But Why? Pathfinder

[Man With Dog]

So this is a Pathfinder question:

In a hope that soon we start up a different game and i get some much wanted character playing time (could be a few weeks yet at maximum) i will of course need to write up a new character.

As with opinions, i know everyone has their own idea BUT what i wanted to ask was: In the playgrounders opinion - What is the best class in Pathfinder?

I know in the older v3.5 days it used to be a collection of Wizards, Clerics and Druids - but what about with Pathfinder? Did any get more powerful than the others - did some get hammered harder than others?

So which is best nowadays? And Why?

Hope some of you have time to answer :smallsmile:

[Draconi Redfir]

There are no best classes, and there never will be. The best class is quite simply, the one you want to play. Each class has its own strengths, it's own weakness, and it's own drawbacks. whichever one you chose wholly depends on your playstyle. Like getting into the Frey? Fighter, Barbarian, or Monk. Like doing tricks? Wizard or sorcerer. and so on.
There is no "best class" just as their is no "best race", you just pick the one which goes well with you and what you want to play.

[Captain Six]

Druids got a hit when they reworked how shapeshifting works. Technically they are worse but I think Pathfinder shapeshifting as a 'stat buff' instead of 'total stat replacement' is more interesting so they may have gotten more fun in the process. Powerwise they shifted down but are still tier 1.

Clerics lost turn undead for channeling energy. If channeling energy counts as turn undead if you allow 3.5 feats then they aren't much different at all. Powerwise they stayed in place and are still tier 1.

Wizards are the only ones who got more toys to play with while keeping all of their old ones. Powerwise they have shifted up somewhat and are still tier 1.

Instant death spells have been removed but all the save-or-lose spells are still in, and that's where all the power was to begin with. So really little has changed in the way of top-tier spellcasters.


Edit: I agree with the poster above me and only answered the way I did because the question posed seemed to be technically minded. Many of the lower tier classes got pretty consistently stronger, moving many tier 5 classes into the tier 3-4 sweet spot of game balance.

[Psyren]

If your question really means "which classes are the highest tier now" - those are largely unchanged from 3.5. It's a little harder for the casters to do every single thing at once thanks to polymorph, wild shape and similar getting taken down a peg, but T1 is still T1, T2 is still T2 etc.

All then psionic classes are stronger as well, but psionics itself still has many of the weaknesses it did in 3.5 (e.g. lack of illusions and summoning.)

Wizards, Clerics, even Druids with all the nerfs still rule the roost. Psions and Sorcerers can come even closer to sitting at their table. And there are a couple of new faces like Oracle and Witch.



Clerics lost turn undead for channeling energy. If channeling energy counts for turn undead if you allow 3.5 feats then they aren't much different at all. Powerwise they stayed in place and are still tier 1.


There is a PF feat that changes it into Turn Undead. So they effectively tax you to get back all the toys you had in 3.5. But the kicker is that they gave you more feats to play with, and the truly must-have ones like metamagic are no more expensive than they were before, so it's a net gain for all the casters.

One thing that is sad is that melee are still artificially held back. Namely, they got more feats too, but their tricks seem to require more feats than they did in 3.5 for the same effect. They therefore don't get to move forward as much as the casters do.

[BlueInc]

Druids got hammered the most from the changes to wildshape; a few major spells got "fixed" via the nerfbat (the polymorph line of spells); lack of divine metamagic and nightsticks in Pathfinder removes that option from Clerics; overall tier one is still tier one.

The big change for spellcasters is that their specializations (Domains, school specializations, etc.) are now mostly active abilities that give them more options in combat or roleplaying situations. A cleric in my PF game is absolutely in love with his Oceans subdomian (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric/domains/paizo---domains/water-domain/oceans).

I really like the new caster classes from Paizo - Oracle, Magus, Witch... the Oracle in particular can do so many different things depending on your Mystery and the revelations you pick; you could run a party of 5 Oracles and they'd all have a unique role.

Edit: Mostly swordsaged.

[stack]

The tiers haven't really changed much, some shuffling between 5 and 4, depending on who you ask. Wizards still rule, CODzilla roams the plains devouring all.

Less splat books means less divine spells, so clerics are somewhat narrower casting-wise. Druids no longer can dump all physical stats and stay in wildshape. Other classes got nice toys (rogues, barbarians) fighters got bigger numbers, paladins got a useful smite.

Personally the best thing about Pathfinder, for me, are the 2/3rds casters (summoner, magus, alchemist, inquisitor), who all are delightfully tier 3 (except maybe the summoner who is higher), useful, and flavorful.

ed - completely swordsaged (Distracted mid-post)

[Draconi Redfir]

Or again you could always just play what is fun to play, rather then rely on other peoples artificial opinions on which class is better then which other class. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OccEKFdDq8)

[Psyren]

Personally the best thing about Pathfinder, for me, are the 2/3rds casters (summoner, magus, alchemist, inquisitor), who all are delightfully tier 3 (except maybe the summoner who is higher), useful, and flavorful.


For me the best thing is that you can take all the cool T3 from 3.5, touch them up a bit, and add them to PF as well - Binder, DFA, the ToB and Incarnum classes, and Factotum.

(Though I firmly believe that PF Rogue isn't nearly as far behind Factotum as it used to be, and is better in a fight.)

[ThunderCat]

As has already been said, the best class depends on which is most fun to play. In regards to power, the druid has been nerfed but is still powerful, the cleric has lost heavy armour proficiency but has gotten the ability to use turn attempts (aka channel energy) to heal allies, and the wizard has gotten more toys to play with and can now choose to prepare spells from their forbidden schools at a higher cost, but in return, some of their spells have been nerfed a bit. There is a new class in the Advanced Player's Guide, the witch, which is probably also tier 1.

The sorcerer has also been greatly improved in Pathfinder, so if you don't do well with vancian casting, it's a great alternative, especially if you use the human favoured class alternative from the APG. But the real question you should ask yourself is how your group would feel about it. Wanting a powerful class is a fine, but making it your goal to be as powerful as possible without regard for whether or not you end up overshadowing the other players, is bound to make the game less fun for everybody. And gaming is supposed to be fun.

[Psyren]

And even though Clerics lost HAP, getting it back is merely a feat away - plus Clerics got more feats to play with, so it's still a net gain if you really want it.

[Hazzardevil]

There are no best classes, and there never will be. The best class is quite simply, the one you want to play. Each class has its own strengths, it's own weakness, and it's own drawbacks. whichever one you chose wholly depends on your playstyle. Like getting into the Frey? Fighter, Barbarian, or Monk. Like doing tricks? Wizard or sorcerer. and so on.
There is no "best class" just as their is no "best race", you just pick the one which goes well with you and what you want to play.

That is, the biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard.
(After the Apollo 11 conspiracy theorys.)
Wizard and Cleric are still the best at everything, druid is 2nd best. Pathfinder didn't fix as much as they claimed.

[ThiefInTheNight]

None of the Core classes were changed much, save the Paladin, and even that wasn't changed enough to change its Tier. All of the Core classes are in the same Tier they were for 3.5, for the same reasons.

I have not read the new classes so I cannot tell you. I've heard that most are Tier 3-4-ish, which is probably a good sign, honestly.

[elvengunner69]

This might be dumb question of the day - but how are they tiered and why? Does tier 1 mean better than tier 2? Sorry just back after 30 years away and am trying to figure out the new stuff. :smallredface:

[Big Fau]

Or again you could always just play what is fun to play, rather then rely on other peoples artificial opinions on which class is better then which other class. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OccEKFdDq8)

It isn't an opinion. Fact is, a Tier 1 or Tier 2 can utterly break your campaign wide open, whereas a Tier 5 is just going to do one thing for the entire campaign: Hit things with a stick.


While the best class is always the one that makes your concept work, the most powerful classes will always be the ones in Tiers 1 and 2.

[qcbtnsrm]

All then psionic classes are stronger as well, but psionics itself still has many of the weaknesses it did in 3.5 (e.g. lack of illusions and summoning.)
Psionics? Pathfinder doesn't have psionics.

[CapnVan]

This might be dumb question of the day - but how are they tiered and why? Does tier 1 mean better than tier 2? Sorry just back after 30 years away and am trying to figure out the new stuff. :smallredface:

No worries. All is explained in the Tier System for Classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0).

[Psyren]

This might be dumb question of the day - but how are they tiered and why? Does tier 1 mean better than tier 2? Sorry just back after 30 years away and am trying to figure out the new stuff. :smallredface:

Read this (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0)
@ CapnVan - that's the old post, this one is the updated one.

Note that this is the same tier system that the Giant refers to in this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0764.html) - that should give you an idea of how widely accepted the concept is. :smallsmile:


Psionics? Pathfinder doesn't have psionics.

Correction: Paizo doesn't, but Pathfinder very much does. Check it (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed)

[CapnVan]

Swordsaged.

And thanks for the update on the Tiers!

[9mm]

with pathfinder it's less who got stronger and more who got kicked in the nether regions; poor, poor Bards.

[Urpriest]

This might be dumb question of the day - but how are they tiered and why? Does tier 1 mean better than tier 2? Sorry just back after 30 years away and am trying to figure out the new stuff. :smallredface:

The Tier System is a fan-made analysis of the comparative ability of different classes to overcome a wide set of challenges. Here's the initial thread (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293).

[BlueInc]

Psionics? Pathfinder doesn't have psionics.

Dreamscarred Press put out an excellent "Pathfinder-ization" of Psionics, the rules of which are available for free (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed) on the Pathfinder srd.

[Dalek-K]

I have yet to play them but I would vote for Magus due to how fun it looks :D

Medium BAB
2 good saves
Cool class features (Arcane pool, armor casting, spell combat)
Spells
Magus Arcana (Class feats.. Like boosting arcana pool abilities and such)

Next time I play in a PF game I'll be going Magus. Now to reorganize the spell list to give the magus some healing type spells and you have a awesome Red Mage.

Hmmm time homebrew a new magus spell list....

[Elitarismo]

So this is a Pathfinder question:

In a hope that soon we start up a different game and i get some much wanted character playing time (could be a few weeks yet at maximum) i will of course need to write up a new character.

As with opinions, i know everyone has their own idea BUT what i wanted to ask was: In the playgrounders opinion - What is the best class in Pathfinder?

I know in the older v3.5 days it used to be a collection of Wizards, Clerics and Druids - but what about with Pathfinder? Did any get more powerful than the others - did some get hammered harder than others?

So which is best nowadays? And Why?

Hope some of you have time to answer :smallsmile:

Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and possibly Sorcerers (if not, they're a little lower).

As for why, that's easy to answer. When you're already the best, and get better, you are now the best that got better. Conversely when you are the worst, and made weaker still, you are the worst that got weaker still. The middle ground is gone, but the equation is the same.

[qcbtnsrm]

Correction: Paizo doesn't, but Pathfinder very much does. Check it (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed)
Yes, I know that d20pfsrd.com does include 3rd party stuff. Put Dreamscarred Press is no more Pathfinder that it was D&D 3.5. And the actual PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/) does not include any Psionic rules. So I'm not sure how that counts as Pathfinder.

[Hiro Protagonest]

There are no best classes, and there never will be. The best class is quite simply, the one you want to play. Each class has its own strengths, it's own weakness, and it's own drawbacks. whichever one you chose wholly depends on your playstyle. Like getting into the Frey? Fighter, Barbarian, or Monk. Like doing tricks? Wizard or sorcerer. and so on.
There is no "best class" just as their is no "best race", you just pick the one which goes well with you and what you want to play.


Or again you could always just play what is fun to play, rather then rely on other peoples artificial opinions on which class is better then which other class. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OccEKFdDq8)
You need to knock it off. He obviously meant the strongest class, and wizard, cleric, and druid are still the strongest. You can play a fighter all you want, doesn't mean it's suddenly going to be as good as a full caster.

I have yet to play them but I would vote for Magus due to how fun it looks :D

Medium BAB
2 good saves
Cool class features (Arcane pool, armor casting, spell combat)
Spells
Magus Arcana (Class feats.. Like boosting arcana pool abilities and such)

Next time I play in a PF game I'll be going Magus. Now to reorganize the spell list to give the magus some healing type spells and you have a awesome Red Mage.

Hmmm time homebrew a new magus spell list....

Maguses are tier 3. Not the best. But still good.

[Psyren]

Yes, I know that d20pfsrd.com does include 3rd party stuff. Put Dreamscarred Press is no more Pathfinder that it was D&D 3.5. And the actual PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/) does not include any Psionic rules. So I'm not sure how that counts as Pathfinder.

Again, "not paizo" and "not pathfinder" are two different things.

If Psionics Unleashed was not Pathfinder compatible, Paizo wouldn't have said it was. (http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG/dreamscarredPress/v5748btpy8i42)

[Devmaar]

Yes, I know that d20pfsrd.com does include 3rd party stuff. Put Dreamscarred Press is no more Pathfinder that it was D&D 3.5. And the actual PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/) does not include any Psionic rules. So I'm not sure how that counts as Pathfinder.

It's written to work with Pathfinder rules. The classes and powers are designed to fit the Pathfinder system. How is it not Pathfinder?

Just because it's not 'official' Paizo content doesn't mean it's not Pathfinder.

[Godskook]

There are no best classes, and there never will be. The best class is quite simply, the one you want to play. Each class has its own strengths, it's own weakness, and it's own drawbacks. whichever one you chose wholly depends on your playstyle. Like getting into the Frey? Fighter, Barbarian, or Monk. Like doing tricks? Wizard or sorcerer. and so on.
There is no "best class" just as their is no "best race", you just pick the one which goes well with you and what you want to play.

While its true that tis better to optimize the concept you want, rather than to accept the optimization that's strongest, that doesn't make all classes equal, and giving that statement in the context of a mechanical question is kind of insulting to the OP. PF Monks still aren't tier 1, 2, and I don't even think 3, and thus, from a tier perspective, are in no way 'appropriate' to directly answering this question.

[Draconi Redfir]

That is, the biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard.
(After the Apollo 11 conspiracy theorys.)
Wizard and Cleric are still the best at everything, druid is 2nd best. Pathfinder didn't fix as much as they claimed.

I would love to see a wizard or cleric hold up a collapsing ceiling, jump a large pit, punch a rabid dog in the face, or chop off a dragons head in a single critical hit. While in an anti-magic field:smallbiggrin:


Simple thing is that saying X is better then Y is ultimately pointless. Yes X may be a little more flexible then Y but Y still has its own strengths and weaknesses, and if a player still wants to play Y, then you shouldn't tell him that playing X is better.

Yes, fighters may just be people who hit things with sticks, but you could also say wizards are just people who shoot magic missiles everywhere.

[Zaq]

I would love to see a wizard or cleric hold up a collapsing ceiling, jump a large pit, punch a rabid dog in the face, or chop off a dragons head in a single critical hit. While in an anti-magic field:smallbiggrin:

You smallbiggrin all you want, but it's relatively trivial to make a Cleric who can do all that. Just sayin'.

[Coidzor]

Simple thing is that saying X is better then Y is ultimately pointless. Yes X may be a little more flexible then Y but Y still has its own strengths and weaknesses, and if a player still wants to play Y, then you shouldn't tell him that playing X is better.

Good thing that's not the scenario here at all, now isn't it? OP hasn't told us about what he wants to play at all. He was asking if the relative power levels were the same.


Yes, fighters may just be people who hit things with sticks, but you could also say wizards are just people who shoot magic missiles everywhere.

Well, you could, but you'd be wrong with the latter(they shoot fireballs everywhere :smalltongue:), whereas the former has the ring of truth to it.

[qcbtnsrm]

Again, "not paizo" and "not pathfinder" are two different things.

If Psionics Unleashed was not Pathfinder compatible, Paizo wouldn't have said it was. (http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG/dreamscarredPress/v5748btpy8i42)
Note, "Pathfinder Compatible" and "Pathfinder" are different things. "Pathfinder" is Paizo only. "Pathfinder Compatible" is for 3rd party. There is a different license, different logo, and they mean different things. It is almost (although admittedly not quite) the same as the difference between D&D and d20. Psionics Unleased is "Pathfinder Compatible" like Bow & Blade: A Guidebook to Wood Elves (d20) (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/g/greenRoninPublishing/byProductType/roleplayingGames/racesOfRenown/v5748btpy7euk) is d20. Someone else could sign a licensing agreement tomorrow and release a Psionics book and it would be just as "official" as Dreamscarred Press's book. There are hundreds of "Pathfinder Compatible" books for sale in Paizo's online store, with hundreds of classes, all of which are just as official as Dreamscarred's Psion.

[BlueInc]

I would love to see a wizard or cleric hold up a collapsing ceiling (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/wall-of-stone), jump a large pit (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/j/jump), punch a rabid dog in the face (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/stone-fist), or chop off a dragons head in a single critical hit (http://therafim.wikidot.com/shivering-touch).

::cough:: The last requires you to cast, then coup de grace, though.


While in an anti-magic field

So, in a world without magic, people who use magic aren't good? I KNEW there was I reason I shouldn't have rolled Wizard IRL!

[Hiro Protagonest]

I would love to see a wizard or cleric hold up a collapsing ceiling, jump a large pit, punch a rabid dog in the face, or chop off a dragons head in a single critical hit. While in an anti-magic field:smallbiggrin:

Superior unarmed strike + d8 hit die and 3/4 BAB is good enough. High strength score is going to hold up that ceiling just as much as the fighter can, and I doubt a fighter is allowed to do that by the rules. A vorpal weapon I'd going to work just as good in a cleric's hand as a fighter's, but wait! The fighter can't do that since his magic items are turned off! That's DM fiat! And for that pit? Cross-class ranks in a skill that's actually worth it. Or since the anti-magic field only goes out 10 feet, just use magic to work your way around it.

[Big Fau]

I would love to see a wizard or cleric hold up a collapsing ceiling, jump a large pit, punch a rabid dog in the face, or chop off a dragons head in a single critical hit. While in an anti-magic field:smallbiggrin:

Simple thing is that saying X is better then Y is ultimately pointless. Yes X may be a little more flexible then Y but Y still has its own strengths and weaknesses, and if a player still wants to play Y, then you shouldn't tell him that playing X is better.

Your argument implies that you do not have a firm grasp of system mastery. If you did, you would know that Y's weaknesses are easily negated by Y's own class features.

Because that's one aspect of a Tier 2/Tier 1: Able to ignore any weaknesses the developers tried to instill upon them through the use of the very abilities the devs were trying to balance.


Notice how you mentioned the Antimagic Field? That's magic. As Uncle would say: "Magic must defeat magic!" This is one of the four absolute laws of 3.5.


Yes, fighters may just be people who hit things with sticks, but you could also say wizards are just people who shoot magic missiles everywhere.

Speaking from a mechanics standpoint, a Fighter is only able to hit people with sticks. A Wizard, however, can indeed cast Magic Missle everywhere. In addition to doing that, the Wizard can tell the laws of physics to sit in a corner and cut itself to death. And the entire campaign can join it.

[Big Fau]

Note, "Pathfinder Compatible" and "Pathfinder" are different things. "Pathfinder" is Paizo only. "Pathfinder Compatible" is for 3rd party. There is a different license, different logo, and they mean different things. It is almost (although admittedly not quite) the same as the difference between D&D and d20. Psionics Unleased is "Pathfinder Compatible" like Bow & Blade: A Guidebook to Wood Elves (d20) (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/g/greenRoninPublishing/byProductType/roleplayingGames/racesOfRenown/v5748btpy7euk) is d20. Someone else could sign a licensing agreement tomorrow and release a Psionics book and it would be just as "official" as Dreamscarred Press's book. There are hundreds of "Pathfinder Compatible" books for sale in Paizo's online store, with hundreds of classes, all of which are just as official as Dreamscarred's Psion.

Just FYI: Paizo hired DSP to make the Pathfinder Psionics. Paizo didn't want to do it themselves because the people in charge don't like it and knew they wouldn't please people by doing it in-house.

[Elitarismo]

Notice how you mentioned the Antimagic Field? That's magic. As Uncle would say: "Magic must defeat magic!" This is one of the four absolute laws of 3.5.

I'm curious now. What are the other three?

[Big Fau]

I'm curious now. What are the other three?

Rule -1: There isn't a game without players (DAMMIT I LOST AGAIN!)
Rule 0: The DM is always right.
Rule 0.1: The rules were written for a reason. Ignoring them wasn't it.
Rule 1: Magic must defeat magic!

[Hiro Protagonest]

Rule -1: There isn't a game without players (DAMMIT I LOST AGAIN!)
Rule 0: The DM is always right.
That's not quite what it was.

Rule 00 - The GM is Always Right: No matter how eloquently the Rules Lawyer states his case for the loophole he's trying to abuse, the GM always has the last word.
Rule 000 - ...But No Players Means No Game: Having the last word doesn't mean the GM can lord it over the players like a tin-pot dictator. Like any other governing body, abuse of power will eventually lead to a coup d'état.

[qcbtnsrm]

Just FYI: Paizo hired DSP to make the Pathfinder Psionics. Paizo didn't want to do it themselves because the people in charge don't like it and knew they wouldn't please people by doing it in-house.
You got a cite for that? Jason Bulmahn really doesn't like psionics. And Jason Jacobs' statements strongly suggest that no-one at Paizo did. So the idea that they didn't want to develop it in-house rings true. But I've never read anything that said that they hired someone to make it for them. And there is nothing from Dreamscarred, that I am aware of, that suggests that this was initiated by Paizo, rather than a project by Dreamscarred. And nothing about the book suggest that it is any different from any other third party stuff. Here (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/Core/article/sid=79.html) is the release announcement from Dreamscarred. You would think that if it were official and a release paid for by Paizo something would be said. It wasn't. Instead it was given the same Pathfinder Compatible logo, and is disallowed in Pathfinder Society play.

It may be great stuff. It is definitely Pathfinder Compatible. But I still haven't seen anything that suggests it is Pathfinder, or has been given any more official status than any other random Pathfinder Compatible third party products.

[CTrees]

Note that sorcerors got a ton of buffs in the form of additional class features, and human sorcerors get enough spells for there to be an argument as to being tier 1.

With the druid nerfs and the reduced options given to clerics (if you don't port in 3.5 material), wizards likely are the most versitile class (hey, they got new class features!). Witches just aren't quite as good, but they're close.

*shrug* not an exciting answer, but paizo didn't change *that* much.

[Galanar]

I would love to see a wizard or cleric hold up a collapsing ceiling, jump a large pit, punch a rabid dog in the face, or chop off a dragons head in a single critical hit. While in an anti-magic field:smallbiggrin:


Wizard, cast divination, oh, "I'm going to be near an antimagic field", TO DO
- avoid field
- perform chores
- also, kill 20HD of fighters that were passing by.

Cleric, use Divination see wizard, change fighters for undead

Druid to her companion

yo dawg! hold this wall jump that cliff and kill that dragon for me please, Im gonna take a nap

[Lord.Sorasen]

I don't know if anyone's noted it yet, but I couple classes exclusive to Pathfinder are extremely powerful as well. The witch is basically the wizard, so that is obvious enough.. But one people tend to miss is the summoner. While almost definitely tier 2 due to its spells known situation, it has a lot of things going for it.

- Lower casting level than wizards, but a ton of spells at lower levels (it's 6th level spells, for instance, are more often than not level 8 spells for wizards.) It means less spells per day but more or less equally powerful spells.
- Eidolon. This guy can be summoned forever, and is essentially a powerful animal companion sort which can be customized in all sorts of ways. Synthesist takes it a step further.
- That's pretty much all it takes really.

On the other hand, I am willing to say Pathfinder did a lot to power up the non-casters to about tier 3-4. Enough so that I feel it wouldn't be too off to say that, if it's a summoner or has 9th level spellcasting, it's tier 1-2. If not it's 3-4 or monk.

[ThiefInTheNight]

PF Core did little-to-nothing for non-casters. Actually, PF Core did little-to-nothing about balance in general; it's a series of minor houserules, some of which are good and others that are dubious, but overall it's still 3.5.

I still can't comment on the stuff outside Core, as I haven't read it.

[Elitarismo]

PF Core did little-to-nothing for non-casters. Actually, PF Core did little-to-nothing about balance in general; it's a series of minor houserules, some of which are good and others that are dubious, but overall it's still 3.5.

I still can't comment on the stuff outside Core, as I haven't read it.

PF Core:

Casters: FANTASTIC COSMIC POWER! (Itty bitty living space) They then go and kill someone, take their stuff, and get a better living arrangement out of the deal.
Non casters: +1 to hit and damage! PLUS ONE! LOOK AT ME, I AM AWESOME!

PF non core:

Casters: We decided that giving you a rocket launcher wasn't enough. You now shoot multirockets, that shoot rockets, that shoot Nikita rockets.
Non casters: We decided that you might hurt yourself, so here's a cursed nerf bat, so you can take over swinging it at yourself.

[Psyren]

Note, "Pathfinder Compatible" and "Pathfinder" are different things.

What's your point? Sorry, this isn't 3.5, where "3rd-party" is a dirty word. It's all OGL, which means gaming forums can legally share, read and critique balance concerns. Check the rules out for yourself (or read any number of threads by others that have already done the same) and decide if you want it in your game or not.

Or ban it all on principle if you prefer that instead. But don't pretend they don't exist, as you'll be quite alone in doing so.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Non casters: We decided that you might hurt yourself, so here's a cursed nerf bat, so you can take over swinging it at yourself.

Oh, so spending two feats, one for a monk, so you can charge over difficult terrain is a nerf, is it? Then another three feats (one of which is a monk bonus feat) give the monk some cool abilities, like a 15-foot cone that's a Save-or-Take-Damage-and-Side-Effect, Save-and-Still-Take-Half-Damage, and the ability to deal an extra effect with Stunning Fist (in addition to the stun). That's three feats to boost the monk to tier 4. Another two feats makes you a powerful combatant against melee opponents, allowing you to block one attack per round with no side effects. I don't think that's a nerf.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Oh, so spending two feats, one for a monk, so you can charge over difficult terrain is a nerf, is it? Then another three feats (one of which is a monk bonus feat) give the monk some cool abilities, like a 15-foot cone that's a Save-or-Take-Damage-and-Side-Effect, Save-and-Still-Take-Half-Damage, and the ability to deal an extra effect with Stunning Fist (in addition to the stun). That's three feats to boost the monk to tier 4. Another two feats makes you a powerful combatant against melee opponents, allowing you to block one attack per round with no side effects. I don't think that's a nerf.

Oh man some of those seem really cool. What things are you talking about in particular? It's off topic but I want to know anyway.

PS OP, I don't understand the topic title.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Oh man some of those seem really cool. What things are you talking about in particular? It's off topic but I want to know anyway.

PS OP, I don't understand the topic title.

Go to the Ultimate Combat feats (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/).

The new style feats are good. They all require improved unarmed strike. The one that let's you charge over difficult terrain is Dragon Style, and the other two I mentioned are Dragon Ferocity and Dragon Roar. The last two are Crane Style and the Crane Wing, Crane Wing is basically Deflect Arrows for melee. The only drawback is you can only be in one style at a time (Dragon feats in Dragon style, Crane feats in Crane style, Tiger feats in Tiger style, etc.), and switching between them is a swift action, like ToB stances.

[Coidzor]

Oh, so spending two feats, one for a monk, so you can charge over difficult terrain is a nerf, is it? Then another three feats (one of which is a monk bonus feat) give the monk some cool abilities, like a 15-foot cone that's a Save-or-Take-Damage-and-Side-Effect, Save-and-Still-Take-Half-Damage, and the ability to deal an extra effect with Stunning Fist (in addition to the stun). That's three feats to boost the monk to tier 4. Another two feats makes you a powerful combatant against melee opponents, allowing you to block one attack per round with no side effects. I don't think that's a nerf.

The fact that one has to pay a feat tax in order to go up a tier speaks of other, more unsettling issues anyway.

[Drelua]

Oh man some of those seem really cool. What things are you talking about in particular? It's off topic but I want to know anyway.

Dragon Style (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dragon-style-combat), Dragon Ferocity (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dragon-ferocity-combat) and Dragon Roar (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dragon-roar-combat). One of many awesome combat styles from Ultimate Combat that really help monks, letting them add 1.5 times their strength modifier to damage, ignore difficult terrain and use that cone attack, as well as giving save bonuses against a bunch of stuff. Personally, I prefer Snake Style or Panther Style with Accelerate from UMD, since cross-class isn't so much trouble in Pathfinder.

Edit: stupid ninjas.

@Swiftmongoose: My only problem with Crane Style is that it's such a ridiculous, impractical fighting style in reality. With some re-fluffing, though, it does look pretty good.

[Hazzardevil]

I would love to see a wizard or cleric hold up a collapsing ceiling, jump a large pit, punch a rabid dog in the face, or chop off a dragons head in a single critical hit. While in an anti-magic field:smallbiggrin:
To hold up a ceiling, the wizard can just teleport out anything he might need to and not bother with the ceiling, or as I know you would say, he has to hold the ceiling up, buffs.

Anyone can punch a rabid dog in the face, theres this lovely spell called jump on the SRD, or you can jump over the pit. Chopping off the dragon's head is easy when you can just cast dominate and get something else to do it.
and if you're in an anti-magic field? Just walk out, it isn't difficult.

Simple thing is that saying X is better then Y is ultimately pointless. Yes X may be a little more flexible then Y but Y still has its own strengths and weaknesses, and if a player still wants to play Y, then you shouldn't tell him that playing X is better.
It is not pointless, the only constructive thing you have said is to play what you enjoy best, which other people have also said.
Yes, fighters may just be people who hit things with sticks, but you could also say wizards are just people who shoot magic missiles everywhere.

What you don't seem to notice is that hitting things with a stick is all the fighter is good for, wizards can magic missile everything, and then they'll order physics to sit in a corner and cry itself to sleep.

Comments with Italicization.
I love heated debates! :biggrin:

[NNescio]

And while we are at it, here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw) the mandatory video reference.

[navar100]

Clerics channeling energy is an improvement over Turn Undead because you can use channeling energy anytime where as if you are not facing undead, you're not using a class feature. Channeling energy allows you to heal more than one person at a time and not even use up spell slots. It makes healing in combat a little bit more of a viable option in some cases because you can heal more than one person. Selective Channeling feat helps so that you don't heal the bad guys as well. It's not always the best option, but it could help depending on the situation. It's still good for out of combat healing.

If in the campaign you are fighting a lot of undead anyway, channeling energy will hurt them, of course. However, if you take the feat Turn Undead, you are stronger than a 3E cleric Turning Undead because the Pathfinder Turn Undead feat has no HD limit. All undead that fail the save are Turned. This can include the Vampire or Lich BBEG if you need a few rounds if him not being there.

Wizards are not the only ones to gain stuff. Sorcerers get juicy stuff. Bloodlines gives them more spells known, bonus feats, and class abilities. Barbarians can do interesting things while raging. Rogues get more talents to do stuff starting at 2nd level as opposed to 10th in 3E. Fighters don't suck for wearing heavy armor, can swap out obsolete feats, get built in bonuses so don't need weapon specialization unless you want it, and aren't so vulnerable to fear. Paladins cure more stuff with Lay On Hands and their Smite Evil is worthy of the name. It's no longer a one round trick. They can get a bonded weapon instead of a horse so they don't lose a class feature going into dungeons, swamps, or mountains. Monks are no longer a Flurry of Misses. Still a bit MAD, unfortunately. Rangers get terrain bonuses.

[Elitarismo]

Oh, so spending two feats, one for a monk, so you can charge over difficult terrain is a nerf, is it? Then another three feats (one of which is a monk bonus feat) give the monk some cool abilities, like a 15-foot cone that's a Save-or-Take-Damage-and-Side-Effect, Save-and-Still-Take-Half-Damage, and the ability to deal an extra effect with Stunning Fist (in addition to the stun). That's three feats to boost the monk to tier 4. Another two feats makes you a powerful combatant against melee opponents, allowing you to block one attack per round with no side effects. I don't think that's a nerf.

The sad thing is it's apparent from other threads you aren't being sarcastic, because that was a very good one.

"I have more feats! I know what'd be a great idea! Burning two of them to perform the same effect as a low level spell, or a decent Jump check of all things!"

"I have more feats! I know what'd be a great idea! I'll waste three of them to do something worse than what I can do for free, with a DC of You Pass! I am helping myself! I am also going for Monkey Grip, Improved Sunder, and Step Up, because those are all incredibly helpful to myself!"

"I have more feats! I know what'd be a great idea! I'll use two of them to block one attack a round!"

Low level Warblade: Can I put him out of his misery yet?
Elitarismo: Sorry buddy, I'm not done laughing.
LLW: :smallsigh:

[Big Fau]

The sad thing is it's apparent from other threads you aren't being sarcastic, because that was a very good one.

"I have more feats! I know what'd be a great idea! Burning two of them to perform the same effect as a low level spell, or a decent Jump check of all things!"

"I have more feats! I know what'd be a great idea! I'll waste three of them to do something worse than what I can do for free, with a DC of You Pass! I am helping myself! I am also going for Monkey Grip, Improved Sunder, and Step Up, because those are all incredibly helpful to myself!"

"I have more feats! I know what'd be a great idea! I'll use two of them to block one attack a round!"

Low level Warblade: Can I put him out of his misery yet?
Elitarismo: Sorry buddy, I'm not done laughing.
LLW: :smallsigh:


That was one of the main criticisms aimed at Paizo by the BG community. To summarize...

BG: Yes, more feats over the course of 20 levels is nice, but the feats themselves are of poor quality and could use some revising. Here's a couple of ideas.
Paizo: Ok, we'll give everyone a feat at every other level, and then make more feats by splitting up a couple of existing ones.
BG: Ok tha... Wait, what? Don't do that, you'll just devalue the feats even more.
Paizo: Oh don't worry, we're only doing this to a handful.
BG: It's still a bad idea. Which feats exactly?
Paizo: Improved Trip/Bull Rush/Grapple/Etc.
BG: What the hell are you people thinking?
Paizo: Banhammers for everyone. And we aren't going to touch the metamagic feats because we think they are balanced.
BG:...


As stated in pretty much every thread that asks "Can I fix the fighter by giving him more bonus feats?": It's not the numbers, it's the quality.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Eltiarismo, reading the tier system for 3.5 doesn't give you more system mastery than me, someone who's read it and has been learning from the forum optimizers for months. Yes, wizard is great, druid wins at everything, and 3.5 monks suck. But smart feat choices and ACFs bring you up. Paladins are tier 5, but they can fly using their own class feature, and can be powerful flying chargers, better at their niche than druids. A barbarian spending two of his ten feats to be able to charge on difficult terrain and get bonuses on saving throws is getting better at what he does. A monk spending two feats to be able to get the choice of either a standard attack or an area attack that targets an enemy's will save is getting better. Spending two feats to be able to completely negate an attack from a giant's greataxe is also good.

[Drelua]

Sorry, wrong thread. *facepalm*

[Big Fau]

Spending two feats to be able to completely negate an attack from a giant's greataxe is also good.

Compare Crane Wing to Martial Study (Wall of Blades).

I've said this a million times: Paizo is only good at crafting adventure modules. Everything else is firmly subjected to Sturgeon's Law (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SturgeonsLaw?from=Main.ptitle3tinj4tz), and the exceptions are a case of Monkeys and Shakespeare.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Compare Crane Wing to Martial Study (Wall of Blades).

Compare once per round to once per encounter, and automatic negate to opposed attack roll. I will give you that the style feats bear a striking resemblance to ToB.

[Big Fau]

Compare once per round to once per encounter.

Immediate Action>>>>>>>>>>>>>Total Defense/Fighting Defensively.

2nd level>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>5th level

1 feat>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>4 feats. Crane Wing requires Crane Style, Dodge, and IUS before you can even select it. Martial Study requires you to have an IL of 1. And Martial Study gives you a free skill.

Encounters last 3-5 rounds, so if you are playing a moderately optimized character, you should be able to get by with only one deflection each encounter. Or you can take a level dip into Warblade instead of spending the feat, that way you can recover the maneuver and deflect 2 or 3 attacks per encounter, in addition to having some other goodies.

[olentu]

Immediate Action>>>>>>>>>>>>>Total Defense/Fighting Defensively.

2nd level>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>5th level

1 feat>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>4 feats. Crane Wing requires Crane Style, Dodge, and IUS before you can even select it. Martial Study requires you to have an IL of 1. And Martial Study gives you a free skill.

Encounters last 3-5 rounds, so if you are playing a moderately optimized character, you should be able to get by with only one deflection each encounter. Or you can take a level dip into Warblade instead of spending the feat, that way you can recover the maneuver and deflect 2 or 3 attacks per encounter, in addition to having some other goodies.

Don't forget wall of blades is as I recall any melee or ranged while I believe crane wing is only melee weapon attacks.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Immediate Action>>>>>>>>>>>>>Total Defense/Fighting Defensively.

2nd level>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>5th level

1 feat>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>4 feats. Crane Wing requires Crane Style, Dodge, and IUS before you can even select it. Martial Study requires you to have an IL of 1. And Martial Study gives you a free skill.

Encounters last 3-5 rounds, so if you are playing a moderately optimized character, you should be able to get by with only one deflection each encounter. Or you can take a level dip into Warblade instead of spending the feat, that way you can recover the maneuver and deflect 2 or 3 attacks per encounter, in addition to having some other goodies.


Don't forget wall of blades is as I recall any melee or ranged while I believe crane wing is only melee weapon attacks.

I didn't say it was better than ToB. I said it was better than core-only monk. And are you forgetting the opposed attack rolls, compared to automatic? The fighting defensively penalties are reduced in Crane Style as well.

[Big Fau]

Don't forget wall of blades is as I recall any melee or ranged while I believe crane wing is only melee weapon attacks.

Indeed it is.


And the Crane Style itself just removes the -2 penalty on Fighting Defensively. Apparently, it takes up your Standard action still, so you can't even attack if you use Fighting Defensively unless you spend yet another feat to take Crane Riposte, which doesn't come online until 7th level (if you are a Monk) or 8th level (if you have Full BAB). And even then, you are forgoing your full attack for a single AoO that may not even happen (because you don't pose a threat and have no "Draw Aggro" ability like the Knight class).


Edit: I do not doubt that the Core Monk is worse than the PF Monk. What I doubt is that they've removed enough of it's problems to move it up a whole Tier. Dark Moon Disciple, Invisible Fist, and several other ACFs provide most of the abilities that PF Monk gets, and those aren't considered enough to bump the Monk into Tier 4 in normal 3.5.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Indeed it is.


And the Crane Style itself just removes the -2 penalty on Fighting Defensively. Apparently, it takes up your Standard action still, so you can't even attack if you use Fighting Defensively unless you spend yet another feat to take Crane Riposte, which doesn't come online until 7th level (if you are a Monk) or 8th level (if you have Full BAB). And even then, you are forgoing your full attack for a single AoO that may not even happen (because you don't pose a threat and have no "Draw Aggro" ability like the Knight class).

Total Defense takes a standard action, not Fighting Defensively. Did they change that in PF? :smallconfused:

Edit: Nope.

[Big Fau]

Total Defense takes a standard action, not Fighting Defensively. Did they change that in PF? :smallconfused:


Total Defense
You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action. You can't combine total defense with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat. You can't make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.


Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round.

Oh, so all they did was reduced the penalty from -4 to -2. Still, that's an additional -2 on top of the Monk's Flurry (which may be at Full BAB now, but it still isn't very good).

And, again, 4 feats versus 1 feat.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Oh, so all they did was reduced the penalty from -4 to -2. Still, that's an additional -2 on top of the Monk's Flurry (which may be at Full BAB now, but it still isn't very good).

And, again, 4 feats versus 1 feat.

And again, comparing it to core monk, not ToB. I'm not arguing that it's as good as ToB, I'm arguing that splatbooks do make melee better. Why do you keep forgetting monk gets IUS as a bonus feat? And what would a core monk do with those 3 feats? Scorpion Style is core and nice, but what about the other two?

[Elitarismo]

That was one of the main criticisms aimed at Paizo by the BG community. To summarize...

*snip*

As stated in pretty much every thread that asks "Can I fix the fighter by giving him more bonus feats?": It's not the numbers, it's the quality.

This is part of the reason why I disallow any form of Paizo published content in any game I run, and will not play in any game that uses any form of content published by Paizo.


Eltiarismo, reading the tier system for 3.5 doesn't give you more system mastery than me, someone who's read it and has been learning from the forum optimizers for months. Yes, wizard is great, druid wins at everything, and 3.5 monks suck. But smart feat choices and ACFs bring you up. Paladins are tier 5, but they can fly using their own class feature, and can be powerful flying chargers, better at their niche than druids. A barbarian spending two of his ten feats to be able to charge on difficult terrain and get bonuses on saving throws is getting better at what he does. A monk spending two feats to be able to get the choice of either a standard attack or an area attack that targets an enemy's will save is getting better. Spending two feats to be able to completely negate an attack from a giant's greataxe is also good.

No, it doesn't. However that isn't all I have done. I have also played the game, and not just level 6 and lower. I have also read the posts that I am responding to, which means I do not come back with a complete nonsequitor. I have also made a point to understand not only what something is, but why it is how it is, which in turn grants understanding of similar things.

Druids can get a flying animal companion, if they wanted to mounted charge, they easily could. Of course mounted charging is a narrow niche even by non caster standards, and they have better things to do. A Barbarian can simply jump over difficult terrain, if he doesn't get a low level spell. A Monk who uses two feats and a turn to force a low DC effect vs... Shaken of all things has to be the worst fearmonger build ever. And lastly, the low level Warblade parries the giant's axe, and that is but a small part of what he can do. He didn't require a massive investment to block one attack out of three, from one enemy.

And doesn't require that you shut yourself down. Wow, it's worse than I thought. I didn't think they could beat making Mage Slayer into 3-5 feats that are collectively weaker than Mage Slayer alone.

[Bovine Colonel]

No, it doesn't. However that isn't all I have done. I have also played the game, and not just level 6 and lower.
Implying that others have not. [citation needed]


I have also read the posts that I am responding to, which means I do not come back with a complete nonsequitor non sequitur. I have also made a point to understand not only what something is, but why it is how it is, which in turn grants understanding of similar things.
Either your definitions of "reading posts" and "non sequitur" are different from mine, or this is a completely unsubstantiated claim with no basis in reality and, in fact, a Chewbacca Defense (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense).

The spelling nitpick is unrelated. I nitpick spelling errors. It's part of what I do.


Druids can get a flying animal companion, if they wanted to mounted charge, they easily could. Of course mounted charging is a narrow niche even by non caster standards, and they have better things to do. A Barbarian can simply jump over difficult terrain, if he doesn't get a low level spell. A Monk who uses two feats and a turn to force a low DC effect vs... Shaken of all things has to be the worst fearmonger build ever. And lastly, the low level Warblade parries the giant's axe, and that is but a small part of what he can do. He didn't require a massive investment to block one attack out of three, from one enemy.

And doesn't require that you shut yourself down. Wow, it's worse than I thought. I didn't think they could beat making Mage Slayer into 3-5 feats that are collectively weaker than Mage Slayer alone.

So you're saying that picking feats that are wise choices shouldn't be necessary? A human Pathfinder Monk gets seventeen feats, and selecting good choices with some of them shouldn't be necessary?

[Hiro Protagonest]

So you're saying that picking feats that are wise choices shouldn't be necessary? A human Pathfinder Monk gets seventeen feats, and selecting good choices with some of them shouldn't be necessary?

Actually, they get 11. But the point is, what else would you spend it on? Improved and Greater Trip? And why would you aim the will save effect at guys with good will saves?

[Bovine Colonel]

Actually, they get 11.

Monks get six bonus feats. Which, of course, are changed by the archetypes but the point remains.

[Blisstake]

Actually, they get 11. But the point is, what else would you spend it on? Improved and Greater Trip? And why would you aim the will save effect at guys with good will saves?

When human monks get feats in PF: Level 1, level 1 (human bonus), level 1 (monk bonus), level 2 (monk bonus), 3, 5, 6 (monk bonus), 7, 9, 10 (monk bonus), 11, 13, 14 (monk bonus), 15, 17, 18 (monk bonus), 19

That's 17.

Also, who saw this route of discussion coming? *raises hand*

[Big Fau]

So you're saying that picking feats that are wise choices shouldn't be necessary? A human Pathfinder Monk gets seventeen feats, and selecting good choices with some of them shouldn't be necessary?

If they have the option, a Monk player would be better off using 3.5 feats instead of most Pathfinder-exclusive ones. Most of the feats Paizo introduced are really bad because of their steep requirements.

Another thread is devoted to the idea that feats in 3.5 and PF are underpowered. It's true for both, but feats in Pathfinder are also hindered by Paizo's habit of sticking dozens of worthless prerequisites onto one feat.


That Crane Wing feat? You could really do without the Dodge requirement. The effects of the feat are based around the Fighting Defensively/Total Defense actions, not the Dodge feat. This is just one example; I'm sure you could go through and find dozens of prerequisite feats that could be removed without unbalancing the resulting feat.

[Jack_Simth]

As with opinions, i know everyone has their own idea BUT what i wanted to ask was: In the playgrounders opinion - What is the best class in Pathfinder?It is a game. The intent is to have fun. The best class in Pathfinder is the one you will have the most fun with without interfering with anyone else's fun (this includes the DM).

If you're speaking of power... not much has changed, really, among the tier-1 group.

[MeeposFire]

Paizo has an issue where they did not learn from the end of 3.5 when things were getting better. In particular they missed two things.

1) Better standard actions. Many classes at the end started getting better standard actions so they were not stuck doing just full attacks to be relevant.

2) More at will or encounter based powers. Using powers of this sort improve balance especially over the course of the day. It also allows you to use your primary trick more often which can help game play. Instead they further embrace the daily power which sucks. Bards are a great example. Bards should sing every encounter. They should have made changes and made it an at will or encounter based ability but instead we have rounds per day which sucks.

Paizo also continues the tradition of making it harder on new players and rewarding system mastery far too much but that would take a very extensive system change and I don't think it would be fair to level that issue with them.

[Elitarismo]

Implying that others have not. [citation needed]

Most Pathfinder players have no experience with the game past the lowest levels of play. This reflects in their commentary and actions, which all assume that the mid and high level games are not drastically different from the low level game.


So you're saying that picking feats that are wise choices shouldn't be necessary? A human Pathfinder Monk gets seventeen feats, and selecting good choices with some of them shouldn't be necessary?

Part of picking feats that are wise choices is having wise choices to make. Another part is avoiding things that are not wise choices, such as the things described in that quote.


If they have the option, a Monk player would be better off using 3.5 feats instead of most Pathfinder-exclusive ones. Most of the feats Paizo introduced are really bad because of their steep requirements.

This. Getting more feats is meaningless when it costs several feats to do less than what you did with one before.

[137beth]

I would love to see a wizard or cleric hold up a collapsing ceiling, jump a large pit, punch a rabid dog in the face, or chop off a dragons head in a single critical hit. While in an anti-magic field:smallbiggrin:


Simple thing is that saying X is better then Y is ultimately pointless. Yes X may be a little more flexible then Y but Y still has its own strengths and weaknesses, and if a player still wants to play Y, then you shouldn't tell him that playing X is better.

Yes, fighters may just be people who hit things with sticks, but you could also say wizards are just people who shoot magic missiles everywhere.
cast disjunction, polymorph into a dragon, then fly accross the pit and claw the dog.

[Blisstake]

You can't cast disjunction while inside an anti-magic field, and even then it has a small chance of success. Of course, I don't think many adventures take place inside of anti magic fields, so the whole thing is kind of a moot point.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure Paizo recognizes that wizards are still the class with the most options. It was mentioned in their Gamemastery Guide; they just cut off some of the sillier things you could do with them - chain gating solars, metamagic stacking, polymorph abuse, that kind of stuff. Wizards are still the strongest, and always will be unless you make a huge deviation from the 3.5 framework.

As for feats, I prefer Pathinder's method of doing it. In 3.5, it felt like there were tons and tons of garbage feats with a few diamonds inside that you were pretty much forced to take to stay competetive (unless you're in an unoptimized group - which I actually think Pathfinder is designed for). Now everything is mediocre, which is actually the way I prefer it. If you get 11 feats, none of them should be too over-powering.

High level play in Pathfinder is something I'm also familiar with. I have to say, my group has found high level play in PF to be an improvement. Of course, my players and I had no idea what stuff like dungeon crasher and shock trooper were when they played fighters, so we weren't an optimized group. My players would also typically pick a class and stick with it for 20 levels, or perhaps go for a prestige class. Spellcasters still dominated, and lots of classes ended up feeling incredibly useless.

This actually did change when our Pathfinder game got to a high level. With better returns and class features, the players playing fighting classes actually felt competent in battle and not outclassed by the wizard. The wizard, in turn, actually enjoyed early levels where they get to do more than cast 3 weak spells a day. For an optimized group, I imagine PF would feel more of the same - but the thing is, I don't think that who PF was intended for. At all. I don't know what Paizo claimed Pathfinder was supposed to do, and if they actually said it would fix all the problems with 3.5, then go ahead and get angry at them. But for lower-optimized groups, I find the Pathfinder to system to be an improvement.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Alright, everything Elitarismo says about Pathfinder is going to be negative, seeing as how he put a blanket ban on all things Paizo in his games. I honestly think he might be posting in PF threads just to insult or provoke everyone who tries to argue in favor of it.

[Blisstake]

Regardless, if someone argues a point, you should still address the issue if your want your own points to be taken seriously.

[Elitarismo]

Alright, everything Elitarismo says about Pathfinder is going to be negative, seeing as how he put a blanket ban on all things Paizo in his games. I honestly think he might be posting in PF threads just to insult or provoke everyone who tries to argue in favor of it.

You again confuse cause and effect.


Regardless, if someone argues a point, you should still address the issue if your want your own points to be taken seriously.

I have done this. It was ignored entirely.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Regardless, if someone argues a point, you should still address the issue if your want your own points to be taken seriously.

But he's not arguing well, he's arguing to wear down. He says "low save DC" I say "target guys with low saves" he ignores it. I say "what else are you gonna spend your feats on? The other options are worse" he doesn't give a single feat example for what he thinks is "a good feat" and just says "you have to have good feats to pick from" implying those new options other than just "full attack", or ways to improve your defense or offense (a new feat in a PF splatbook is basically Shock Trooper's Heedless Charge) are bad. In the magus thread, he says over and over that the magus is bad, and whenever I list examples of spells that can be good if used smart, or challenge him to build a 3.5 fighter or dusk blade (which he keeps insisting are better) and run it through a solo dungeon, he says "strawman", because apparently a solo game isn't a good example of the game mechanics, and he has to have a wizard to buff his fighter.

[Elitarismo]

But he's not arguing well, he's arguing to wear down. He says "low save DC" I say "target guys with low saves" he ignores it. I say "what else are you gonna spend your feats on? The other options are worse" he doesn't give a single feat example for what he thinks is "a good feat" and just says "you have to have good feats to pick from" implying those new options other than just "full attack", or ways to improve your defense or offense (a new feat in a PF splatbook is basically Shock Trooper's Heedless Charge) are bad. In the magus thread, he says over and over that the magus is bad, and whenever I list examples of spells that can be good if used smart, or challenge him to build a 3.5 fighter or dusk blade (which he keeps insisting are better) and run it through a solo dungeon, he says "strawman", because apparently a solo game isn't a good example of the game mechanics, and he has to have a wizard to buff his fighter.

You fight something with low saves. Your spells now might land. The Wizard's WILL land, as they have a 99.75% chance of doing so. Still no reason to bring the Magus along.

Shifting from claiming that a bunch of really bad feats are really good to the others being even worse is known as moving the goalposts, as well as conceding the first point. Even his own examples illustrate this, because even if there is such a thing as a PF feat that duplicates Shock Trooper's heedless charge, and it probably is just a far weaker version of it with far more useless prerequisites Shock Trooper does two other things. And while the charge is the main one (because it means you can full PA and still hit without super optimizing... but you can't full PA in PF due to the PA nerf) the other two do have their uses with Dungeon Crasher (also not possible in PF).

I have already explained why the spells you think are good or bad. Though just the fact you did not mention Color Spray, and did mention Magic Missile explains everything. I have said strawman to you because the discussion was about who contributes more in a party the entire time, and yet despite that being clearly laid out for you again, and again, and again your response was to go from insisting on PvP, to insisting on a solo dungeon, and in general doing everything you can to completely misunderstand absolutely everything I say.

I also wasn't insisting on a party so that the Wizard would buff the Fighter. That's not happening, especially in PF. I was insisting on a party because that reflects actual play, unlike PvP or solo, and you know as well as I do if your farce of an experiment turned against you, that is exactly how you'd weasel out of it.

But since I am feeling nice, I will summarize what their respective contributions are:

3.5 Fighter: Slamming enemies around everywhere with Dungeon Crasher, which also does enough damage to make a difference at this level and also tripping everything. He's incredibly squishy, but he's a non caster. No getting around that.
Magus: Acting as a pinata for the enemies. Absorbing attacks that would have otherwise gone towards more important party members until the enemies catch on he's not going to do anything to them.

[Eric Tolle]

Amusing as the usual argument is, I think I'll get back to theoriginal question, by arguing that as far as game-wrecking power goes, the Mystic Theurge is the way you want to go.

Yes, I know there's a consensus that multiclassing mages and clerics is a horrible idea. But the trick here is to get "Craft Miscellaneous Magical Device at third level, and then continuing cleric to fifth level before multiclassing.

How is this game-breakingly powerful? Well at third level you start crafting magical traps that cast Create Food and Water. Install one in a town of 10,000 and charge 1 copper piece for a day's food and drink, and even if only the poorest 10% of the population use the trap, you'll make back your costs in a year or two. Or you make back the money by charging extra when the local military leaders come wanting their own.

Of course when you hit fifth level you do the same with Cure Disease; at a silver piece to cure anything from the common cold to the Black Death, you'll be making a profit soon, and plague will be a thing of the past.

Then of course you start taking Wizard levels, and making magical traps for Prestidigitation, and later on, Fabrication. Be sure to get the right craft skills, so you can make decent items from the raw materials. Assuming that the DM doesn't stop you, when you get around to making Heroes Feast, Teleport and Mage's Mansion traps, the game seeing will no longer look like an impoverished pseudo-medieval world, but some sort of strange magical transhuman place.

(Yes, I know this is old hat to us pros, but the op is a new player- he deserves to know about the Tippyverse.)

[AMFV]

To the AMF statement. I don't see why people say AMFs are so horribly limiting, yes inside them the caster is pretty much worthless. But they're only a 10 foot emanation, so walk out of it, casters can do that to, then they're Gods again. You can actually walk 10' and still cast. Also AMFs don't universally stop all spells, and even still one can cast things outside an AMF that affect the inside (like hurling mundane items into the AMF).

[Elitarismo]

To the AMF statement. I don't see why people say AMFs are so horribly limiting, yes inside them the caster is pretty much worthless. But they're only a 10 foot emanation, so walk out of it, casters can do that to, then they're Gods again. You can actually walk 10' and still cast. Also AMFs don't universally stop all spells, and even still one can cast things outside an AMF that affect the inside (like hurling mundane items into the AMF).

They are horribly limiting... to the high level caster that just used it on themselves, only to have his opponent respond in the manner you described.

[Grendus]

Pathfinder's two contributions to D&D were continuing the 3.5 line and... well, I love the half casters. Magus, Inquisitor, and Summoner bring a lot to the table with interesting but fairly balanced mechanics (never understood the uproar over the Synthesist... it's a step down from the traditional Summoner, you take a huge hit in the action economy for a marginal survivability boost).

I'm optimistic, their own classes are fairly good it's the base classes they inherited from 3.5 that they screwed up so badly.

[Lord.Sorasen]

To the AMF statement. I don't see why people say AMFs are so horribly limiting, yes inside them the caster is pretty much worthless. But they're only a 10 foot emanation, so walk out of it, casters can do that to, then they're Gods again. You can actually walk 10' and still cast. Also AMFs don't universally stop all spells, and even still one can cast things outside an AMF that affect the inside (like hurling mundane items into the AMF).

Well, it's a niche example, but an elven wizard can enter arcane archer (way at level 12 so that there are no wasted caster levels) and then fire anti-magic fields from a longbow. I'm sure there would be some level of application for creating spaces without magic.

[NNescio]

Well, it's a niche example, but an elven wizard can enter arcane archer (way at level 12 so that there are no wasted caster levels) and then fire anti-magic fields from a longbow. I'm sure there would be some level of application for creating spaces without magic.

Pathfinder's Arcane Archer doesn't advance spellcasting at first level (and at fifth and ninth, but you only need the 2nd for Imbue Arrows.)

[ThiefInTheNight]

I think by "wasted" he meant levels lost that you don't need to lose, i.e. getting the pre-reqs.

[Xtomjames]

I'd have to say the former Tier 3 group have gotten much better in Pathfinder. I personally like the Alchemist and the Inquisitor. Sadly the Ninja and Samurai didn't change much but the Gunslinger has potential. Bards have also remained the same powerwise but I think they've become more interesting to play.

[Eric Tolle]

I think if a wizard gets caught in an anti-magic field, the easiest thing to do is die and let the cleric use the previously manufactured True Ressurection trap to bring him back. But then once that happens, nobody in that setting dies except from old age or for fun.

Ah-hahahaha! Who am I kidding! By level 17 the mage will never find himself in an AMF, because he's going to be living in his own personal demiplane, and interacting with the world through Astral Projection. But on the other hand, I jest the fighter gets a feat that gives him +2 damage. Sometimes. We wouldn't want to get to wild, you know.

[NNescio]

I think if a wizard gets caught in an anti-magic field, the easiest thing to do is die and let the cleric use the previously manufactured True Ressurection trap to bring him back. But then once that happens, nobody in that setting dies except from old age or for fun.

Ah-hahahaha! Who am I kidding! By level 17 the mage will never find himself in an AMF, because he's going to be living in his own personal demiplane, and interacting with the world through Astral Projection. But on the other hand, I jest the fighter gets a feat that gives him +2 damage. Sometimes. We wouldn't want to get to wild, you know.

Isn't walking out of the field easier?

[AMFV]

Well, it's a niche example, but an elven wizard can enter arcane archer (way at level 12 so that there are no wasted caster levels) and then fire anti-magic fields from a longbow. I'm sure there would be some level of application for creating spaces without magic.

Oh, AMF's are incredibly useful as a form of battlefield control, but they don't magically make casters into melee equivalents. Also only casters get them generally, although that does sound like a really interesting and useful use of AMFs, for example using the arrows to stick people to keep them from being able to be healed, or for battlefield control purposes.

[Lord.Sorasen]

I think by "wasted" he meant levels lost that you don't need to lose, i.e. getting the pre-reqs.

Yeah. A lot of people I have seen try to run arcane archer with levels in fighter for faster access. Which is fine: It's just not optimal vs. full caster. (obviously).

[Leon]

What is best is Subjective.

Ultimately what is best is the class(s) that do what you want for the Character that you have in mind.

[Bovine Colonel]

What is best is Subjective.

Ultimately what is best is the class or combination of classes that do what you want for the Character that you have in mind in the most efficient/effective way that does not exceed your group's power level.

Fixed. tencharacters

[The_Jackal]

From a powergamer's perspective, the Wizard is still the winner by knockout.