-op land.

Page 4, near the bottom. This has remained an uncontested claim in the thread. What you have been doing in this thread is contesting that since PF is bad for high-op play, it is bad for mid-low-op play. For mid-low-op play, PF is most definitely a superior system.

[Big Fau]

For mid-low-op play, PF is most definitely a superior system.

And if they (Paizo) wanted to do that, they should have straight-up deleted every spell that isn't along the lines of Fireball and any magic items based on those spells.

[Psyren]

I'm confused - What makes it bad for high-op play, exactly? The free feats and skill points? The more powerful races? The extra class features? The backwards compatibility with existing feats/spells/PrCs etc?

If it's just that fighters can't keep up in high-op... you shouldn't be gishing, or not playing one, anyway.

[Big Fau]

If it's just that fighters can't keep up in high-op... you shouldn't be gishing, or not playing one, anyway.

That's actually the problem. Those classes may as well not exist if everyone else is playing an optimized Tier 2 or higher class.

[Seerow]

If it's just that fighters can't keep up in high-op... you shouldn't be gishing, or not playing one, anyway.


This just shows you've been either missing or ignoring the point throughout the discussion. Yes, in high op you need to be gishing or not playing melee at all, because melee sucks. This is true in 3.5 and Pathfinder. However when Pathfinder touts itself as balancing 3.5 (which it did) people expect to see mundane classes that are actually balanced with the other classes, as advertised.

If the balance doesn't hold up in a mid to high optimization party, and requires you to completely nix the concept of mundane badass from your potential characters in an optimized group, the system has failed to provide balance. Either one set of classes is balanced too low, or another is balanced too high.

Believe it or not, not all optimizers hate mundane characters, and many love the idea of playing them, but in PF they're not viable in a optimizing group, and in 3.5 the options are strictly limited and still weaker than other options in an optimizing group.

[Psyren]

That's actually the problem. Those classes may as well not exist if everyone else is playing an optimized Tier 2 or higher class.

...In a high-op game. Which not all (or even most) games are.


This just shows you've been either missing or ignoring the point throughout the discussion. Yes, in high op you need to be gishing or not playing melee at all, because melee sucks. This is true in 3.5 and Pathfinder. However when Pathfinder touts itself as balancing 3.5 (which it did) people expect to see mundane classes that are actually balanced with the other classes, as advertised.

I never saw any of these "ads." And even if I had, the SRD (and Saph's handy guide) made it clear to me that Quadratic Wizards was still here to stay whatever claims may or may not have been made to the contrary.


If the balance doesn't hold up in a mid to high optimization party, and requires you to completely nix the concept of mundane badass from your potential characters in an optimized group, the system has failed to provide balance. Either one set of classes is balanced too low, or another is balanced too high.

As I've said before in this thread, balance is not a desired end for me in and of itself. I fully expect the magic users to be more powerful than the athletes.

And as Saph said, you can still be a "mundane badass" in a party full of casters; just because they can steal the spotlight from you if they put their minds to it, doesn't mean they will.


Believe it or not, not all optimizers hate mundane characters, and many love the idea of playing them, but in PF they're not viable in a optimizing group, and in 3.5 the options are strictly limited and still weaker than other options in an optimizing group.

I love mundane characters too. I just recognize that they are inherently limited, just as they would be in the real world.

[Amphetryon]

If the balance doesn't hold up in a mid to high optimization party, and requires you to completely nix the concept of mundane badass from your potential characters in an optimized group, the system has failed to provide balance. Either one set of classes is balanced too low, or another is balanced too high.

Believe it or not, not all optimizers hate mundane characters, and many love the idea of playing them, but in PF they're not viable in a optimizing group, and in 3.5 the options are strictly limited and still weaker than other options in an optimizing group.Therein lies the problem. While not necessarily true of Seerow or any other individual poster in this thread, people seem to want to be able to play Pug and Raistlin and Saurumon and Tomas and other demigod archetypes while at the same time wanting the system to let them play Frodo, or Captain Bob from the City Watch, or some other muggle thrust into the fight by forces beyond his control. They want the demigods to be demigods, the mundanes to be mundanes, while still being balanced against each other. . . or else declaring the attempt a failure. If that's not an impossible order, it's a mighty tall one indeed.

[Rogue Shadows]

I love mundane characters too. I just recognize that they are inherently limited, just as they would be in the real world.

But the D&D world isn't the real world, or even a close approximation of it...

[Psyren]

But the D&D world isn't the real world, or even a close approximation of it...

Right - this is due to magic, which certain classes cannot command.



Therein lies the problem. While not necessarily true of Seerow or any other individual poster in this thread, people seem to want to be able to play Pug and Raistlin and Saurumon and Tomas and other demigod archetypes while at the same time wanting the system to let them play Frodo, or Captain Bob from the City Watch, or some other muggle thrust into the fight by forces beyond his control. They want the demigods to be demigods, the mundanes to be mundanes, while still being balanced against each other. . . or else declaring the attempt a failure. If that's not an impossible order, it's a mighty tall one indeed.

Agreed - so the choice becomes, do we want the balance, or the versatility? I'll take the latter, because balance can be set at the group level, whereas capability of expression depends on the system.

[Rogue Shadows]

Right - this is due to magic, which certain classes cannot command.

Um...actually it has at least as much to do with the level system. There had probably never, in the history of Earth, been anyone higher than 10th level, and ninety percent of the Greatest People Who Ever Lived probably topped out at 5th level.

[Blisstake]

...In a high-op game. Which not all (or even most) games are.

Hence why he said "optimized"

[Amphetryon]

Um...actually it has at least as much to do with the level system. There had probably never, in the history of Earth, been anyone higher than 10th level, and ninety percent of the Greatest People Who Ever Lived probably topped out at 5th level.

How many of those Greatest People Who Ever Lived could use magic, as described and defined by D&D?

[Boci]

Agreed - so the choice becomes, do we want the balance, or the versatility?

Who says you have to choose? Tier 3 classes are all balanced against each other, but they are pretty versatile as a whole.

[Psyren]

Hence why he said "optimized"

You can optimize without hitting high-op, which is where mundane melee becomes useless.


Um...actually it has at least as much to do with the level system. There had probably never, in the history of Earth, been anyone higher than 10th level, and ninety percent of the Greatest People Who Ever Lived probably topped out at 5th level.

Earth, sure - but D&D and other fantasy settings have plenty of characters capable of the sort of things 10+ PCs get up to.


Who says you have to choose? Tier 3 classes are all balanced against each other, but they are pretty versatile as a whole.

And every single one of them is closed content, along with the mechanics that made them T3.

The problem is not that it was impossible for paizo to make a T3 PHB, it's that it was impractical.

[Rogue Shadows]

Earth, sure - but D&D and other fantasy settings have plenty of characters capable of the sort of things 10+ PCs get up to.

You are correct, but note that you don't ever have to use magic to reach that point in D&D.

No, it's meaningless to talk about "magic gets nice things and mundane doesn't because that's more realistic" because realism went out the window as soon as you examine the level, skill, and ability system and realize that "realism" stops at level 5 regardless of what class you're playing.

Besides. D&D is, fundamentally, a game. It's all well and good to say that it's more "realistic" for magic to trump mundane according to "real world" rules (whatever that means), but in a game the classes should be balanced against each other. Anything else and that game is broken.


You can optimize without hitting high-op, which is where mundane melee becomes useless.

Actually...by level 10 or so, a Fighter or Barbarian or whatever has to be highly optimized to keep up with even a moderately optimized (or even just intelligently played) wizard or cleric or druid.

[Seerow]

I never saw any of these "ads." And even if I had, the SRD (and Saph's handy guide) made it clear to me that Quadratic Wizards was still here to stay whatever claims may or may not have been made to the contrary.


And for someone who hadn't seen the SRD or the guide, you know, like the person who started this thread in the first place?


As I've said before in this thread, balance is not a desired end for me in and of itself. I fully expect the magic users to be more powerful than the athletes.


So why are you bothering posting here? This thread was started by somebody upset about the fact that the game balance advertised was in fact apparently nonexistent. Coming in and saying "Well I don't care about game balance" contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion. If you want to argue that Pathfinder did in fact fix something to make it more balanced, that's fine. However when your argument is it's not fixed, and you like it better that way, you're contributing nothing.


And as Saph said, you can still be a "mundane badass" in a party full of casters; just because they can steal the spotlight from you if they put their minds to it, doesn't mean they will.


Pretty much the definition of high op is no holds barred (minus certain TO things, though what crosses the line may vary. I once saw someone legitimately claim they had a campaign with a Cheater of Mystra and King of Smack and a couple others in the same party, which is something I personally couldn't imagine DMing for), if your character can do it, he should and will be doing it. It's not a matter of stealing the spotlight, it's a matter of doing what you can at any given situation. At this point in optimization the DM is tailoring encounters to the party simply to make sure they won't be ended before the first round starts. Sure, you could talk it over with the other players and make something work, but when you're relying on your friends to carry your sorry ass through encounters because in order to challenge them, your DM is making encounters you can't really do anything to, it really kind of sucks.


I love mundane characters too. I just recognize that they are inherently limited, just as they would be in the real world.


And here's the problem. D&D isn't the real world. Mundanes can and should be able to be awesome in D&D. Though perhaps mundane is the wrong word, as that implies average every day guy. When I say mundane, I mean physically based, someone who relies on his own strength speed and wits, not on magic or gods to get him through his perilous adventures. I don't care if it turns out he's actually the son of a god, if the guy can punch the ground to cause an earthquake cause he's that badass, and not because of some mana mumbo jumbo, I refer to him as a mundane, though he really isn't mundane by the normal definition.

When you restrict a physical character by what a really strong or skilled person can do in the real world, you are in effect castrating the archtype. Remember, what is within the realm of human possibility ends around level 5. Past that point, simply based on skill checks, HP, and BAB, you've already gone outside the bounds of what any human can do. The actions available to these characters should reflect that.

It is because of this I disagree with your entire premise of "Magic is superior, and it should be that way". I would hazzard a guess that the OP feels similarly, and that was the cause of his dismay after buying Pathfinder. And I know that it isn't just a couple of us who feel this way, if that were the case we wouldn't see another thread every other week talking about this, or asking how to fix this class or that. The fact is a large portion of us (I can't say a majority from a statistical standpoint, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was a majority) do not want a situation where casters rein supreme and mundanes get to be boot lickers who get dragged along either as servants or for OOC reasons only.

[Boci]

And every single one of them is closed content, along with the mechanics that made them T3.

The problem is not that it was impossible for paizo to make a T3 PHB, it's that it was impractical.

Do they need to be PF-rized.

[tyckspoon]

Therein lies the problem. While not necessarily true of Seerow or any other individual poster in this thread, people seem to want to be able to play Pug and Raistlin and Saurumon and Tomas and other demigod archetypes while at the same time wanting the system to let them play Frodo, or Captain Bob from the City Watch, or some other muggle thrust into the fight by forces beyond his control. They want the demigods to be demigods, the mundanes to be mundanes, while still being balanced against each other. . . or else declaring the attempt a failure. If that's not an impossible order, it's a mighty tall one indeed.

It's actually not impossible. And in fact the system provides a very simple mechanic for making the distinction.. it's just not one that turned out to work the way they thought it did. The distinction was meant to be drawn on levels, not what class you are- 1st-5th, roughly, represents the range that can be comfortably inhabited by by Frodo, Bob, and their ilk. High levels represent the demigodly heavyweights, the people that can talk to the movers and shakers of the multiverse as equals. The failed bit in the middle is where Fighters and Wizards are supposed to be the same on that scale- a low level Wizard should not be capable of incapacitating a level 15 Fighter, and a level 20 Fighter should inspire just as much awe for what he can do to the world as a level 20 Wizard. But still, if you want to have Raistlin and Bob the Watchman in the same game, you just make Raistlin high level and Bob low level. That gives the appropriate power spread and makes it very obvious that Bob is not supposed to compare to Raistlin.

[Seerow]

Therein lies the problem. While not necessarily true of Seerow or any other individual poster in this thread, people seem to want to be able to play Pug and Raistlin and Saurumon and Tomas and other demigod archetypes while at the same time wanting the system to let them play Frodo, or Captain Bob from the City Watch, or some other muggle thrust into the fight by forces beyond his control. They want the demigods to be demigods, the mundanes to be mundanes, while still being balanced against each other. . . or else declaring the attempt a failure. If that's not an impossible order, it's a mighty tall one indeed.


Actually I'd be perfectly happy if Frodo and Captain Bob were NPC classes, and that NPC class happened to be the current Fighter (which is actually fairly well balanced against the NPC class caster...). However, what I do want is a physical class that is along the lines of Tomas, or Ralan Bek, or even more classically something like Hercules. I think that your PC physical classes SHOULD be the equivalent of demigods. Now, I don't think that necessarily needs to be reflected in the fluff (ie not every fighter is some bastard child of some god, and gain powers based on their god-parent), but they should be on that power curve, and let them invent the reason they got that badass as they left the world of the every day joe behind them.

[The Glyphstone]

Do they need to be PF-rized.

There are many DMs who only allow PF official content without backporting, so for people who want to, say, play a Binder, they'd be out of luck without PF-izing them.

[Lord_Gareth]

When you restrict a physical character by what a really strong or skilled person can do in the real world, you are in effect castrating the archtype. Remember, what is within the realm of human possibility ends around level 5.

This statement cannot be more true, but might I ask that you take this sub-conversation to another thread?

Blisstake, you may have missed it, but I did reply to your last post that was directed to me; I await your rebuttal.

[Psyren]

And for someone who hadn't seen the SRD or the guide, you know, like the person who started this thread in the first place?

I would say "Caveat emptor."

But where did it say that PF was "3.5 fixed?" I'd like to see the exact wording for myself. Did they promise to fix every problem, or just some, like polymorph?


So why are you bothering posting here?

I was answering the OP's question. "Did PF fix ANYTHING?" Yes - skill consolidation, more feats (greater build diversity), dead levels in base classes, the polymorph line - these are all things.


Coming in and saying "Well I don't care about game balance" contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion. If you want to argue that Pathfinder did in fact fix something to make it more balanced, that's fine. However when your argument is it's not fixed, and you like it better that way, you're contributing nothing.

Actually, I was asking why balance is such a big concern. If balance was paramount the OP or anyone else here, we'd all be in the 4e forum right now.


Sure, you could talk it over with the other players and make something work, but when you're relying on your friends to carry your sorry ass through encounters because in order to challenge them, your DM is making encounters you can't really do anything to, it really kind of sucks.

But why wouldn't you play a high-op character in this situation? You wouldn't bring a club to a lightsaber fight.


And here's the problem. D&D isn't the real world. Mundanes can and should be able to be awesome in D&D.

Without magic? How, and why?

[Shadowknight12]

No, it did not fix anything at all. It merely added more and made a handful of (underwhelming) changes.



EDIT: Psyren, Seerow, anyone else in that argument, you're all missing the point. Nobody is going to get anything out of this back and forth because you're all arguing personal tastes. Some people want mundanes to be innately inferior to magic users because it makes sense to them that way. Others want everyone at the table to be capable of similar levels of power and versatility. Neither side is wrong, so let's just give it a rest.

[Infernalbargain]

And if they (Paizo) wanted to do that, they should have straight-up deleted every spell that isn't along the lines of Fireball and any magic items based on those spells.

Because obviously there is no level of optimization between core monk and chain-gating.

[tyckspoon]

Without magic? How, and why?

Because Extraordinary abilities...

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

Have a lot of leeway to do really neat stuff. Now, if you're going to deny (Ex) abilities, you're basically defining 'mundane' in terms of 'person that can't do anything interesting' instead of 'person who doesn't use magic.' In which case, yes, mundanes basically axiomatically cannot be awesome, but it doesn't have anything to do with use of or access to magic.

[Lord_Gareth]

EDIT: Psyren, Seerow, anyone else in that argument, you're all missing the point. Nobody is going to get anything out of this back and forth because you're all arguing personal tastes. Some people want mundanes to be innately inferior to magic users because it makes sense to them that way. Others want everyone at the table to be capable of similar levels of power and versatility. Neither side is wrong, so let's just give it a rest.

Psh, just make a new thread for it, man.

[SowZ]

Are you leveling up your casters significantly slower then your martials? Or are you just leveling everyone up at the same time?

[Rogue Shadows]

Without magic? How, and why?

That's easy - buyer demand.

My personal feelings about it aside, the popularity of Tome of Battle should be more than enough to prove that some people want to be able to play demigods without having to be magic users.

...

...Yes, I know, I just said something in favor of Tome of Battle. Hell will be freezing over in five...four...three...two...one...

http://i54.tinypic.com/9qcs34.png

[Psyren]

I'm fine with (Ex) abilities for melee. The only problem is that WotC happened to make a great system full of them that Paizo couldn't touch. Forcing them to either expend resources reinventing the wheel (only they can't call it a wheel, else they get sued) or studiously ignore said wheel while winking at the players and discreetly pointing out that the wagon they just made would work really well with their existing wheel, nudge nudge.

[Seerow]

But where did it say that PF was "3.5 fixed?" I'd like to see the exact wording for myself. Did they promise to fix every problem, or just some, like polymorph?

I don't have the exact quote, I do know it was supposed to be a selling point that it was better balanced than 3.5 though, so at this point I'm thinking you're just being pedantic.



Actually, I was asking why balance is such a big concern. If balance was paramount the OP or anyone else here, we'd all be in the 4e forum right now.


4e was balance at the cost of many other things. Customization and new subsystems primarily among them, but also other things like much slower combat.



But why wouldn't you play a high-op character in this situation? You wouldn't bring a club to a lightsaber fight.

You're right, I wouldn't. So in a high op game I wouldn't use a physical character, I'd play a gish or something. That doesn't however make it a GOOD thing that I don't have the option to play a physical character in a high op setting. It is a classic archtype and it should be playable regardless of optimization level.


Without magic? How, and why?

I don't know. Don't particularly care. Unless you can explain to me why my 20th level mundane fighter can swim through lava or hold his breath for 10 minutes. Or why my first level barbarian can break every athletic world record in existence, and by 20th level can jump 50+ feet in the air, and climb up trees at the same speed he can run (which again is olympic class sprinting speeds).

D&D characters make the laws of physics cry left and right. It's up to the player to determine what makes his character special, and capable of rising beyond what normal people are capable of. Whether that's some artifact imbued you with a special power, or you were born with a special spark, or a bastard child of a god, or something else. I don't care what the justification is, because you're frankly already making up justifications past level 5, possibly even earlier, if you actually care about how realistic something is.

[Rogue Shadows]

4e was balance at the cost of many other things. Customization and new subsystems primarily among them, but also other things like much slower combat.

Wait, slower as in combat lasts more rounds, or slower as in turns take longer?

I'm all for the former as long as combat remains dynamic. Not a fan of the latter.

[Seerow]

Wait, slower as in combat lasts more rounds, or slower as in turns take longer?

My experience was that 4e combat was longer in both ways (lasted longer and took more rounds). I hear this got resolved somewhat with Essentials, but I never got a chance to play with that. With my group a 4e encounter would take up about half our game session, where we could get 3 or so encounters in while playing 3.5, while still having plenty of time in between for noncombat stuff.

[Drachasor]

My experience was that 4e combat was longer in both ways (lasted longer and took more rounds). I hear this got resolved somewhat with Essentials, but I never got a chance to play with that. With my group a 4e encounter would take up about half our game session, where we could get 3 or so encounters in while playing 3.5, while still having plenty of time in between for noncombat stuff.

My experience running a 4E campaign was that combat might take more rounds, but it was a lot shorter than 3.X combat in terms of time in real life.

However, the combat system itself left quite a bit to be desired, as well as the whole power system. For instance, you could easily go from a guy at 5th level who uses a lot of fire magic to a guy at 9th level who doesn't know more than one fire spell. I mean, they easily could have made it so you could get say a 9th level Fireball or something, but that's not how the system works. The PHB is also written like a straight-jacket on player creativity, which frustrated me as a DM to no end.

To me all this is extra insane because 4E was clearly balanced in a way where they could have had basically no powers. Instead a player could just say what they wanted to do and you could free form the damage or other mechanics with nearly no cost in time. That's true for like 95% or more of the powers anyhow. That would have been pretty cool, but instead we have a power monstrosity where characters can't remain very consistent as they level.

Anyhow, 4E is more balanced, but it comes with a lot of completely unnecessary costs. Sadder still is that it does have some really nice mechanics like Healing Surges.


I'm fine with (Ex) abilities for melee. The only problem is that WotC happened to make a great system full of them that Paizo couldn't touch. Forcing them to either expend resources reinventing the wheel (only they can't call it a wheel, else they get sued) or studiously ignore said wheel while winking at the players and discreetly pointing out that the wagon they just made would work really well with their existing wheel, nudge nudge.

Considering the amount of stuff Paizo DID invent, it wouldn't have been hard them to reinvent the wheel. Even ToB would be pretty easy to more or less mimic without copying the disciplines, class, etc.

[Psyren]

I don't have the exact quote, I do know it was supposed to be a selling point that it was better balanced than 3.5 though, so at this point I'm thinking you're just being pedantic.

Without the quote, it's just as likely that the disappointment in Pathfinder is due to unrealistic expectations heaped on the designers by the playerbase. For all I know, they set out to create "extended 3.5" from the very beginning, and a vocal minority merely assumed they were out to rebalance everything.


4e was balance at the cost of many other things. Customization and new subsystems primarily among them, but also other things like much slower combat.

Slow combat aside, that's the point - having both homogenization and customization is extremely difficult. Eventually, either the sought-after balance will shift, or the subsystems/options will have to be kept so similar that the choice becomes meaningless.


I don't know. Don't particularly care. Unless you can explain to me why my 20th level mundane fighter can swim through lava or hold his breath for 10 minutes. Or why my first level barbarian can break every athletic world record in existence, and by 20th level can jump 50+ feet in the air, and climb up trees at the same speed he can run (which again is olympic class sprinting speeds).

Those are all admirable feats, but hardly practical unless one is adventuring in the bottom of a volcano. Whereas the caster can accomplish these and much more due to magic's superiority.

[Rogue Shadows]

Slow combat aside, that's the point - having both homogenization and customization is extremely difficult. Eventually, either the sought-after balance will shift, or the subsystems/options will have to be kept so similar that the choice becomes meaningless.

Star Wars Roleplaying Game Saga Edition begs to differ. And is d20 to boot.

Now if only I could think up some way to fix its Skill/Defense problem that worked across 20 levels...

(the problem, for those who care, is that Saga Edition's skills are way too strong at low levels, though they start to balance out at around 10th level. It has a related problem in that characters become harder to hit (with Force powers or attacks) faster than the ability to hit those defenses scales, so high-level characters require a very high d20 roll (about 15 or higher) to hit).

[Kantolin]

I'm... um, a little surprised at the boosts to spellcasters they added, which come up in casual play. My group took a glance, and discovered that 'Wow, wizards can specialize and still use spells from their banned schools, it just takes up more slots'? And then later, 'Wow, and you can take a feat to make it essentially unbanned?

And 'Whoa, sorcerors can get 20 more spells known just for being human?'

Now, I'm mixed in my opinion on the nerfs to some of the more typical melee tactics. Power Attack was nerfed, but power attack was very strong compared to other combat styles, so bringing it down a touch makes the other styles more reasonable options. But.... well, it nerfed fighters, and boosted casters? Nerfed bards (Something fierce; our first house rule in our attempted pure-Pathfinder game was to fix bards after playing for three sessions where the bard immediately ran out of bardic music), but sorcerors get an extra spell known every level, unless you opt not to be human in which you are essentially punished hard by having ~sixteen less spells known?

I dunno.

Some of the classes are neat, but most of those classes were the more potent ones to begin with, so I'm not sure how much of a 'fix' that is. Rogues, for example, are still pretty much the same - their minor talents aren't generally relevant or interesting enough compared to really cool things like bloodlines.

So I'm not sure it really fixed anything. It certainly didn't change the tier list any, and if the difference in tiers wasn't bothering your game, then pathfinder isn't really fixing anything as there's nothing to fix, so.... so I dunno. Pathfinder makes certain core base classes more interesting, and has some neat ideas scattered therein? I think that's the only real thing I can say about it.


To use your football example: let's consider 2 players. Player A is a quarterback. That's all he does and he's quite good at it. Player B however not only is a better quarterback than player A, but he can also play in the offensive and defensive lines, he can provide tactical advice like a coach and if need be can also turn into an attractive cheerleader. Which one would you rather have in the team?

Boy that would creep me out, having the large quarterback suddenly shift into being a cheerleader. ^_^

[Seerow]

Slow combat aside, that's the point - having both homogenization and customization is extremely difficult. Eventually, either the sought-after balance will shift, or the subsystems/options will have to be kept so similar that the choice becomes meaningless.


Difficult, but not impossible. The problem is Wizards gave up, giving up all of the customization in exchange for a universal system. I think if they did something as the various power sources getting different numbers of powers (say Martials get an extra at will and encounter power, Arcane gets a couple extra dailies, etc), and allowed you to continue accumulating powers rather than having to trade out powers past level 10, people would have been much happier with 4e. Or for an example of a bigger difference in subsystems that remained relatively balanced, check out Psionics vs Arcane Magic. Two obviously different subsystems, with different feels and playstyles, but with similarities in function and balance level.


Those are all admirable feats, but hardly practical unless one is adventuring in the bottom of a volcano. Whereas the caster can accomplish these and much more due to magic's superiority.


Are you going out of your way to be obtuse? Yes what magic can do is better. The point is that mundane characters at high level are already superhuman, and should have the versatility and power that one would expect at that level. You can't just ignore these superhuman things and continue to say that mundane characters at high level are still expected to be restricted to what someone in real life can do. Fact is they already are not, and that should be carried to the conclusion of letting martially focused characters do awesome things that is comparable to magic, without being magic.

[Fox Box Socks]

...kind of?

My main beef with 3.X was that there were a lot of fiddly bits that got in the way of my enjoying the game (I'm looking squarely at you, rules for doors in the DMG), and Pathfinder's solution seems to be "add more fiddly bits". So there's that.

Balance is...better? The bad stuff is less bad and the broken stuff is less broken, but if it was bad in 3.5 it's still bad in PF, and if it was broken in 3.5 it's still broken.

Being able to backhack in the entire 3.5 catalog with little to no prep work is absolutely a double-edged sword. Folks are usually quick to point this out as a point in PF's favor, but casually dismiss the fact that this brings back in a whole wealth of game-busting material since "well, you don't have to bring that stuff in".

Paizo does fantastic work (they basically swept the Ennies), and if given the choice between 3.5 and Pathfinder, I'd pick Pathfinder 9 times out of 10. But that's only because my only two choices were 3.5 and Pathfinder.

[Eric Tolle]

Did Pathfinder fix anything? Well, they did a lot of minor stuff, but fundamentally the game is still Magic the Gathering the RPG. It's still all about gathering the right obscure combination of race, class, template, feats and crap that have the synergy to create an uber character. To who like building characters like a deck of cards it's great; to those gamers who prefer straightforward character creation that doesn't "reward system mastery", not so much. Seriously, I've seen veterans of Champions throw up their hands at the over complicated, non-intuitive nature of character creation on D&D 3.X.

(this an entirely separate problem from the fact that it's thnd equivalent of a game of MtG where the blue and white cards are far more powerful than the other colors. One issue at a time.)

Pathfinder has one virtue, in that if you ignore backwards compatability, it has fewer layers of complication built in. However I fear that's only a temporary situation, as each facebook will put into play new feats and prestige classes. Eventually Pathfinder wil be as huge a mess as Third Edition.

[Drachasor]

Are you going out of your way to be obtuse? Yes what magic can do is better. The point is that mundane characters at high level are already superhuman, and should have the versatility and power that one would expect at that level. You can't just ignore these superhuman things and continue to say that mundane characters at high level are still expected to be restricted to what someone in real life can do. Fact is they already are not, and that should be carried to the conclusion of letting martially focused characters do awesome things that is comparable to magic, without being magic.

Aye, a 20th level Fighter should easily be like Captain America, and a 20th level Rogue like Batman, if not better. Hmm, one could argue that should happen at 10th level, I suppose.

[Big Fau]

Let's try something a little more on-topic:


Pathfinder may have fixed a few things, but they are making one thing worse than before. By worse, I mean more powerful.

Spellcasting.

Even assuming PF sources only (no homebrew or 3.5 splats), the fact is that Paizo and other companies will continue to print new spells with nearly every splat (someone check Ultimate Combat for me and see if they printed any Sor/Wiz, Cleric, or Druid spells).

This was the single biggest issue with 3.5: Spellcasters got love in almost every single book, be it by Magic Items, Feats, or Spells. The latter was the biggest issue. Even assuming every single spell Paizo prints for the Core Casters is balanced (highly improbable seeing as Paizo has a very weak grasp of balance when it comes to anything that isn't an adventure path), this means the Core Casters will receive nothing but positive support.

This is the last thing a company trying to support 3E should be doing, seeing as those classes are the biggest problems for DMs.





If you value game balance, you are better off not using Pathfinder or only using selective portions of it, and fixing the rest yourself. As long as Paizo continues to support PF, spellcasters will only continue to grow in power and the problems with 3.5 will resurface with a vengeance.




Aye, a 20th level Fighter should easily be like Captain America, and a 20th level Rogue like Batman, if not better. Hmm, one could argue that should happen at 10th level, I suppose.

Except they end up more like Aquaman on the Elemental Plane of Fire than Captain America.

[Acanous]

Well, Pathfinder DID fix the Grapple rules.

Also they can totaly make an entire melee suppliment on improving grapple/trip/bull rush and maybe adding other combat maneuvers.

[MeeposFire]

Difficult, but not impossible. The problem is Wizards gave up, giving up all of the customization in exchange for a universal system. I think if they did something as the various power sources getting different numbers of powers (say Martials get an extra at will and encounter power, Arcane gets a couple extra dailies, etc), and allowed you to continue accumulating powers rather than having to trade out powers past level 10, people would have been much happier with 4e. Or for an example of a bigger difference in subsystems that remained relatively balanced, check out Psionics vs Arcane Magic. Two obviously different subsystems, with different feels and playstyles, but with similarities in function and balance level.



Are you going out of your way to be obtuse? Yes what magic can do is better. The point is that mundane characters at high level are already superhuman, and should have the versatility and power that one would expect at that level. You can't just ignore these superhuman things and continue to say that mundane characters at high level are still expected to be restricted to what someone in real life can do. Fact is they already are not, and that should be carried to the conclusion of letting martially focused characters do awesome things that is comparable to magic, without being magic.

you might like the newer classes as that happens. Slayers and knights have more at wills (well stances which are their at wills) but no dailies and the like.

How many rounds was it taking for you anyway? rounds haave been cut down in various ways for most groups. The average is between 3-5 rounds right now and that is what they are designing for.

Also I agree with you in that heroes in D&D should be allowed to be big awesome heroes not overrated hirelings.