Pathfinder or 3.5? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Elitarismo

2011-09-26, 03:09 PM

Can you explain this?

In short, PF heavily buffs up what was already the strongest set of classes in the game and the strongest tactic in the game. It heavily nerfs every other aspect of the entire game. So if your thing is casting save or lose spell after save or lose spell, you got many times better and are now essentially unstoppable. If your thing is playing any other sort of caster or any sort of non caster... you can't contribute. This means that the entire game boils down to your team of casters vs whatever casters you are fighting. Anything else might as well not exist. It's very boring, and it's very one dimensional.

In 3.5 the save or lose spells were not nearly this powerful, and the other types of characters were not nearly as bad off (and in some cases were actually fairly good). So you'll see more diversity in play. The more 3.5 books you allowed, the more of this you saw as 3.5 core is unbalanced as all the Nine Hells but the various splatbooks tend to balance it out.

A few examples of 3.5 characters that are completely unplayable in PF:

Damage dealing melee characters.
Tripper characters.
Dungeon Crasher Fighters.
Blaster casters.
Rogues (any type).
Buff based casters.

There are many more.

PF keeps every real problem 3.5 has and adds many more on top of it. No, Rogues doing more damage than an unenhanced Fireball was not a real problem.

Edit: I find it interesting that you would use the phrase "One True Way" given that that is clearly the PF design philosophy.

Mockingbird

2011-09-26, 03:13 PM

:smallconfused:

*looks at join date*

That explains it.

...
..How?

Starbuck_II

2011-09-26, 03:15 PM

In short, PF heavily buffs up what was already the strongest set of classes in the game and the strongest tactic in the game. It heavily nerfs every other aspect of the entire game. So if your thing is casting save or lose spell after save or lose spell, you got many times better and are now essentially unstoppable. If your thing is playing any other sort of caster or any sort of non caster... you can't contribute. This means that the entire game boils down to your team of casters vs whatever casters you are fighting. Anything else might as well not exist. It's very boring, and it's very one dimensional.

In 3.5 the save or lose spells were not nearly this powerful, and the other types of characters were not nearly as bad off (and in some cases were actually fairly good). So you'll see more diversity in play. The more 3.5 books you allowed, the more of this you saw as 3.5 core is unbalanced as all the Nine Hells but the various splatbooks tend to balance it out.

A few examples of 3.5 characters that are completely unplayable in PF:

Damage dealing melee characters.
Tripper characters.
Dungeon Crasher Fighters.
Blaster casters.
Rogues (any type).
Buff based casters.

There are many more.

PF keeps every real problem 3.5 has and adds many more on top of it. No, Rogues doing more damage than an unenhanced Fireball was not a real problem.

Edit: I find it interesting that you would use the phrase "One True Way" given that that is clearly the PF design philosophy.

Technically, untrue in regards to Barbarian. He gets massive saves due to superstition, can sunder antimagic fields/Prismatic wall/any spells (Sunder rage power), etc.

You can dip Oracle (lame) or something to be unfatigued from ending rage. Rage Cycle resets 1/rage powers and is legal.

Gnaeus

2011-09-26, 03:15 PM

A few examples of 3.5 characters that are completely unplayable in PF:

Damage dealing melee characters.
Tripper characters.
Dungeon Crasher Fighters.
Blaster casters.
Rogues (any type).
Buff based casters.

There are many more.
.

A few examples of 3.5 characters that Elitarismo thinks are unplayable in PF but which work fine in the games I have seen:

Damage dealing melee characters.
Tripper characters.
Blaster casters.
Rogues (any type).
Buff based casters.

There are many more.

I will admit that Elitarismo may by his own admission be unable to make these concepts work. Other people do not have this difficulty.

Lateral

2011-09-26, 03:18 PM

That was pretty rude, Mongoose.

...
..How?

PF classes aren't more powerful than 3.5 classes; on average, they're about the same as the same classes in 3.5. The classes that are more powerful than their 3.5 counterparts are usually only slightly more powerful, and that's generally because the corresponding 3.5 class sucks. (The only major exception that I can think of is the Sorcerer.) You may have been thinking of races; it is true that PF races are generally more powerful than 3.5 races.

A few examples of 3.5 characters that Elitarismo thinks are unplayable in PF but which work fine in the games I have seen:

Damage dealing melee characters.
Tripper characters.
Blaster casters.
Rogues (any type).
Buff based casters.

To be fair, tripping got a few nerfs- 3.5 improved trip became two feats, and combat maneuvers are a bit more difficult to pull off than in 3.5. It's still perfectly effective, though.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-26, 03:18 PM

...
..How?

Because you haven't talked to the forum character optimizers yet, the guys with all the books and the time to come up with builds. Most of the classes only look more powerful. With feat nerfs but extra bonuses and class features, fighter is about the same, maybe slightly better. Spellcasters have some spell nerfs but more class features. Barbarian and bard are pretty much the same as before, with nerfs to their primary schticks (should've kept it at uses per pay, rather than rounds per day) at the mid- to high-levels, since by that point the rounds/day are getting to be less total. The druid undeniably got nerfed.

Lateral

2011-09-26, 03:23 PM

Spellcasters have some spell nerds but more class features.

They still have plenty of powerful spells to work with, though.

Blisstake

2011-09-26, 03:24 PM

Perhaps the more accurate statement is "Pathfinder classes have better bases." I believe that's what he was trying to convey. For the majority of players, they will end up better in general as well (though I have no statistical evidence to support my case, I feel that the majority of people who play D&D are not hardcore optimizers)

Curious

2011-09-26, 03:25 PM

Barbarian and bard are pretty much the same as before, with nerfs to their primary schticks (should've kept it at uses per pay, rather than rounds per day) at the mid- to high-levels, since by that point the rounds/day are getting to be less total. The druid undeniably got nerfed.

Actually, I think some guy did the math a little while back, and it showed that rounds/day actually outstrips uses/day in absolute number of rounds raging/singing about half the time, while maintaining the flexibility of being able to turn your rage on and off at will. Not much of a nerf.

Also, Barbarian may actually be stronger in PF now, at higher levels at least, due to their awesome rage powers.

Frosty

2011-09-26, 03:27 PM

That was pretty rude, Mongoose.

PF classes aren't more powerful than 3.5 classes; on average, they're about the same as the same classes in 3.5. The classes that are more powerful than their 3.5 counterparts are usually only slightly more powerful, and that's generally because the corresponding 3.5 class sucks. (The only major exception that I can think of is the Sorcerer.) You may have been thinking of races; it is true that PF races are generally more powerful than 3.5 races.

To be fair, tripping got a few nerfs- 3.5 improved trip became two feats, and combat maneuvers are a bit more difficult to pull off than in 3.5. It's still perfectly effective, though.

I think the CMB system is BETTER. Now that size bonuses have been nerfed, a medium creature doesn't, for example, auto-lose to resis a bullrush by a Huge creature (it's only a +2 bonus for being Huge).

PF works much better than 3.5 in a low-op game imo. In high-op games, many tricks have been nerfed, so the abuse potential for non-casters is lowered. The abuse potential for casters is barely touched. Maybe lowered slightly. Stil, as long as the party and the monters are low to mid op, PF works BETTER than 3.5.

Starbuck_II

2011-09-26, 03:34 PM

Gnaeus

2011-09-26, 03:37 PM

To be fair, tripping got a few nerfs- 3.5 improved trip became two feats, and combat maneuvers are a bit more difficult to pull off than in 3.5. It's still perfectly effective, though.

PF giveth, PF taketh away. My Verdant Bloodline Sorcerer trips like a madman, from 15 feet away. As for muggle tripper builds, it is different. It is clearly harder in some scenarios, but clearly easier in others (for example, since to-hit bonuses alter cmb results, instead of polymorphing the fighter into a huge creature, you drop bonuses on him for the same result). In some campaigns, against some enemies it will be harder. It is certainly not unplayable!

Curious

2011-09-26, 03:37 PM

Rogues are weaker due to all the deny dex/flat footed spells/abilities are removed/nerfed (ring/scroll of Blink, grease, glittetdust save each rd, and more). Granted less immunities... so almost a wash at higher levels.

Ah, I think you got that backwards. PF Rogue's are actually better now, mostly due to the changes to what sneak attack applies to. They also get some nice abilities from their Rogue talents, such as the ability to turn invisible (via Ninja talents), or to cause bleed damage.

Starbuck_II

2011-09-26, 03:46 PM

Ah, I think you got that backwards. PF Rogue's are actually better now, mostly due to the changes to what sneak attack applies to. They also get some nice abilities from their Rogue talents, such as the ability to turn invisible (via Ninja talents), or to cause bleed damage.

Nope. Unless you can tell me how you are denying dex besides Ninja (requires Ki talent or taking Ninja archetype). And even than see Invisibility/true seeing is a common monster power (outsiders) or casters/Gish.

All the old avenues like Grease (now only affects them on their turn while moving so only AoO deny dex), etc are removed/nerfed.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-26, 03:51 PM

Nope. Unless you can tell me how you are denying dex besides Ninja (requires Ki talent or taking Ninja archetype). And even than see Invisibility/true seeing is a common monster power (outsiders) or casters/Gish.

All the old avenues like Grease (now only affects them on their turn while moving so only AoO deny dex), etc are removed/nerfed.

Flank with melee guy.

Curious

2011-09-26, 03:59 PM

Flank with melee guy.

Got it in one. Also, you know, that minor thing with invisibility I mentioned. Which you can get by 3rd level.

Elitarismo

2011-09-26, 04:04 PM

Technically, untrue in regards to Barbarian. He gets massive saves due to superstition, can sunder antimagic fields/Prismatic wall/any spells (Sunder rage power), etc.

You can dip Oracle (lame) or something to be unfatigued from ending rage. Rage Cycle resets 1/rage powers and is legal.

Saves on a Barbarian = Steadfast Determination. Which doesn't stop you from being healed and buffed.

I don't remember what the other thing does, but it's a PF non caster ability so there's a 95% chance it's useless and a 5% chance it's not nearly as good as something they lost.

Not to mention that no one casts AMF.

Rogues are absolutely horrid there, but Starbuck is already covering that so I'll leave you with this.

In low op, everything that isn't a save or lose caster is still monster food. Just that there's more of them.

SamBurke

2011-09-26, 04:08 PM

For Barbarians, it becomes an upgrade, but not for bards.
At low levels, you are drastically lower. About even at mid levels, and little higher at higher levels.

Rogues are weaker due to all the deny dex/flat footed spells/abilities are removed/nerfed (ring/scroll of Blink, grease, glittetdust save each rd, and more). Granted less immunities... so almost a wash at higher levels.

Um... what? Seriously? Flanking is a piece of cake. Grab a wizard. Tell him to levitate. Stick him on the other side. BOOOOOOM! You just got +Xd6!

Or, alternately, use your bonus HD, and move towards melee, and flank with your fighter, paladin, or cohort. One level dips can help a whole lot.

Starbuck_II

2011-09-26, 04:09 PM

Um... what? Seriously? Flanking is a piece of cake. Grab a wizard. Tell him to levitate. Stick him on the other side. BOOOOOOM! You just got +Xd6!

Or, alternately, use your bonus HD, and move towards melee, and flank with your fighter, paladin, or cohort. One level dips can help a whole lot.

Did you just suggest Leadership as a fix?! :smallconfused:

Remember, the rogues have lower AC compared to these others, that means you get hurt easier.

Reverent-One

2011-09-26, 04:10 PM

In low op, everything that isn't a save or lose caster is still monster food. Just that there's more of them.

And yet, people have played low op 3.5/PF as long as they have been out, so it's obviously not as bad as you make it out to be.

Curious

2011-09-26, 04:12 PM

Saves on a Barbarian = Steadfast Determination. Which doesn't stop you from being healed and buffed.

Eh, what? Most buffs are going to be put up before you start raging, and nobody heals in combat.

Frosty

2011-09-26, 04:22 PM

In low op, everything that isn't a save or lose caster is still monster food. Just that there's more of them.
Then explain how our party of Inquisitor, Rogue, Cavalier, are doing very well? Wait, I'll explain for you. The enemies are very low-OP as well.

Gnaeus

2011-09-26, 04:27 PM

And yet, people have played low op 3.5/PF as long as they have been out, so it's obviously not as bad as you make it out to be.

True. Also, optimization is a range, not a binary set.

Low op, the rogue is taking feats like skill focus. His combat options are not well developed. At this level the PF rogue is clearly better than the 3.5 rogue. (he has more HP, effectively more skill points, and even poor feats like weapon finesse help at this level)

A middle optimization rogue is using those invisibility tricks from ninja. He knows that UMD is good, but he may not have all the specific wands that an optimizer would have. He may know enough to focus on a combat strategy, but his feat choices may not be the best. PF is still better for this guy. He can sneak attack a lot more stuff. His invisibility helps him, and his extra feats will be put to good use.

In a high optimization game, there is no point in attacking unless you are getting a full attack's worth of sneak attack dice. Trapfinding is useless because the wizard does it better with summons or teleporting, and skills are likewise obsolete. This rogue IS hurt by the PF transfer, but this level of play is more the exception than the rule. Low-mid op DMs will already have nerfed or banned the tricks that let this guy play in 3.5. (like ring of blink, flask rogues, etc.)

Even those, clearly, are simplifications. You could justifiably make up categories like Upper middle optimization, etc. But the PF rogue is stronger in all but the highest optimization games. In other words, the optimization ceiling is a little lower, but the floor is a lot higher.

Elitarismo

2011-09-26, 04:32 PM

Blisstake

2011-09-26, 04:37 PM

Most of the people that claim to play PF do not actually do so.

Uh, citations?

Reverent-One

2011-09-26, 04:37 PM

Most of the people that claim to play PF do not actually do so.

Leaving aside the fact that I have no reason to believe that you have enough evidence to make a general claim about "Most of the people that claim to play PF", that has little to do what I said.

What's more, even those very people admit to the nerfs, they just do so in roundabout ways. Such as by claiming that the only way to make a given class work at all was the "high op" way, admitting said way was nerfed heavily, but then trying to paint it as a good thing that the not viable before, still not viable now builds... weren't nerfed? Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me either, but that is what they're saying.

Which isn't a point I was dealing with at all. You didn't just argue certain things were nerfed, but that those things were useless and that there are no viable builds in a low op game (EDIT: Except for save or lose wizards, that is) as they are all "monster chow". This is utterly untrue.

Frosty

2011-09-26, 04:43 PM

My Cavalier does a wonderful job of charging on horseback, and giving allies +5 AC s an AoO, and giving them extra bonuses/movements. Thematically, he feels a lot like a White Raven-focused Crusader, but not as powerful (hence Tier 4 instead of 3).

Gnaeus

2011-09-26, 04:45 PM

Wings of Peace

2011-09-26, 04:56 PM

Personally I'd say 3.5. This is largely because for me, PF never introduced any classes or mechanics that made things different enough for me to feel it worth the investment. I'm not even referring to the relative power or abilities of the classes. Pathfinder to me just feels like someone stole all my 3.5 books, gave me some new ones with less stuff in them (I recognize this to be because 3.5 has more in print), and said "you play this now."

This isn't a direct attack on people who like Pathfinder, I'm just saying that for me that's how it feels.

Elitarismo

2011-09-26, 04:57 PM

BRC

2011-09-26, 05:00 PM

It really kind of boils down to this: Both systems work.

Yes, People say how certain classes/builds/strategies in both systems are Broken, and yes, they are largely correct.

But here's the thing, it really doesn't matter, both systems are, in my experience, about equally playable if you're just trying to have fun. I don't know how well they hold up with a high-op party and a ruthless DM, or with a highly competitive party, but if your group sees the game as a cooperative effort, rather than a competition, both systems hold up nicely.

Now, before I give my opinion, here's where I'm coming from. I'm usually the DM, my groups are usually low-op and made up of very close friends, I've been playing for years, and I have access to just about any 3.5 book (We just use the SRD for Pathfinder), neither me nor my players have any problem with ignoring minor rules or oversimplifying things in order to streamline gameplay.

Now, from that perspective I like Pathfinder a little better than 3.5. Core Pathfinder is more complex than 3.5 core 3.5, but 3.5's complexity is spread out across countless sourcebooks, whereas Pathfinder has lots of options built right into the base classes themselves.
A large amount of Pathfinder's bad press, as far as I can tell, comes from the fact that it was supposed to be "3.5 without the problems!", some kind of magical cure for 3.5's many issues. That is not what happened, some issues are fixed or better, some are worse, some are new, and many of the problems in 3.5 are still there in Pathfinder. Wizards who can reshape reality with their will alone are still more powerful than guys who hit things with swords, you can still exploit the system to build a powerful character, ect.

If I had to point out a Uniquely Pathfinder flaw, I would say that it was written with the assumption you already know 3.5. The rules aren't as nice about telling you basic information, and the Pathfinder SRD freely mixes optional rules (Like Traits and Hero Points) with core gameplay mechanics, without really bothering to tell you which is which.

Pathfinder is neither a glorious system that leaves 3.5 in the dust nor a horrible, broken mess of rules played only by cheaters and people who refuse to help pay for the pizza because they "brought chips that one time". Pathfinder is 3.5 with some makeup and a new hat, your game will not be substantially different choosing one over the other.

Edit:
Also, Elitarismo. Continue your crusade against Pathfinder if you want to, but stick to criticizing the system itself. Statements like "People who say they played Pathfinder are lying" do not help your case.

Wings of Peace

2011-09-26, 05:02 PM

Observe them carefully. You will notice what they describe does not resemble PF and does resemble Story Hour. That would be fine, except they are calling it something that it is not.

After all if you find fault with PF, that means something is wrong with you or your DM, and not that there is a problem with PF.
If you start talking about the rules of the actual game, you will be somehow blamed for the failings of a system you had no part in the design or creation of.
If you make any mathematically based argument, you will be met with nothing but vague and false claims.

Because the fact of the matter is that when you have a subset of classes that are monster chow (as they aren't strong enough to do anything but feed the monsters) and you make those classes weaker and make their opponents stronger that means the monsters get more Kibbles and Bits and not less. When you take classes that previously were not monster chow and nerf them heavily... you get more monster chow. All "low op" does to the equation is that if they were capable of pulling themselves out of that pit in order to contribute to encounters in a way that doesn't involve hoping they choke on you that they will not have the abilities to do so. But since they could not get said abilities if they wanted to, it doesn't matter what the power level of the game is, as there's still a large subset of classes that get shot down long before that overused joke can be played.

I have literally no idea how what you just said evidences that nobody who claims to play Pathfinder actually does not.

Reverent-One

2011-09-26, 05:05 PM

Because the fact of the matter is that when you have a subset of classes that are monster chow (as they aren't strong enough to do anything but feed the monsters) and you make those classes weaker and make their opponents stronger that means the monsters get more Kibbles and Bits and not less. When you take classes that previously were not monster chow and nerf them heavily... you get more monster chow. All "low op" does to the equation is that if they were capable of pulling themselves out of that pit in order to contribute to encounters in a way that doesn't involve hoping they choke on you that they will not have the abilities to do so. But since they could not get said abilities if they wanted to, it doesn't matter what the power level of the game is, as there's still a large subset of classes that get shot down long before that overused joke can be played.

This claim isn't any more accurate than when you said it the first time. People have played low op games where the characters are capable of contributing for years, even if you would denounce their builds as "monster chow". They might not be viable in the games you play, but one of the advantages of the D&D 3.5 style of system is that there is a wide variety of types of games one can play.

Lord Bingo

2011-09-26, 05:28 PM

You are right. The people on this board who say we play pathfinder are all lying. The games we discuss are all imaginary. The people who ask us for advice are alternate accounts. I just post this stuff because Jason Bulmahn pays me by the word. The posted, public conventions which we play in are all done with holograms and mirrors.

And I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for Elitarismo's keen insight! You have unmasked our conspiracy! We are as fake as the moon landing! It is a good thing you are here to see through us!

Comedy Gold!

But seriously, regardless of what system you prefer and that you may find fault with either, if you would like to continue to use your 3.5 splat books then stick with regular 3.5. If you want to play core only, then Pathfinder is the better choice.

Curious

2011-09-26, 05:36 PM

Comedy Gold!

But seriously, regardless of what system you prefer and that you may find fault with either, if you would like to continue to use your 3.5 splat books then stick with regular 3.5. If you want to play core only, then Pathfinder is the better choice.

Eh, I use 3.5 splats along with PF, and I like it. The more streamlined mechanics of PF make things go a little quicker and easier, while the classes and feats imported from 3.5 lend balance. I think it works very well.

Zagaroth

2011-09-26, 06:39 PM

Personally, I love PF. Key things to keep an eye out for in the transition that are easily missed:

Feats are +1 every odd level, not every third.
Every level in your Preferred Class is either +1 Skill Point or +1 HP, and you pick your preferred class when you create your character (base classes only)
No XP cost to anything, ever. Except of course level loss scenarios. But you never pay XP to do anything.
Re-read every spell before you select/use it.

Infernalbargain

2011-09-26, 06:52 PM

If I had to point out a Uniquely Pathfinder flaw, I would say that it was written with the assumption you already know 3.5. The rules aren't as nice about telling you basic information, and the Pathfinder SRD freely mixes optional rules (Like Traits and Hero Points) with core gameplay mechanics, without really bothering to tell you which is which.

Now don't confuse the srd and the core rulebook. I have found the core rulebook to be structured roughly equivalently to the PHB. SRD's don't teach you how to play at all; they are exactly what they say they are, system reference documents. I must say that the Pathfinder SRD is much better organized. Also for stuff like traits and hero points, the srd does clearly state that they are up to the prerogative of the GM.

Lord Bingo

2011-09-26, 06:56 PM

Eh, I use 3.5 splats along with PF, and I like it. The more streamlined mechanics of PF make things go a little quicker and easier, while the classes and feats imported from 3.5 lend balance. I think it works very well.

The above was merely my preference on the matter :smallwink: You can certainly use your 3.5 splat book with Pathfinder. Classes, feats and abilities sometimes require minor tweaking, though, but it works fine.

One of the things I personally love about my Pathfinder game is that we got rid of all the splat books and only play with CRB, APG and the Bestiaries, so the game has become much more manageable, at least from a DM'ing perspective. Of course now that Paizo have started releasing their very own range of splat book this point is slowly becoming moot...

Kenneth

2011-09-26, 09:43 PM

I know that somebody said it before But I felt like reitarating the same thing.

All pathfinder is really, is a combonation of house rules for regular 3.5 D&D.

Somebody metioned teh 1 feat every odd level.. Yeah ive been DMing that for uh..8 years now.

actually as far as class powers and such goes.. they pretty much stay in teh same place they all were in teh beginw ith a few bad tweaks here a few good tweaks there.

really for me the Bard is the only one to come out the lesser becuase of it. the Bardic Music in Pathfidner is just not what it was in 3.5

I am sure that evetually ( id say 2 or so years from now) Pathfidner will have come out with some 'splatbooks' and maybe taken a stronger 'this isn;t really 3.75 its pathfinder!' stance, but at the same times. i can also just see them going PAIOZ: ' yeah.. this isn;t D&D.. oh by the way PF is backwards compatible with D&D. GAMER:"wait but didn' you just say.. " PAIZO:RAWR FREE PDFS!!" GAMER: 'K i keep buying your stuffs"

Stone Heart

2011-09-26, 11:09 PM

Most of the people that claim to play PF do not actually do so.

What's more, even those very people admit to the nerfs, they just do so in roundabout ways. Such as by claiming that the only way to make a given class work at all was the "high op" way, admitting said way was nerfed heavily, but then trying to paint it as a good thing that the not viable before, still not viable now builds... weren't nerfed? Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me either, but that is what they're saying.

I can't even fathom how you could claim that, and I take personal exception to it since I now almost exclusively play Pathfinder,*snip* Edit: I went on to be rude, and I would rather not be.

I will admit there are problems with Pathfinder, and there are problems with pathfinder that 3.5 did not have. But 3.5 also had problems that Pathfinder does not have. By no means are either bad systems.

Also as said before all of those things you listed as being unplayable, are probably more common in my games than the high op non monster chow ones. I would say our group is probably low to mid-op and my favorite classes are probably Barbarian and Paladin. None of my barbarians or paladins have ever died in a campaign.

El Dorado

2011-09-26, 11:55 PM

Our group opted for Pathfinder after our previous 3.5 campaign ended. There are fewer books to juggle but still enough options that players can try something new (ninjas, summoners, etc). One nice thing: Pathfinder has a range of archetypes that are available from early levels, like the zen archer, that allow players to pick a standard class but still try something different.

Big Fau

2011-09-27, 01:06 AM

These two systems can be equated to a bunch of wine glasses and boxes.

To explain, an entire class is equal to one glass, and the tier that class sits in is a box. There are 6 boxes, each with a varying number of glasses inside. Some of them are lavish

4E took each box, poured the glasses inside those boxes into a single kiln, melted everything down, and made new glasses. They then put those glasses into a single box.

That box was Tier 4, and the glasses fit it perfectly.

Paizo grabbed each box, handed them to Marina (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MischiefMakers) and had her shake them as hard as she could. They then poured each box's contents into a kiln and made new glasses. Some of the glasses were cracked or damaged in the kiln, and were glued back together. Then a few of the glasses got cursed, while others got decorated. And then they put the glasses back into their original boxes, save for a few of them that wouldn't fit.

And then they started filling the glasses with silicon bead pouches and food coloring.

I honestly won't allow PF material* on the grounds that they [Paizo] value positive commentary from supporters over constructive criticism from experienced optimizers, amongst other reasons.

*DSP's Psionics being the primary exception.

TOZ

2011-09-27, 01:22 AM

Most of the people that claim to play PF do not actually do so.

Have we met?

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-09-27, 01:49 AM

N. Jolly

2011-09-27, 02:16 AM

Having played at the tail end of 3.5 and into PF with a slight dip into 4E, I have to say that I really enjoy Pathfinder. It simplifies things to a point where it's easy to explain to my players (most of whom are new) and still provides an in depth experience for my more experienced gamer friends.

It's not a perfect system, and every so often during character design I find myself drifting back to the massive sandbox of 3.5 (this is nice...but it'd be a way nice Hulking Hurler!), I feel that Pathfinder balances itself better, even if it's not perfect.

BobVosh

2011-09-27, 02:22 AM

If I had to point out a Uniquely Pathfinder flaw, I would say that it was written with the assumption you already know 3.5. The rules aren't as nice about telling you basic information, and the Pathfinder SRD freely mixes optional rules (Like Traits and Hero Points) with core gameplay mechanics, without really bothering to tell you which is which.

Please note the pathfinder srd (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) isn't run by paizo, while the pathfinder PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/) is.
The paizo's have this:

While any rules subsystem beyond those in the core rules should be considered optional, GMs should feel free to adopt, even invent, additional elements if doing so helps make battle feel more cinematic, increases players' investments in their characters, or simply make the game more fun.
Found here. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedNewRules.html#traits)
A lot of people seem to mix up the two.

Greymane

2011-09-27, 03:57 AM

I honestly won't allow PF material* on the grounds that they [Paizo] value positive commentary from supporters over constructive criticism from experienced optimizers, amongst other reasons.

This is the big problem I had with them as well. I have decent system mastery, but people like Fax Celestis and Sinfire Titan leave me so far behind it's not even funny. When PF started treating BG people like crap and banning them for daring to not lavish praise on them, I lost interest completely.

Pathfinder had a few good ideas, I'll grant them, and the system works (or else it wouldn't be selling), but I'll never support them.

Firechanter

2011-09-27, 05:08 AM

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-09-27, 05:48 AM

Pathfinder or 3.5?
Both.

@ Elitarismo
Yeah, no.

Yuki Akuma

2011-09-27, 06:12 AM

Big Fau: I agree that Paizo's willful ignorance of constructive criticism was a bad signal at the start of PF, but said information is now subsumed by the actual set of rules. In other words, if the PF ruleset actually turned out to be wonderful, would designer ego get in the way of you liking it?

I'm not Big Fau, but considering I have the same opinion as him re: developer egotism during the PF beta: yes.

I would pass up (and, indeed, have passed up) RPG systems and other media based solely on the fact that the creator is a jerk.

Paul H

2011-09-27, 07:17 AM

Hi

I'd first like to say play with what you're comfortable with. It's your campaign. not ours, so final decision rests with you.

You've also got to know where the material for your campign is coming from. If you're using old Dungeon scenarios then 3.5 is probably best, unless you're up to converting.

As to best system? I've got a lot of investment in 3.5, but I'm not a ToB ubermunchkin min/max'er. (Don't even have the book). I'm involved in a number of long 3.5 campaigns.

That said I prefer PF. Classes & Races are more powerful, gain something every level, encourage single classes, etc. Hell, even Fighters are good for more than a 4 level dip!

Many things are simpler. 'Tumble' is an acrobatics check against a DC of the target's Combat Manouvre Bonus. Sounds more complicated than it is.

Barbarians: Can split Rage into rnds/day not 1/day etc. New Rage powers.
Bards: D8HP. Yes, Bardsong is rnds/day, but they get 1st lvl spells at 1st level!
Cleric: Channel Energy can now be used to Harm or Heal. Prof with Deity's wpn.
Druid: Wildshape changed. (Better, IMHO). Can have Domain instead of animal companion.
Fighter: No 'dead' levels. Can increase max dex, lower ACP with armour. Bonuses to wpn groups (like 2nd Ed)
Monk: Dunno. Never played one/wouldn't know how to.
Paladin: Smite now works until combat resolved. Overcomes any DR. Laty on Hands improved.
Ranger: Extra Terrain bonuses
Sorceror: D6HP. Even more powerful with Bloodlines that grant extra spells known, bonus feats & abilities.
Wizard: D6 HP. Can now cast spells from 'banned' schools, (but cost extra spellsot).

Even the PrC's work now. Eg.Dragon Disciple continues the Sorceror's Bloodline bonuses, adds 7/10 BAB plus 7/10 CL.

Plenty Archetypes to suit most tastes. I'm debating which is best single class Gish: Synthesist or Magus? (Brute power or skill)?

Lastly, somebody pointed out that you can get Invis at 3rd lvl. Not completely true. Rogues can get it as SLA at 4th! :smallbiggrin:

Thanks
Paul H

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-09-27, 07:21 AM

As to best system? I've got a lot of investment in 3.5, but I'm not a ToB ubermunchkin min/max'er.
Fixed that for you.

Paul H

2011-09-27, 07:25 AM

Hi

Fixed that for you.

I'm much obliged, M'Lady.
(If you believe that ToB is overpowered).

Thanks
Paul H

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-09-27, 07:34 AM

Hi

I'm much obliged, M'Lady.
(If you believe that ToB is overpowered).

Thanks
Paul H
No, the opposite.

Tyndmyr

2011-09-27, 07:40 AM

A few examples of 3.5 characters that Elitarismo thinks are unplayable in PF but which work fine in the games I have seen:

Damage dealing melee characters.
Tripper characters.
Blaster casters.
Rogues (any type).
Buff based casters.

There are many more.

I will admit that Elitarismo may by his own admission be unable to make these concepts work. Other people do not have this difficulty.

I would agree that blaster casters are not particularly good. I mean, you can DO it, but it's not very effective.

See, hp is even more prolific than in 3.5, but spell damage is essentially the same. You have somewhat higher stats(and con is a popular boost), a possible +1 hp/lvl from favored class, and low hp die classes were generally boosted. Even casters have respectable hp now.

And blasting wasn't exactly the pinnacle of 3.5 optimization to start with.

Tripping is still viable, but less potent. Lots of feat chains suffered for melee builds...the same is not true of casting.

Actually, I think some guy did the math a little while back, and it showed that rounds/day actually outstrips uses/day in absolute number of rounds raging/singing about half the time, while maintaining the flexibility of being able to turn your rage on and off at will. Not much of a nerf.

Also, Barbarian may actually be stronger in PF now, at higher levels at least, due to their awesome rage powers.

This guy was me. There are significant components there to consider, like the fact that the "flexibility" is mostly irrelevant thanks to the fatigue. In practice, you are not going to leave rage until you no longer need to hit things. It is also of note that at medium and higher levels, both barbarians have all the rage they will ever need. Also, with a decent con mod(+2 or higher), 3.5 barbs will without exception have more total rounds of rage than PF barbs.

Lastly, note that PF barbs cannot rage while exhausted or fatigued. 3.5 Barbs have no such weakness. Given their heavy reliance on rage powers, PF barbs can get shut down pretty hard with a single status effect that normally isn't that bad.

Basically, the splitting matters at level 1, where the PF barb is superior...one really long rage isn't as awesome as two moderately sized ones. Level 2 is basically a draw. Every level after that, the 3.5 barb wins, and wins hard in raging. The PF barb gets rage powers, which range from fairly nice to "it's a trap!" The huge vulnerability to fatigue is kind of a downer, though. Waves of Fatigue means your barbarian is done contributing for the combat.

Edit: I assure you that I have in fact played PF. If you like, I could take a picture of the books on my shelves...hell, even an old barbarian char sheet that happens to still be around. I would presume that most the people talking about it have also played it. Those books are being sold to someone, and I presume people are buying them to actually play with them.

subject42

2011-09-27, 07:50 AM

I honestly won't allow PF material* on the grounds that they [Paizo] value positive commentary from supporters over constructive criticism from experienced optimizers, amongst other reasons.

*DSP's Psionics being the primary exception.

I remember watching some of that, if you're talking about the Trollman debacle. It wouldn't hurt to elaborate and explain that everyone involved acted like utter fools in that one, not just Paizo.

You're right about DSP psionics, though. The new Aegis class is similar to a synthesist summoner, except the rules actually make sense.

Gnaeus

2011-09-27, 08:04 AM

I would agree that blaster casters are not particularly good. I mean, you can DO it, but it's not very effective.

See, hp is even more prolific than in 3.5, but spell damage is essentially the same. You have somewhat higher stats(and con is a popular boost), a possible +1 hp/lvl from favored class, and low hp die classes were generally boosted. Even casters have respectable hp now.

And blasting wasn't exactly the pinnacle of 3.5 optimization to start with.

Well, first, if everyone at mid-high optimization levels is doing less damage, you can make a viable blaster that does less damage. If the DM is doing his job and is adjusting encounters to your party (and lets face it, this is necessary in 3.5 or PF) and the blaster and the tank are both doing less damage, this is not necessarily a problem in the game.

Second, PF includes different ways to up spell damage. One blaster build starts with a dual-bloodlined Orc/Draconic sorcerer, who is doing +2 hp per die of damage rolled before applying metamagic. Or the evocation wizard variant (admixture) that can freely swap out energy types from his spells without taking energy substitution a bunch of times and he can do it when casting instead of preparing a spell with a metamagic feat. I honestly do not think that this is a resolvable argument at most optimization levels, because for things short of mailman levels where we are pulling out the stops in both systems, we will probably never agree what 3.5 feat is at same optimization level with which PF class option, but it is clear that PF did include a number of ways to up spell damage.

Third, you are right, blasting is suboptimal in either game. Mostly because everyone else in the party can do damage, so why is your arcane caster specializing in it. But suboptimal /= unplayable. I have seen PF blasters in play (yes, I know, I don't actually play PF, it is all a huge lie.) and like most things they can be made to work with correct opti-fu.

Edit: for the people who won't play PF because of developer attitude during design/beta, I think that is a very valid reason. In my mind, I wouldn't want to game with Jason Bulmahn, but I wouldn't want to game with Steve Jackson or the late Gary Gygax either, and some of the old white wolf staff (don't know if they still work there or not) I wouldn't let in my house. Developer personality is not a leading concern for me, but if it is for you that is fine.

Tyndmyr

2011-09-27, 08:22 AM

Well, first, if everyone at mid-high optimization levels is doing less damage, you can make a viable blaster that does less damage. If the DM is doing his job and is adjusting encounters to your party (and lets face it, this is necessary in 3.5 or PF) and the blaster and the tank are both doing less damage, this is not necessarily a problem in the game.

Second, PF includes different ways to up spell damage. One blaster build starts with a dual-bloodlined Orc/Draconic sorcerer, who is doing +2 hp per die of damage rolled before applying metamagic. Or the evocation wizard variant (admixture) that can freely swap out energy types from his spells without taking energy substitution a bunch of times and he can do it when casting instead of preparing a spell with a metamagic feat. I honestly do not think that this is a resolvable argument at most optimization levels, because for things short of mailman levels where we are pulling out the stops in both systems, we will probably never agree what 3.5 feat is at same optimization level with which PF class option, but it is clear that PF did include a number of ways to up spell damage.

Third, you are right, blasting is suboptimal in either game. Mostly because everyone else in the party can do damage, so why is your arcane caster specializing in it. But suboptimal /= unplayable.

I won't go so far as to say unplayable...but a poor choice? Definitely.

That amount of optimization basically counters a +2 con(thanks to extra stat boosts from races) and +1hp/lvl from favored class, assuming an equal CR fight. It pulls ahead if you're nuking the same target repeatedly...but if you're spending many actions blasting the same target for hp damage, you're already a fairly low powered char. And it required some optimization to get there.

Note also that the draconic bloodline thing only works for a specific energy type.

An equally optimized caster in 3.5 will still be more effective at killing things with hp damage.

Gnaeus

2011-09-27, 08:37 AM

And it required some optimization to get there.

An equally optimized caster in 3.5 will still be more effective at killing things with hp damage.

Yeah, there's the rub. What is an "Equally optimized caster?" Clearly, it involves chosing abilities that help you do your job, so there is some optimization involved. I could point out that you could get there from a 5-10 minute review of the PFSRD by looking up pathfinder sorcerer, without ever cracking a splatbook. Are we assuming that 3.5 splats are compatible? If so, my PF sorcerer has some real advantages over a 3.5 sorc. If not, you probably win in an all books allowed 3.5 v. PF fight. But if we are just core, or core +1 splatbook, or free online resources only, I think my chances are good. Sure, if Dragonwrought Kobolds with +2 caster levels are available, 3.5 sorcerer wins. But is that a valid representation of what gets into play in most tables?

Again, I probably wouldn't play a blaster sorcerer in either game, but I think it is difficult to prove that the PF blaster is actually worse.

Person_Man

2011-09-27, 08:44 AM

If you do choose to play Pathfinder, I suggest that you read through the Archetypes of your favorite class (there's a bunch of them online at various Pathfinder SRD sites. Just google it). They add a bunch of new options. I personally house rule that within each class a player can mix and match any alternate class feature, racial substitution level, or archetype class ability that they want, as long as they don't trade away the same base class ability more then once.

This basically allows you to bring any class up to the Tier 3ish level and makes D&D a lot more like Star Wars Saga Edition, which is exactly what I wanted 4E to be (which it isn't).

Tyndmyr

2011-09-27, 09:02 AM

Yeah, there's the rub. What is an "Equally optimized caster?" Clearly, it involves chosing abilities that help you do your job, so there is some optimization involved. I could point out that you could get there from a 5-10 minute review of the PFSRD by looking up pathfinder sorcerer, without ever cracking a splatbook.

I disagree, even with the more comprehensive SRD. Your targets have a significant amount of increased hp. You need to optimize to stay at par. That's a loss.

Are we assuming that 3.5 splats are compatible? If so, my PF sorcerer has some real advantages over a 3.5 sorc.

Well, yes. Options x + y are always superior to y alone. That said, your targets also have access to x + y, which complicates things. Certain interactions between 3.5 and PF are also not defined by RAW.

If not, you probably win in an all books allowed 3.5 v. PF fight.

Yes...this wouldn't even be funny.

But if we are just core, or core +1 splatbook, or free online resources only, I think my chances are good. Sure, if Dragonwrought Kobolds with +2 caster levels are available, 3.5 sorcerer wins. But is that a valid representation of what gets into play in most tables?

So...core plus...which book is arcane thesis in? Oh, I'm pretty sure I win that.

Also, Generic Spellcaster is available online.

Also, Epic Spellcasting, which is lol-worthy.

Again, I probably wouldn't play a blaster sorcerer in either game, but I think it is difficult to prove that the PF blaster is actually worse.

You need to deal significantly more damage per spell to be doing the same porportion of damage. Spell base damage level is still d6/level(and 3.5 has MORE d8/level spell options). So...yeah.

Note that PF Sorc IS better than 3.5 Sorc overall. The bloodlines are generally an improvement, and the usual human trick means a giant pile of spells known. The fact that while the class as a whole has improved, blasting is still struggling to stay even means that blasting has become a worse option.

Big Fau

2011-09-27, 09:11 AM

I remember watching some of that, if you're talking about the Trollman debacle. It wouldn't hurt to elaborate and explain that everyone involved acted like utter fools in that one, not just Paizo.

You're right about DSP psionics, though. The new Aegis class is similar to a synthesist summoner, except the rules actually make sense.

Well, Frank&K and supporters are known for their vitriol. And at least two people from BG were avid supporters of his work, so their contributions sure didn't help.

Really, anyone wanting to get a look at the aftermath just needs to Google Crusader of Logic (http://paizo.com/people/CrusaderOfLogic4r7he/posts). He's one of the people who participated in the Aelryinth Debates over at Gleemax back in '07/08.

Reverent-One

2011-09-27, 10:44 AM

Really, anyone wanting to get a look at the aftermath just needs to Google Crusader of Logic (http://paizo.com/people/CrusaderOfLogic4r7he/posts). He's one of the people who participated in the Aelryinth Debates over at Gleemax back in '07/08.

I took this advice, and one of the first things I found was a post where he states that 3.5 is one of the least broken games out there. Why should I read anything this obviously crazy person says?

Paul H

2011-09-27, 10:46 AM

Hi

Not entirely sure what the fus about Blaster Casters is.

1) Gnomes have Pyromaniac as an Alternate Racial Trait. +1CL on Fire spells.

2) Draconic Blodline Sorc's add +1 Damage per damage dice.

3) Evoker Wizards add 1/2 Wizard level to damage. (Min +1)

That's in addition to their other class abilities

Thanks
Paul H

Tyndmyr

2011-09-27, 10:48 AM

I took this advice, and one of the first things I found was a post where he states that 3.5 is one of the least broken games out there. Why should I read anything this obviously crazy person says?

That's...honestly not that crazy. Yes, 3.5 is not the least broken game..but it's among them.

I've seen a lot of truly horribly broken things in game systems. 3.5 at least takes a bit of effort to break. Other systems do it for you out of the box.

1) Gnomes have Pyromaniac as an Alternate Racial Trait. +1CL on Fire spells.

Now you're keeping up with the hp increases, almost. So long as fire works. And also, if you're a sorc, you've given up the delicious human spells known option. Sooo...your spell selection is probably rough.

2) Draconic Blodline Sorc's add +1 Damage per damage dice.

Again, this only works for one energy type. Yes, you can stack bonuses to one energy type and do...ok. Hp inflation means you've just about kept up so long as your specialized energy type works.

The instant is doesn't, you

3) Evoker Wizards add 1/2 Wizard level to damage. (Min +1)

This is about as relevant was the warmage edge damage boost. Meh. LOTS of similar options exist in 3.5. They are mostly ignored. Note that this doesn't stack with any other damage boosting options like metamagics, either...the 3.5 ones generally do.

Evoker is not a terribly good specialization either.

Note also that the lack of focused specialist in PF means blaster wizards tend to run dry faster.

subject42

2011-09-27, 10:52 AM

I took this advice, and one of the first things I found was a post where he states that 3.5 is one of the least broken games out there. Why should I read anything this obviously crazy person says?

To be fair, let's look at some of the competition that's out there:

Old World of Darkness
Rifts
FATAL

After that, 3.5 doesn't look too bad.

Reverent-One

2011-09-27, 11:16 AM

subject42

2011-09-27, 11:18 AM

And while there's a number of other broken systems out there, D&D not being the absolute worst doesn't make it one of the best in that regard.

(I apologize if this is a bit of a derail)

Other than fourth edition, what game systems currently do have tighter rules than 3.5 (or PF)? Most of the newer ones that I can think of take a very story-driven, rules-light approach.

Tyndmyr

2011-09-27, 11:33 AM

Objection! Nothing looks bad in comparison to FATAL (except perhaps a new edition of FATAL). And while there's a number of other broken systems out there, D&D not being the absolute worst doesn't make it one of the best in that regard.

Hero system is one in which it is terribly, terribly easy to make chars wildly different in effectiveness. Also, you might need a calculator to make them.

7th Sea has LOTS of traps, a wild range of weirdly overlapping knacks, and certain sourcebooks were apparently written by drunken monkeys. Balance was something the designers didn't much try for.

D20 M was like 3.5, only with grenades and action advantage options included in core, so as not to trouble munchkins with splatbook diving. However, if they DO splatbook dive, you end up with flying mechadinosaurs wielding sun crushers piloted by a cowboy with magical six guns firing grenades. Also, buying enough TNT to cover the world is free, and can be automatically done in core at character creation.

Oh, 3.5 is more well tested and designed than a great many systems. This mostly says a lot about how horrifically many systems are made.

Reverent-One

2011-09-27, 11:45 AM

(I apologize if this is a bit of a derail)

Other than fourth edition, what game systems currently do have tighter rules than 3.5 (or PF)? Most of the newer ones that I can think of take a very story-driven, rules-light approach.

As a side note, I would like to note that Crusader of Logic was comparing 3.5 to 4e in terms of brokenness as well. Though why should the story-driven games be excluded from this comparison? If their rules are less broken or more broken than 3.5, then that's what they are, regardless of focus. Still, as far as games less broken than 3.5 other than 4e go, both Savage worlds and Star Wars: Saga edition get my vote. And there's plenty of other systems I've heard good things about, but simply not been able to play. Here's (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?458248-Least-broken-system) a thread discussing what people think are the least broken RPGs. 7 pages long and guess how many times 3.5 comes up as an answer to that? Not once.

Tyndmyr

2011-09-27, 11:58 AM

As a side note, I would like to note that Crusader of Logic was comparing 3.5 to 4e in terms of brokenness as well. Though why should the story-driven games be excluded from this comparison? If their rules are less broken or more broken than 3.5, then that's what they are, regardless of focus. Still, as far as games less broken than 3.5 other than 4e go, both Savage worlds and Star Wars: Saga edition get my vote. And there's plenty of other systems I've heard good things about, but simply not been able to play. Here's (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?458248-Least-broken-system) a thread discussing what people think are the least broken RPGs. 7 pages long and guess how many times 3.5 comes up as an answer to that? Not once.

7th Sea IS pretty story centric.

That said, the more rules light you get, the less problems you'll find in the rules. You'll still HAVE problems, but they'll be based on interpretation/uncovered things instead of printed rules. Even "freeform" ends up needing rules in practice. Without it, one jerk can break the game.

Also, in that thread, I didn't read past World of Synnibar. At that point, I was pretty sure it was a bunch of joking/favoritism/troll.

Reverent-One

2011-09-27, 12:05 PM

7th Sea IS pretty story centric.

That said, the more rules light you get, the less problems you'll find in the rules. You'll still HAVE problems, but they'll be based on interpretation/uncovered things instead of printed rules. Even "freeform" ends up needing rules in practice. Without it, one jerk can break the game.

You seem to think that I'm saying all story centric games are less broken, I was just saying that if there is a rules-lite/story centric game that's less broken than 3.5, it should count.

Also, in that thread, I didn't read past World of Synnibar. At that point, I was pretty sure it was a bunch of joking/favoritism/troll.

Now you know how I felt reading CoL's posts. Though in your case you're judging an entire thread on one poster's response.

Tyndmyr

2011-09-27, 12:13 PM

You seem to think that I'm saying all story centric games are less broken, I was just saying that if there is a rules-lite/story centric game that's less broken than 3.5, it should count.

There probably is. And it does. But still, 3.5 is a remarkably complete game with a fairly low incidence of brokenness in it's rules.

Note also that balanced is only a small portion of what makes something a good RPG. Rock paper Scissors is balanced, but would not make a particularly good RPG.

Now you know how I felt reading CoL's posts. Though in your case you're judging an entire thread on one poster's response.

The rest of it appears to be mostly "I like these games, so I'm listing them". There was fairly little discussion of actual brokenness, and much of it read like hipster's describing "good music".

Reverent-One

2011-09-27, 12:21 PM

There probably is. And it does. But still, 3.5 is a remarkably complete game with a fairly low incidence of brokenness in it's rules.

A low incidence? The fundemental issues like "Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards" and classes that get class features that can replace other classes, along with the fact that the commonly accepted answer to what needs to be done to balance spellcasting is to rewrite pretty much every spell doesn't mesh with that.

Note also that balanced is only a small portion of what makes something a good RPG. Rock paper Scissors is balanced, but would not make a particularly good RPG.

Which is entirely besides the point. Whether or not the brokeness is a good or bad thing in gameplay doesn't change whether or not the brokeness exists.

BlueInc

2011-09-27, 12:46 PM

Of course, one letter and one number fix 90% of what's wrong with 3.5/PF: "E6 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html)."

Elitarismo

2011-09-27, 12:52 PM

Yuki Akuma

2011-09-27, 12:54 PM

Of course, one letter and one number fix 90% of what's wrong with 3.5/PF: "E6 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html)."

No, it really doesn't.

Reverent-One

2011-09-27, 12:57 PM

It isn't hard to see why 3.5 would be called the most balanced system. As many problems as 3.5 has, other systems have even worse. Tabletop gaming just doesn't lend itself well to good balance.

It's like saying you have the best car when yours runs and the others don't. It says more about the lack of quality of the competition than about the quality of 3.5.

Tyndmyr has the rest in the bag, so I will leave it to him.

It's more like saying you have the best car because yours runs and you point to ones that don't while ignoring the ones that actually run better. Not being the worst offender doesn't make you the best.

Starbuck_II

2011-09-27, 01:04 PM

Jeraa

2011-09-27, 01:06 PM

Of course, one letter and one number fix 90% of what's wrong with 3.5/PF: "E6 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html)."

Simply ignoring 14 levels (and everything that goes with them) does not fix anything. The problems still exist. Its like saying that the stairs in my house are broken, so simply not going upstairs will fix the problem.

Gnaeus

2011-09-27, 01:10 PM

I think the original post on this said that 3.5 was one of the least broken. That is different from best/worst balanced. There are lots of different ways to even discuss what "balanced" means. Or what "broken" means. Are we talking about games that are unplayable by RAW? Games that have characters with mechanics that do not work, like truenamer? Is a game unbalanced because it has a high power disparity between characters (one definition), or because character A can replace character B only better so that character B has no reason to play (another definition), or are we really talking about forseeability, where the problem isn't that A is better than B, it is that A is better than B but the book suggests that they are equal?

Until we agree on what we are discussing, saying that X is less broken/more balanced than Y doesn't mean anything.

Reverent-One

2011-09-27, 01:11 PM

That seems the general rule (mixing/matching as long as don't trade more than once same one) not a houserule.
Maybe you can give a example how yours will differ.
Like you can be a Rogue (Ninja) Scout.
Do you mean more like 3.5 ACF's?

The difference is that if you take a Archetype in PF, you have to take each element of that archtype, you can't just take some of them. This, combined with the rule that you can't trade the same abilty twice, means that if fighter archtype A trades Bravery and Weapon Training 1,2,3,4 and Fighter Archetype B trades Bravery and Armor Training 1,2,3,4, you can't take both. You have to give bravery to get either one, and you can't trade it twice. With PersonMan's rules, you can trade Weapon Training 1,2,3,4 for A's ability that replaces those features as well as Armor Training 1,2,3,4 for B's abilities that replace those features, while even keeping Bravery if you want.

BRC

2011-09-27, 01:12 PM

Simply ignoring 14 levels (and everything that goes with them) does not fix anything. The problems still exist. Its like saying that the stairs in my house are broken, so simply not going upstairs will fix the problem.

I would say that e6 provides a different experience, just like defending a village from goblins at 2nd level is a different experience than defending the universe from the minions of the all-devouring voidking at level 20.
Saying "Playing E6 fixes the problem" is like fixing a broken car by buying a bike. The problem is still there, you're just avoiding it.

Which is a solution, I guess, but if your goal is "have a working car", then the bike dosn't help.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-27, 01:13 PM

That seems the general rule (mixing/matching as long as don't trade more than once same one) not a houserule.
Maybe you can give a example how yours will differ.
Like you can be a Rogue (Ninja) Scout.
Do you mean more like 3.5 ACF's?

You can take multiple archetypes. But what he's saying is that if you want to trade for an ability like Phalanx Fighter's ability to use spears and polearms one-handed, but don't want all the Phalanx Fighter abilties, you can.

Curious

2011-09-27, 01:27 PM

You can take multiple archetypes. But what he's saying is that if you want to trade for an ability like Phalanx Fighter's ability to use spears and polearms one-handed, but don't want all the Phalanx Fighter abilties, you can.

Which is for the best, really, as most archetypes have one or two good abilities, but trash for the rest of them, which drags the whole thing down.

Reverent-One

2011-09-27, 01:31 PM

Which is for the best, really, as most archetypes have one or two good abilities, but trash for the rest of them, which drags the whole thing down.

That's somewhat intentional though. Several Alchemist archtypes reduce bomb damage while making no other changes to the bombs feature, I assume this is to offset other alternate class features that are (or are supposed to be) stronger than the ones they replace.

Curious

2011-09-27, 01:38 PM

BlueInc

2011-09-27, 01:44 PM

I would say that e6 provides a different experience, just like defending a village from goblins at 2nd level is a different experience than defending the universe from the minions of the all-devouring voidking at level 20.
Saying "Playing E6 fixes the problem" is like fixing a broken car by buying a bike. The problem is still there, you're just avoiding it.

Which is a solution, I guess, but if your goal is "have a working car", then the bike dosn't help.

Hm. Hadn't thought about it like that. Most of my long term players don't like fighting the all-devouring voidking if it can be avoiding by stomping out his cult hiding in the backrooms of the city.

I guess what I should have said is "E6 is arguably more balanced than standard 1-20 3.5/PF, if you're into that sort of thing."

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-09-27, 01:51 PM

I'm not Big Fau, but considering I have the same opinion as him re: developer egotism during the PF beta: yes.

I would pass up (and, indeed, have passed up) RPG systems and other media based solely on the fact that the creator is a jerk.Is it just the fact that you didn't want to give money to a jerk, or did playing the system remind you of his beef jerkiness? WotC/Hasbro is probably Jerk Central, USA, but that didn't stop any of us* from buying D&D products.

*I cast Glibness, making my exaggerations more believable!

BRC

2011-09-27, 02:04 PM

Hm. Hadn't thought about it like that. Most of my long term players don't like fighting the all-devouring voidking if it can be avoiding by stomping out his cult hiding in the backrooms of the city.

I guess what I should have said is "E6 is arguably more balanced than standard 1-20 3.5/PF, if you're into that sort of thing."
E6 may be more balanced, but it's not really comparable to anything besides low-level play in 3.5/PF, so the fact they it is more balanced is irrelevant unless you are exclusively talking about low-level play, which is before the big problems (Like Quadratic Wizards) usually kick in. As far as I know (having never played E6), it expands and improves on the low-level game, but that's all it does.

Which is great for a group that wants to stick to fighting goblins and raiding cultist hideouts, but for a group that wants to fight the All-devouring Voidking (or, at 15th level, the very hungry Voidbaron), switching to E6 isn't much better than switching to Monopoly*.

*The Racecar is overpowered.

Yuki Akuma

2011-09-27, 02:23 PM

Is it just the fact that you didn't want to give money to a jerk, or did playing the system remind you of his beef jerkiness? WotC/Hasbro is probably Jerk Central, USA, but that didn't stop any of us* from buying D&D products.

*I cast Glibness, making my exaggerations more believable!

More the latter, but also the former.

Obviously, WotC/Hasbro has jerks working for them. But they were never jerkish to their customers while taking critique on a product from experienced rules-jockeys.

(Not that they take critique from anyone. But you get the idea.)

Curious

2011-09-27, 02:28 PM

More the latter, but also the former.

Obviously, WotC/Hasbro has jerks working for them. But they were never jerkish to their customers while taking critique on a product from experienced rules-jockeys.

(Not that they take critique from anyone. But you get the idea.)

You know, I'm glad I wasn't around the Paizo forums around the time this was all happening, because I actually quite like some of their products and classes, and I prefer not having that poisoned by the ill-will floating around.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-09-27, 03:20 PM

More the latter, but also the former.

Obviously, WotC/Hasbro has jerks working for them. But they were never jerkish to their customers while taking critique on a product from experienced rules-jockeys.

(Not that they take critique from anyone. But you get the idea.)I guess it's just a different mindset. I don't really care who the designer is, so long as the product is good (and the proceeds aren't going toward some terrible cause, like expanding FATAL's spell fumble table). I can see how that process left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, but I guess I can wash that down with a good group and a good game.

BlueInc

2011-09-27, 03:31 PM

E6 may be more balanced, but it's not really comparable to anything besides low-level play in 3.5/PF, so the fact they it is more balanced is irrelevant unless you are exclusively talking about low-level play, which is before the big problems (Like Quadratic Wizards) usually kick in. As far as I know (having never played E6), it expands and improves on the low-level game, but that's all it does.

Which is great for a group that wants to stick to fighting goblins and raiding cultist hideouts, but for a group that wants to fight the All-devouring Voidking (or, at 15th level, the very hungry Voidbaron), switching to E6 isn't much better than switching to Monopoly*.

All comes down to differences in taste, I guess. I have a harder problem as a DM coming up with things that will challenge and maintain the interest of level 15 parties once they realize what they're capable of. My players and I tend to think of characters and problems that fit well in the levels 5 - 10 range.

The Racecar is overpowered.

The Racecar is like the Monk of Monopoly; it looks really overpowered until you see properly played Scotty dog break a game wide open.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-27, 03:45 PM

The Racecar is like the Monk of Monopoly; it looks really overpowered until you see properly played Scotty dog break a game wide open.

Don't get me started on the thimble. The fact that it can even move should be a sign of its mysterious and overpowered abilities!

BlueInc

2011-09-27, 03:49 PM

Don't get me started on the thimble. The fact that it can even move should be a sign of its mysterious and overpowered abilities!

I thought the Thimble was tier 3 without access to online material? :smallconfused:

Person_Man

2011-09-27, 03:50 PM

The difference is that if you take a Archetype in PF, you have to take each element of that archtype, you can't just take some of them. This, combined with the rule that you can't trade the same abilty twice, means that if fighter archtype A trades Bravery and Weapon Training 1,2,3,4 and Fighter Archetype B trades Bravery and Armor Training 1,2,3,4, you can't take both. You have to give bravery to get either one, and you can't trade it twice. With PersonMan's rules, you can trade Weapon Training 1,2,3,4 for A's ability that replaces those features as well as Armor Training 1,2,3,4 for B's abilities that replace those features, while even keeping Bravery if you want.

This.

If I had more time, I would just repost the Pathfinder classes with all of the archetype and alternate class and racial substitution levels re-ordered by level with no pre-reqs, so you could just choose from it like a menu, rather then having to follow a specific path.

Do pre-reqs really make the game more fun for anyone? Do they make the game more balanced, given how crazy the differences in Tiers are? I say no. So why even bother with them?

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-27, 04:01 PM

I thought the Thimble was tier 3 without access to online material? :smallconfused:

Not if you use the insane movement speed in combination with the protection against sewing needles.

Now the ship, that's a solid tier 3.

John Campbell

2011-09-27, 04:04 PM

Actually, I think some guy did the math a little while back, and it showed that rounds/day actually outstrips uses/day in absolute number of rounds raging/singing about half the time, while maintaining the flexibility of being able to turn your rage on and off at will. Not much of a nerf.

Yeah, I got sick of the "stealth nerf" nonsense and worked out the actual numbers. In terms of total theoretical rounds of rage, PF and 3.5 Barbarian pretty much break even over levels 1-10... sometimes PF is a round or three ahead, sometimes 3.5 is. 3.5 pulls ahead permanently somewhere in the 8-12 range, depending on how much you're buffing Con, but by that point both systems give so many rounds that exactly how many you get is rarely going to be a concern.

But the thing that makes the "stealth nerf" talk really ridiculous is that the total theoretical rounds number for 3.5 is utterly meaningless. You get rage in fixed-size blocks, like it or not, so what limits your usage is not how many total rounds you get, but how many rages you get per day. If the fight lasts less than the length of your rage (which is the normal situation), the excess rounds are just lost, and if it lasts longer than your rage (rare, but it happens), you hit the wall and are fatigued and much less effective for the rest of the fight (however long the fight might be... unlike Pathfinder's, the fatigue doesn't wear off until the encounter's over). A 3.5 Barbarian is practically never going to be able to actually use anywhere near all of his theoretical rage rounds. He's lucky if he's even really getting half of them. And on the other hand, in particularly long encounters, he may end up in need of rage rounds, and with plenty of those theoretical rounds left, but unable to actually use them, because he's limited to one rage per encounter.

Pathfinder, on the other hand, doesn't limit how many times you can use rage, or fix how long the rages have to be, so you don't waste rounds on the average-length encounters, or even when you decide to burn a single round for a Str boost to force a door or something (which is practical for a PF Barb from 1st level, and wasteful and unwise for a 3.5 Barb until very high levels, if ever), and, on the long encounters, you don't run out until you run out of rounds entirely. What you see is what you get, and that means that in terms of the actual number of rounds per day and the actual number of encounters per day that you can rage through, Pathfinder's Barbarian is ahead from beginning to end, in any reasonably normal situation, and has a lot more flexibility for dealing with abnormal ones.

But do note that I'm only talking about rage here. I have no idea what the situation is with Bards; I don't like them, I don't play them, and I've barely more than skimmed their rules for either 3.5 or Pathfinder.

Big Fau

2011-09-27, 04:12 PM

Hero system is one in which it is terribly, terribly easy to make chars wildly different in effectiveness. Also, you might need a calculator to make them.

7th Sea has LOTS of traps, a wild range of weirdly overlapping knacks, and certain sourcebooks were apparently written by drunken monkeys. Balance was something the designers didn't much try for.

D20 M was like 3.5, only with grenades and action advantage options included in core, so as not to trouble munchkins with splatbook diving. However, if they DO splatbook dive, you end up with flying mechadinosaurs wielding sun crushers piloted by a cowboy with magical six guns firing grenades. Also, buying enough TNT to cover the world is free, and can be automatically done in core at character creation.

Oh, 3.5 is more well tested and designed than a great many systems. This mostly says a lot about how horrifically many systems are made.

Exactly. 3.5 is a bit more balanced because a big-name company (Hasbro) had serious interest in keeping the game from being thrown in the dollar bin at a used book store. They were required to actually test things, even if they didn't test things as extensively as their Optimizers have.

But in all honesty, CoL's a nutjob in his own right. I don't like bringing him up because he's banned on both Gleemax and BG (and that last one is a testament to how vitriolic he can be). He's not a particularly fine example of any community unless you are focusing on negative qualities.

Is it just the fact that you didn't want to give money to a jerk, or did playing the system remind you of his beef jerkiness? WotC/Hasbro is probably Jerk Central, USA, but that didn't stop any of us* from buying D&D products.

*I cast Glibness, making my exaggerations more believable!

During the beta for Pathfinder, Paizo issued a request to their readers (don't remember exactly where) asking both beta testers and non-testers alike to help them smooth things out. They actually asked us to criticize their works and provide feedback to help improve the job.

After posting my critique, I signed on a few weeks afterwards and found my account banned. Apparently someone reported me as being an alt account for someone else. I erased my cookies and started searching for my account's posts and found three of them had been deleted by moderators, notably including my post explaining how the Candle of Invocation was still broken and needed to be fixed.

WotC may be forced to do some jerkish things because they are a company owned by a major corporation, but they've never outright banned someone for posting constructive criticism about a product (as far as I am aware anyway).

Paizo? Has. I stopped supporting them and canceled my subscription to Kobold Quarterly. DSP's Psionics system is the only thing keeping me from banning all Pathfinder-compatible content from my campaigns.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-09-27, 04:28 PM

The thing is, you don't have to buy the books. You can just go to the PRD or PFSRD and pick and choose what content you want to use, sort of how you're doing with DSP's (splendid, I agree) Psionics system. The PF Paladin chassis, for instance, might be something else to borrow. I also don't find much wrong with druid nerfs, skill amalgamation, and the proliferation of 2/3 casters which generally sit at T3.

I'm not saying you're doin' it wrong for disallowing PF in your games; I'm sure your players are just fine with the material you allow. I just don't see the connection between experiencing the brunt of idiotic Paizo moderators/fanboys and using Paizo's online content for free.

Yuki Akuma

2011-09-27, 04:33 PM

It's not about not giving money to jerks. It's about jerks being beneath your notice.

I do not give Paizo's products the dignity of using them, even if they're free. You'd have to pay me to use them. :smalltongue:

Reverent-One

2011-09-27, 04:46 PM

But in all honesty, CoL's a nutjob in his own right. I don't like bringing him up because he's banned on both Gleemax and BG (and that last one is a testament to how vitriolic he can be). He's not a particularly fine example of any community unless you are focusing on negative qualities.

Then I'm confused, why bring him up?

Big Fau

2011-09-27, 04:52 PM

Then I'm confused, why bring him up?

I remember watching some of that, if you're talking about the Trollman debacle. It wouldn't hurt to elaborate and explain that everyone involved acted like utter fools in that one, not just Paizo.

That's why. I wanted to provide an example of the extremes. CoL was the first to spring to mind.

Gnaeus

2011-09-27, 04:54 PM

It's the idea of the dollar vote, I imagine. Why contribute anything financially to someone who has proven themselves to be a *****?.

Among other things, I don't feel like I have much alternative.

When I lived in texas, I knew some SG games staff. None of them had anything nice to say about Mr. Jackson.

When playing in the Camarilla, I had the honor of watching professional white wolf staff get so drunk at their fan convention that they were passing out in the hotel flower-beds. I have it on good authority that they later rallied enough to wander the party floor abusing convention goers until they were corralled by one of the convention staff into her room, at which point the WW employees reportedly went into her bathroom and did drugs (against her wishes).

I certainly don't feel that TSR/WOTC/Hasbro ever treated me as a customer very well, from when I was a little kid foolishly buying junk like the wilderness survival guide all the way up to their willingness to drop the 3.5 fanbase in favor of 4.0, which I can't stand.

Yeah, I have nothing particularly nice to say about Paizo developers, but if I had to like people to support their games I couldn't play any of my favorite games (or, extending the logic, read most of my favorite authors).

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-27, 05:08 PM

Among other things, I don't feel like I have much alternative.

When I lived in texas, I knew some SG games staff. None of them had anything nice to say about Mr. Jackson.

When playing in the Camarilla, I had the honor of watching professional white wolf staff get so drunk at their fan convention that they were passing out in the hotel flower-beds. I have it on good authority that they later rallied enough to wander the party floor abusing convention goers until they were corralled by one of the convention staff into her room, at which point the WW employees reportedly went into her bathroom and did drugs (against her wishes).

I certainly don't feel that TSR/WOTC/Hasbro ever treated me as a customer very well, from when I was a little kid foolishly buying junk like the wilderness survival guide all the way up to their willingness to drop the 3.5 fanbase in favor of 4.0, which I can't stand.

Yeah, I have nothing particularly nice to say about Paizo developers, but if I had to like people to support their games I couldn't play any of my favorite games (or, extending the logic, read most of my favorite authors).

You don't have to pay Paizo a cent, it's free (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/).

Big Fau

2011-09-27, 05:15 PM

You don't have to pay Paizo a cent, it's free (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/).

And it still sucks, because they didn't want to listen to the wisdom of experience.

Curious

2011-09-27, 05:23 PM

And it still sucks, because they didn't want to listen to the wisdom of experience.

Whether they listened to their audience or not, I still like quite a lot of Pathfinder material, so I'll continue to use it. I honestly don't see much of a quality difference between their work and WoTCs.

Blisstake

2011-09-27, 05:27 PM

And it still sucks, because they didn't want to listen to the wisdom of experience.

Which of course assumes that everyone who has experience with the system universally has the same opinions that Paizo continued to ignore.

Meph

2011-09-27, 05:31 PM

In my opinion, Pathfinder definitely.

Then, I'm sorry for my laziness but I'm not going to read 5 pages of posts before. Mine is just a post in plus. (from an ex Dungeon Master of years of experience)

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-09-27, 05:38 PM

And it still sucks, because they didn't want to listen to the wisdom of experience.This is going in a circle. Even if you don't listen to the wisdom of experience you can make some good material accidentally. A billion monkeys on typewriters and all of that. I can see Yuki's point - having a personal distaste for the design team could mean the system has a bad feeling attached to it regardless of content - but the only thing you need to determine the quality of a ruleset is the ruleset itself. Other information is redundant and, in the case of said trollman debacle, incomplete.

Blisstake

2011-09-27, 05:48 PM

Oh, yes, abusing people for pointing out the flaws with one's "fix" is ok because of the majority who don't care what they're playing or feel sufficiently deprived of choice that they have to go with whatever's put before them by whoever.

Simply having a number of other people who don't care or simply avoid using the problem areas does not make one right or make those areas non-problematic.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I have next to no idea what happened in the Paizo forums when Pathfinder beta came out. In fact, I don't care in the slightest. What I'm saying is just because someone has significant experience with the 3.5 system, doesn't mean they will all come to the same conclusion about what issues the 3.5 system has, and how best to fix those.

When dealing with suggested changes for the system, I always like to consider what I think is the Golden Rule. "There is no right way to play Dungeons and Dragons." What is an issue for one gaming group, may be inconsequential for another, and while a proposed fix may really help with the first group, it could negatively affect the other. Often times only one perspective is considered when suggesting changes, and I don't believe it's fair to say something along the lines of, "Pathfinder is worthless because they never bothered to change/keep X, Y, and Z" unless one of those issues makes the game essentially unplayable, or worse for any gamer.

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that people on both sides of the issue are being single-minded. What works for one gaming group, may not work for another, and when arguing why a system is bad one should argue "X is why this system doesn't work for me, and Y is something that should be considered if your playstyle is Z..." And any arguments about why Paizo is horrible/great should really just be disregarded: we're arguing about a system here, not the company.

There isn't a single solution to 3.5 system. There isn't a right way to play Dungeons & Dragons.

Big Fau

2011-09-27, 05:51 PM

This is going in a circle. Even if you don't listen to the wisdom of experience you can make some good material accidentally. A billion monkeys on typewriters and all of that. I can see Yuki's point - having a personal distaste for the design team could mean the system has a bad feeling attached to it regardless of content - but the only thing you need to determine the quality of a ruleset is the ruleset itself. Other information is redundant and, in the case of said trollman debacle, incomplete.

A ranged weapon that requires a Standard action to reload costs the same as a +1 Longbow.

It takes 4 feats to have the ability to actually dodge one attack/round, and doing so requires you to use an action that imposes a penalty.

It takes 2 feats to trip an enemy in such a way that you can still attack them.

The Druid is still 2 classes in one.

Wizards and Sorcerers got stronger.

I stand by my words: Paizo can't create balanced mechanics for a system. They should just stick with the adventure modules. Their Shakespearian Monkey moments are not worth my time and energy, and their attitude towards criticism is unacceptable.

Paul H

2011-09-27, 05:59 PM

Hi

Surprised this thread has been allowed to continue.

OP asked an honest question, but many of the answers hardly seem to be objective.* Just an excuse for people to rant about their personal problems and dislike of PF as a whole. :smallfurious:

The world isn't perfect. The people with seeming personal problems & like to Rant aren't perfect. I'm not perfect. Let's try to do better and answer the original question. Not hijack the thread. If you have a personal preference (like me), why not just say so and leave it at that?

It all comes down to style. It's OK to disagree, but please anser the D*****d question!

Thanks
(Furious)
Paul H
* When did OP asked about alleged problems with WW or Paizo staff?
PS I totally agree with Blisstake's answer #137

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-09-27, 06:02 PM

I'm tempted to argue mechanics with you, but since I agree in principle that PF didn't fix what it should have, I'll stick to my original point. I'm not talking about adopting PF as a system; since it's mostly backwards compatible, I'm talking about picking and choosing. At the very worst, PF is like some homebrew option a player wants to bring into your game. You're saying it's not worth the effort to check and see if it's okay to allow, but it's actually a lot less effort to judge a PF class than an actual homebrew class. Just go to one of the million PF tier threads on this forum, look for posters you trust and respect, and use their opinions/consensus as a strong starting point. As far as feats, well, most of them are crap, so no one wants to bring them in anyway.

All I'm saying is that, as a lover of 3.5, the only way I'm getting new content is through third party publishers. Sure, most of it is crap (see Sturgeon), but the internet gets me to the gold pretty quickly.

Wings of Peace

2011-09-27, 06:06 PM

Coming back to this thread and reading it over I would like to add this to my previous idea (summarized: I don't play PF because it doesn't do anything for me that 3.5 doesn't do).

While I'm not a big fan of Pathfinder by itself but I am a fan of 3.P. For me more options and book delving is more fun because it means that as long as I do my research I can build anything I want without much hand waving by the DM (something largely based around my personal play style I realize). Yes a lot of the PF changes to things like Power Attack bother me but I expected things like that when a new company got into the mix.

Basically what I'm saying is, I support the use of PF as a content expander to 3.5 (hell, the Witch is currently one of my favorite classes of any d20 rpg) but not as a separate game.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-09-27, 06:30 PM

Which of course assumes that everyone who has experience with the system universally has the same opinions that Paizo continued to ignore....
Please don't put words in my mouth.
Then don't make a post that says "Your perspective doesn't matter because we don't care and we out number you."Ah, the irony.

Wings of Peace

2011-09-27, 06:32 PM

...Ah, the irony.

We're getting off track guys.

Note: This isn't directed specifically at Sober. He was just the easiest to click and at the bottom of the list. And yes, I see the irony in this post.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-09-27, 06:43 PM

Because I totally claimed implicit majority status and used it to say that everything that was said was invalid.He was referring to his own post; his irony is that by the time he was referencing my post being at the bottom, it wasn't. I guess your case is more of a Catch-22; you'll stop putting words in his mouth only after you've stopped putting words in his mouth.

subject42

2011-09-27, 06:48 PM

A ranged weapon that requires a Standard action to reload costs the same as a +1 Longbow.

Are you talking about firearms here? If so, I'm starting to think that no one in the games industry can make sane firearms rules for fantasy settings. Iron kingdoms was probably the closest, but I still haven't seen any that I like.

Coidzor

2011-09-27, 06:50 PM

I guess your case is more of a Catch-22; you'll stop putting words in his mouth only after you've stopped putting words in his mouth.
You know what? Nevermind, you win.

Lord.Sorasen

2011-09-27, 06:56 PM

That's somewhat intentional though. Several Alchemist archtypes reduce bomb damage while making no other changes to the bombs feature, I assume this is to offset other alternate class features that are (or are supposed to be) stronger than the ones they replace.

Yes, I realize this. However, I honestly can't say I care when faced with a Fighter archetype that gives something nice, like parry, but then says, 'lol, no, you get bonuses to trip when using only one weapon in one hand instead of weapon training.' Lots of them are just terrible.

And really, sometimes you have a very specific character in mind, and find that an archetype simultaneously gives you one thing that would help the vision and 2 things that would take away from it. My particular situation was that I wanted to make a mongol type paladin sort, and found that divine hunter would really help me with my feats... While simultaneously denying me access to a special mount (mind you, it was the same class feature just without the options).

Paladin also has... I don't know what the archetype is, but basically you lose the paladin's divine grace but now you can speak French.

Starbuck_II

2011-09-27, 06:58 PM

A ranged weapon that requires a Standard action to reload costs the same as a +1 Longbow.

Dude, if you mean one handed firearms: Rapid reload and Alchemy cartiridges - free action reload. This isn't rocket science.

For 2 handed you need Musket master (treat it as a one handed firearm) + Rapid reload and Alchemy cartiridges - free action reload.

I am playing a gunslinger: you can totally attack every attack and reload a free action. But you have to speced for it.
So yeah, non-gunslingers won't be as good. Add in that they made them exotic (when using a gun is anything but) and super expensive.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-09-27, 06:59 PM

Paladin also has... I don't know what the archetype is, but basically you lose the paladin's divine grace but now you can speak French.You also get Summon Monster I through IX, which is arguably quite a bit more powerful than the features you give up for it. It's another one of those balancing points.

Lord.Sorasen

2011-09-27, 07:03 PM

You also get Summon Monster I through IX, which is arguably quite a bit more powerful than the features you give up for it. It's another one of those balancing points.

Oh absolutely. But it's a balancing point that presents itself as an exchange. Plus you can ride a celestial flying camel.

On a related note, am I the only one upset that PF restricts the paladin mount to a mount, while giving it druid bonuses? I saw that it was a druid companion and thought for a split second that my dreams of falconer noble paladin were finally realized... Though I guess it's an ultra simple homebrew fix, so I'm just being dumb.

Big Fau

2011-09-27, 07:43 PM

Are you talking about firearms here? If so, I'm starting to think that no one in the games industry can make sane firearms rules for fantasy settings. Iron kingdoms was probably the closest, but I still haven't seen any that I like.

Yeah, pretty much. It's possible to make guns that are balanced against bows and crossbows, but the problem is people keep trying to bring realism into the equation.

I'll be honest; if I wanted realistic guns, I'd be playing a d20 CoD or something similar.

Dude, if you mean one handed firearms: Rapid reload and Alchemy cartiridges - free action reload. This isn't rocket science.

For 2 handed you need Musket master (treat it as a one handed firearm) + Rapid reload and Alchemy cartiridges - free action reload.

I am playing a gunslinger: you can totally attack every attack and reload a free action. But you have to speced for it.
So yeah, non-gunslingers won't be as good. Add in that they made them exotic (when using a gun is anything but) and super expensive.

I like to call that Taxing an option. And no one likes paying taxes, especially when they are that freaking steep. Taxes are a bad way to balance things out.

And isn't it impossible to buy a gun at 1st level?

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-09-27, 07:51 PM

Oh absolutely. But it's a balancing point that presents itself as an exchange. Plus you can ride a celestial flying camel.Well, the point is that the archetypes are the points of exchange, not each feature. When you do that, things get wonky; you only get a smooth, equally balanced lot of T3 characters if all the players are optimizers, in which case why are you playing PF? If not all the players are optimizers, you're going to get the one guy who kept Divine Grace and then traded LoH and CPE for the Summon Monster line... and then the other guy who only traded Divine Grace to speak Celestial/French.
On a related note, am I the only one upset that PF restricts the paladin mount to a mount, while giving it druid bonuses? I saw that it was a druid companion and thought for a split second that my dreams of falconer noble paladin were finally realized... Though I guess it's an ultra simple homebrew fix, so I'm just being dumb.It definitely has an impact, since not all DMs are going to accept even that simple level of houseruling.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-09-27, 07:53 PM

And isn't it impossible to buy a gun at 1st level?

Gunslinger.

Big Fau

2011-09-27, 08:03 PM

Gunslinger.

Oh, so they have the new Daisho Proficiency. Gotcha.

Frosty

2011-09-27, 08:11 PM

Yeah, pretty much. It's possible to make guns that are balanced against bows and crossbows, but the problem is people keep trying to bring realism into the equation.

I'll be honest; if I wanted realistic guns, I'd be playing a d20 CoD or something similar.

I like to call that Taxing an option. And no one likes paying taxes, especially when they are that freaking steep. Taxes are a bad way to balance things out.

And isn't it impossible to buy a gun at 1st level?
Pretty much, unless you're a Gunslinger (you get a gun for free, kinda like how a Wizard gets a spellbook for free).

I'll be honest here. I think 3.5 has problems. I think PF has a LOT of the same problems, so the imbalance issues are still mostly there. There are various plusses and minuses to other things, but overall I feel the minor plusses win out over the minor minuses. Heck, I actually somewhat enjoy playing a melee character right now in PF, while in 3.5 I could only enjoy that while playing a Tome of Battle character. All in all, since PF is no worse than 3.5 in terms of balance issues, and PF also brings along some minor improvements in my view (I like the archetypes a LOT), I'm willing and happy to use PF.

TurtleKing

2011-09-27, 08:40 PM

I agree with Frosty. I am not suprised that only minor changes were made resulting in minor pros and cons. The reason is it was made to be compatible with 3.5. The part I like is I now want to play martial characters while in 3.5 it had to be a caster of some sort. So personally I like 3.P. PF has been better to ranged in terms of feats than 3.5. Also allows more options other than machine gunning as is the standard among ranged.

Frosty

2011-09-27, 09:04 PM

TurtleKing

2011-09-27, 10:20 PM

From what I have seen 3.5's Manyshot fires alot of arrows with increasing questionable accuracy. The pro though is being able to move before or after. This means able to get off the same amount of attacks or even more as someone full attacking. PF's Manyshot instead attacks with better accuracy overall which can do more damage.

My personal ranged style is the loong range heavy hitting attacks. Basically sniping as it is in the real world. So in this regard liking the Vital Strike line of feats. That way accuracy doesn't take a hit along with easily being able to deal significant amounts of damage regardless of damage reduction.

Frosty

2011-09-27, 10:52 PM

Getting bonuses to hit is usually easy. Finding a way to shoot your 4 arrow as a standard action is harder.

TOZ

2011-09-27, 11:06 PM

Paizo? Has. I stopped supporting them and canceled my subscription to Kobold Quarterly.

Why exactly is that? Kobold Quarterly is a separate entity from Paizo. Was the Pathfinder compatible content all you were buying it for?

Psyren

2011-09-27, 11:53 PM

Can't help but chuckle at the flurry of scrubbed posts. Tsk tsk. :smallamused:

What I like about PF:
- More feats
- Skill consolidation
- More body slots
- Incentive to stay in the base class (PrCs are already their own incentive, imo.)
- No "I pull out my light crossbow" moments for low level casters
- Harder for casters to fill every role at once
- No d4 classes
- Simpler special attack rules
- Backwards compatible with a modicum of work
- Kept 3.5 alive after WotC practically disavowed its entire existence
- Freely available to all

What I dislike about PF:
- Didn't do enough to narrow the gap between casters and melee. (Nerfing defensive casting was not enough.)
- Broke up melee feats (like the Trip stuff) but didn't do the same for caster feats (like metamagic.)

The pros far outweight the cons as far as I'm concerned.

TOZ

2011-09-28, 12:50 AM

What I dislike about PF:
- Didn't do enough to narrow the gap between casters and melee. (Nerfing defensive casting was not enough.)
- Broke up melee feats (like the Trip stuff) but didn't do the same for caster feats (like metamagic.)

We've done some work on that, if you want to take a look. (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/houseRules/kirthfinderWorldOfWarriorcraftHouserules)

Tyndmyr

2011-09-28, 08:42 AM

Can't help but chuckle at the flurry of scrubbed posts. Tsk tsk. :smallamused:

What I like about PF:
- More feats

Good, except where they compensated by breaking feat trees further apart.

- Skill consolidation

Mostly good. Most frequent point of work for 3.5 conversions, which annoys me, but the PF skill system is overall superior.

- More body slots

I'm neutral on this. 3.5 already had a lot of slots, and the christmas tree effect was quite achievable.

- Incentive to stay in the base class (PrCs are already their own incentive, imo.)

Yes. Sometimes I feel they took the base class buffing too far, but at least dead levels are much less of a thing.

- No "I pull out my light crossbow" moments for low level casters

A light crossbow is still better than a cantrip plenty.

- Harder for casters to fill every role at once

Not really. The vast majority of spells are quite literally unchanged.

- No d4 classes

I consider this a negative. Low hp was one of the few real weaknesses of casters. Yes, you could invest in other defenses to mitigate this...but that's investment. Giving more freedom to the power classes is not a plus.

- Simpler special attack rules

That are often troubling and illogical. For instance, a balor cannot grapple another balor.

I'm unhappy with these.

[quote]- Backwards compatible with a modicum of work
- Kept 3.5 alive after WotC practically disavowed its entire existence
- Freely available to all

All good things.

What I dislike about PF:
- Didn't do enough to narrow the gap between casters and melee. (Nerfing defensive casting was not enough.)
- Broke up melee feats (like the Trip stuff) but didn't do the same for caster feats (like metamagic.)

They focused a lot on balance between different types of melee builds. They did not really fix the gap between casters and melee at all. In fact, I'd argue that it's slightly widened.

The major weaknesses of many caster classes were just removed outright.

subject42

2011-09-28, 09:36 AM

- Simpler special attack rules

I really do wish they would errata their wording on Spring Attack, though. The fact that it doesn't work with Vital Strike makes me sad.

Gnaeus

2011-09-28, 09:48 AM

A light crossbow is still better than a cantrip plenty.

But most casters get a combat related special ability that they can use before they fall back on cantrips.

Not really. The vast majority of spells are quite literally unchanged.

True, but it is much harder for wizards or druids to duplicate a fighter due to wildshape/polymorph nerfs. (on the other hand, it is much harder for a fighter to contribute because of those exact same polymorph nerfs.)

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 09:57 AM

I'd just like to point out a few things.

The Saga system changed skills around years before PF did. As did many people's own house rules, that they did not have to pay for.

PF Wizards now have the same, or in many cases more HP than PF Fighters. Oops?

"Don't use special attacks." is a simple rule. It's still not a good rule.

Nerfing caster's ability to do HP damage actually makes them stronger, and not weaker. If you can determine why on your own, you get a cookie.

Reverent-One

2011-09-28, 10:01 AM

Good, except where they compensated by breaking feat trees further apart.

The handful of feat trees aren't going to affect all characters, or even most I'd wager. And even those that do take a feat tree that has an extra feat now are likely to still have more feats.

A light crossbow is still better than a cantrip plenty.

Spellcasters of any class also have several options for (Sp) attacks and abilties you can use 3 + Casting stat times per day. This is likely what Psyren was referring to.

That are often troubling and illogical. For instance, a balor cannot grapple another balor.

Huh, that is interesting. Still, that's not something that's likely to matter in a game.

The Saga system changed skills around years before PF did. As did many people's own house rules, that they did not have to pay for.

And pathfinder's skill system is different than Saga's.

PF Wizards now have the same, or in many cases more HP than PF Fighters. Oops?

D6 is still less than a D10.

"Don't use special attacks." is a simple rule. It's still not a good rule.

Good thing that's not the rule then.

Curious

2011-09-28, 10:32 AM

The Saga system changed skills around years before PF did.

Yes, because other systems making changes to their skills systems (which aren't even the same changes) makes any changes to any other system irrelevant, right? :smallsigh:

PF Wizards now have the same, or in many cases more HP than PF Fighters. Oops?

Uh. No. I have literally no idea where you are getting this idea. d6 HD + 14 Con does not equal d10 + 16 Con plus favored class bonus.

"Don't use special attacks." is a simple rule. It's still not a good rule.

Good thing that's not in the rules then, isn't it.

Nerfing caster's ability to do HP damage actually makes them stronger, and not weaker. If you can determine why on your own, you get a cookie.

Because they'll all use Color Spray then, right? Contrary to popular (read: your) opinion, some people don't always use SoSs all the time, and even those that do aren't always successful. It's a matter of play style.

Psyren

2011-09-28, 10:41 AM

Good, except where they compensated by breaking feat trees further apart.

Yeah, I addressed this.

A light crossbow is still better than a cantrip plenty.

I disagree. I'm a wizard, not an archer, and at low levels my stats often make a crossbow hard to carry, never mind use. This goes double for Psions, who are often MAD in low point-buy due to needing (or at least strongly desiring) 13 Wis.

Also, I wasn't just referring to the cantrips as was pointed out above.

Not really. The vast majority of spells are quite literally unchanged.

The biggest offender in the "I can do everything you can do AND everything I can do" was the polymorph line, which was significantly altered. Casters can still do everything, but it's much harder to do everything at once, which I'm okay with.

I consider this a negative. Low hp was one of the few real weaknesses of casters. Yes, you could invest in other defenses to mitigate this...but that's investment. Giving more freedom to the power classes is not a plus.

They focused a lot on balance between different types of melee builds. They did not really fix the gap between casters and melee at all. In fact, I'd argue that it's slightly widened.

I disagree. Once a melee gets into melee, the caster needs significant resources to continue being effective. In 3.5, casting in melee was a joke.

The major weaknesses of many caster classes were just removed outright.

Not sure what you mean here. In 3.5, the d4 stops being relevant around level 3 (False Life, Alter Self, Mirror Image) and only gets worse from that point on. Concentration being a skill check might as well make it auto-success to anyone with a passing interest in optimizing it. Pathfinder made all of these defenses and more (Grease, Glitterdust etc.) weaker. So what weaknesses did it remove?

Frosty

2011-09-28, 11:07 AM

The Step-Up line of featsmakes 5-ft stepping not always a good tactic to get a spell off safely now, and it's not hard to use Stand Still against a caster's CMD, so yah, lockdown against unoptimizes casters (read, most caster the DM should throw at you), works decently. Mirror Image is still too good though.

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 11:14 AM

And pathfinder's skill system is different than Saga's.

Not really.

D6 is still less than a D10.

And it still yields higher results.

Good thing that's not the rule then.

It'd be better if it were. At least then they'd be honest. Instead you'd have to look at it to determine that the outcome of your character attempting a maneuver is that that maneuver does nothing, and the outcome of an enemy attempting it against you is that it automatically succeeds.

Uh. No. I have literally no idea where you are getting this idea. d6 HD + 14 Con does not equal d10 + 16 Con plus favored class bonus.

That would be because you are using the wrong numbers. Here are the correct numbers:

Difference between D6 and D10 = 2 HP/level.

The Wizard has 16 Con and the Fighter 14, as the former is SAD and can afford it, and the latter is MAD and can't go over the baseline (14). +1 HP/level.

The Wizard can craft. He also needs fewer items, on top of paying half price for them. At almost any point in time, he has a better Con item. +1 HP/level.

Favored class bonuses favor those who can stay in a single class 1-20. The only reason Wizards ever PRCed was to get class features on top of their full casting. Now they do that anyways. Fighters meanwhile have to multi/PRC like crazy just to keep up. +1 HP/level again.

3 is greater than 2. Wizard has more HP than Fighter.

Good thing that's not in the rules then, isn't it.

This is already addressed.

Because they'll all use Color Spray then, right? Contrary to popular (read: your) opinion, some people don't always use SoSs all the time, and even those that do aren't always successful. It's a matter of play style.

Your sarcastic dismissals aside, when you leave nothing left except the best option even the people that would have been content to goof around swinging their mace around or shapeshifting into animals will instead go for that best option. That means that casters are now stronger because they are utilizing their full potential, whereas before they'd have been fine settling with "good enough". All those people that don't use SoSs all the time? PF gave them a two finger salute and told them to get with the program. Which means that by your own words and admissions, PF is bad.

I am also curious to know at what point a 5 foot step became a significant cost. Because it isn't. 3.5 character would use a spiked chain so that he's not stopped by a simple free action, but that was nerfed into oblivion in PF so he can happily 5 foot step away and cast without incident. And no, Step Up is not a solution at all.

Tyndmyr

2011-09-28, 11:14 AM

Uh. No. I have literally no idea where you are getting this idea. d6 HD + 14 Con does not equal d10 + 16 Con plus favored class bonus.

To be pedantic, wizards get favored class bonuses as well.

Good thing that's not in the rules then, isn't it.

His point is simple. Simple rules /= good rules.

Because they'll all use Color Spray then, right? Contrary to popular (read: your) opinion, some people don't always use SoSs all the time, and even those that do aren't always successful. It's a matter of play style.

They should, in PF. Hp inflation means that blasting is less effective.

I disagree. I'm a wizard, not an archer, and my stats often make a crossbow hard to carry, never mind use. This goes double for Psions, who are often MAD in low point-buy due to needing (or at least strongly desiring) 13 Wis.

How so? PF point buy starts at 10s instead of 8s. No core race gives you worse than a -2. So...you're likely better off for carrying capacity than you were in 3.5. An 8 gives you 26 lbs as a light load. That is not terribly restrictive for a caster.

Also, I wasn't just referring to the cantrips as was pointed out above.

Wizards who get special attack options at level 1:
Generalist: No.
Abjurer: No.
Conjurer: Yes. It deals 1d6 +1/2 wiz levels. A light crossbow does d8. Also it has limited uses/day. Thus, there are still plenty of times when a crossbow is logical to use.
Diviner: No.
Enchanter: Sort of. A daze, on a melee touch attack with limited uses. This does not displace the crossbow either.
Evoker: 1d4 + 1/2 wiz levels. Also limited/day. Sure, it's reliable, but this also doesn't displace the crossbow.
Illusionist: Debuff for a round, as ranged touch. Considering anything with more hd than you is going to get dazzled at worst, this is also not displacing the level 1 crossbow. Oh, it's also limited/day.
Necro: Again, limited/day. And a 1 round debuff of limited use. Also, it's a melee touch attack.
Trans: Woohoo. Limited as they all are. 1d4+1/2 wizard levels, and you need to make a ranged touch anyhow. Also, it's bludgeoning damage, so it can be DRed. Just go for the d8 at level 1 in most situations.
Universalist: Involves a melee weapon. Damage still relies on strength. Not likely to be...useful.

If your strength is so limited that carrying a crossbow is a hardship, melee touch attacks are a poor idea. Relying on carrying a melee weapon instead, and your strength for damage is even worse.

Not a single school displaces the crossbow entirely, and many don't even really try. You want I should demonstrate with sorc as well?

The biggest offender in the "I can do everything you can do AND everything I can do" was the polymorph line, which was significantly altered. Casters can still do everything, but it's much harder to do everything at once, which I'm okay with.

It's divided into more spells now. This is not a real problem.

I disagree. Once a melee gets into melee, the caster needs significant resources to continue being effective. In 3.5, casting in melee was a joke.

It is still trivial to avoid being in melee.

Not sure what you mean here. In 3.5, the d4 stops being relevant around level 3 (False Life, Alter Self, Mirror Image) and only gets worse from that point on. Concentration being a skill check might as well make it auto-success to anyone with a passing interest in optimizing it. Pathfinder made all of these defenses and more (Grease, Glitterdust etc.) weaker. So what weaknesses did it remove?

Yes...like I said, you can protect the d4 with spells. Not having to invest in that IS a power boost.

False Life is unchanged.

Mirror Image was added to more spell lists, and the figments now use your AC -5 instead of 10+size+dex. This is a buff, not a nerf.

Alter Self was changed. It had pretty much the limitations removed. Want to use it to gain darkvision? In 3.5, you couldn't, in PF, you can! Size bonuses are in play. It requires less encyclopedic knowledge to use effectively, which means a nerf on the high op end of things(assuming your char also knows all these things), but it's likely better for most players. As a human, it lets you polymorph into a human and gain strength. Because of your size. What?

Also, grease is now in minutes/level instead of rounds. So...more of an adjustment than a nerf.

What is the biggest weaknesses of the 3.5 wizard? They lack spontenaity. Also, lack of hp. These are not great weaknesses, true, but PF removed both(look, item familars that grant you spont in core!) without additional investment.

What is the greatest weakness of the 3.5 sorc? Lack of spells known, lack of bonus feats and the fact that metamagics suck for them without an ACF. The first one is mitigated by bloodlines/human favored class, the second is flat out gone, and the third, while still existing, is removed for quicken. And frankly, quicken is the most critical of the lot.

RelentlessImp

2011-09-28, 11:17 AM

I disagree. Once a melee gets into melee, the caster needs significant resources to continue being effective. In 3.5, casting in melee was a joke.

Shoving it to Beatsticks (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=331.0)
Proofing Against Iterative Probability (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10935.0)

Please read these. Educate yourself. And then realize ALL of this still applies in Pathfinder. Shoving it to beatsticks is EASIER, and proofing against iterative probability is HARDER, due to various buffs to casters and nerfs to melee and various magic items.

What is the greatest weakness of the 3.5 sorc? Lack of spells known, lack of bonus feats and the fact that metamagics suck for them without an ACF. The first one is mitigated by bloodlines/human favored class, the second is flat out gone, and the third, while still existing, is removed for quicken. And frankly, quicken is the most critical of the lot.

Not that I disagree with you, but there's a feat in Complete Mage (Rapid Metamagic) and a spell in Races of the Dragon (or Draconomicon?) called Arcane Spellsurge. Both of these remove the metamagic weaknesses.

But continue, I agree with the rest.

EDITED: Link fixed for iterative probability proofing.

Frosty

2011-09-28, 11:21 AM

And no, Step Up is not a solution at all.Please provide example of play and proof.

Big Fau

2011-09-28, 11:30 AM

Tyndmyr

2011-09-28, 11:32 AM

Not that I disagree with you, but there's a feat in Complete Mage (Rapid Metamagic) and a spell in Races of the Dragon (or Draconomicon?) called Arcane Spellsurge. Both of these remove the metamagic weaknesses.

But continue, I agree with the rest.

Right. There are ways to invest to negate all of these weaknesses...but it at least requires investment to do so. And early on, it's really hard to negate all the weaknesses. This doesn't really translate to PF, where casters never really even have that initial weakness, and still ascend to god-like power over the melee chumps.

RelentlessImp

2011-09-28, 11:34 AM

That second one? CoL's work. And it's been removed.

Wait, what? Damnit! That's what I get for linking without looking.:smalleek:

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 11:38 AM

Grease actually was nerfed. But in a way that matters to Rogues and not Wizards.

Psyren

2011-09-28, 11:41 AM

Shoving it to Beatsticks (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=331.0)
Proofing Against Iterative Probability (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11073.0)

Please read these. Educate yourself.

Exactly, casting in melee in 3.5 was a joke. Thank you for proving my point.

How so? PF point buy starts at 10s instead of 8s. No core race gives you worse than a -2. So...you're likely better off for carrying capacity than you were in 3.5. An 8 gives you 26 lbs as a light load. That is not terribly restrictive for a caster.

And the dex I'll need to actually hit with it? It's not a RTA after all.
I'll stick with magic, thanks.

Not a single school displaces the crossbow entirely, and many don't even really try. You want I should demonstrate with sorc as well?

That list of yours is in addition to unlimited cantrips, not in place of them.
The fact still remains that I have more things to do in PF when the slots run out than play archer.

It's divided into more spells now. This is not a real problem.

None of which give you the power that 3.5 Polymorph has. The "shape" line simply give you a new look, stat buffs, movement modes, and later on new attack forms. Meanwhile Polymorph replaced your race entirely with just one spell.

It is still trivial to avoid being in melee.

Once you're there though, it's harder to get out.

Yes...like I said, you can protect the d4 with spells. Not having to invest in that IS a power boost.

Please, a +1hp average increase is not going to turn you into Conan. You still have to use the protections you did before, you're just less prone to being mauled by your housecat.

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 11:41 AM

Please provide example of play and proof.

So you can ignore it? Nah, this one I'll leave as an exercise to the reader. I'm not completely heartless though, so here's a hint: It's in the 5 foot step and readied action sections.

RelentlessImp

2011-09-28, 11:46 AM

{Scrubbed}

Reverent-One

2011-09-28, 11:48 AM

Not really.

Hmm, one skill systems using a systems of ranks that results in a character gradually getting better in various skills as they level with the option to invest heavily or just dabble, and the other gives a binary bonus whether the skill is trained or not, with the choice in trained skills made nearly entirely at level 1. If they're not really different, 3.5 and 4e skill systems aren't really different other than the number of skills in the list.

It'd be better if it were. At least then they'd be honest. Instead you'd have to look at it to determine that the outcome of your character attempting a maneuver is that that maneuver does nothing, and the outcome of an enemy attempting it against you is that it automatically succeeds.

Not really. Combat manuevers are quite possible to use against the enemy, and how successful the enemy is varies wildly depending on what the enemy is.

That would be because you are using the wrong numbers. Here are the correct numbers:

Difference between D6 and D10 = 2 HP/level.

The Wizard has 16 Con and the Fighter 14, as the former is SAD and can afford it, and the latter is MAD and can't go over the baseline (14). +1 HP/level.

The Wizard can craft. He also needs fewer items, on top of paying half price for them. At almost any point in time, he has a better Con item. +1 HP/level.

Favored class bonuses favor those who can stay in a single class 1-20. The only reason Wizards ever PRCed was to get class features on top of their full casting. Now they do that anyways. Fighters meanwhile have to multi/PRC like crazy just to keep up. +1 HP/level again.

3 is greater than 2. Wizard has more HP than Fighter.

Most of which comes from tricks the wizard does rather than the hit dice and rely on some big assumptions on your part. For example, fighters multiclass less in PF than 3.5 as they now have actual class features and thus, reasons to stay fighter.

I am also curious to know at what point a 5 foot step became a significant cost. Because it isn't. 3.5 character would use a spiked chain so that he's not stopped by a simple free action, but that was nerfed into oblivion in PF so he can happily 5 foot step away and cast without incident. And no, Step Up is not a solution at all.

And the reason it isn't is....?

His point is simple. Simple rules /= good rules.

As his post above yours shows, no, that's not it, he's simply of the belief that combat manuevers are not worth doing.

They should, in PF. Hp inflation means that blasting is less effective.

They should in 3.5 as well, since blasting is about the least effective way to play a wizard there too. And is there's a systematic increase in monster hp as well as the increase several of the classes hit dice got?

If your strength is so limited that carrying a crossbow is a hardship, melee touch attacks are a poor idea. Relying on carrying a melee weapon instead, and your strength for damage is even worse.

Not a single school displaces the crossbow entirely, and many don't even really try. You want I should demonstrate with sorc as well?

You're neglecting to consider that those attacks are touch attacks and thus more accurate than a crossbow, and while they are limited in uses per day, between them and your normal spells you are far less likely to need to fall back on the crossbow. It's theoretically possible that might need to, yes, but only if you're facing a lot of combat in a single day.

What is the biggest weaknesses of the 3.5 wizard? They lack spontenaity. Also, lack of hp. These are not great weaknesses, true, but PF removed both(look, item familars that grant you spont in core!) without additional investment.

What is the greatest weakness of the 3.5 sorc? Lack of spells known, lack of bonus feats and the fact that metamagics suck for them without an ACF. The first one is mitigated by bloodlines/human favored class, the second is flat out gone, and the third, while still existing, is removed for quicken. And frankly, quicken is the most critical of the lot.

And these weaknesses didn't matter except in lower optimization games, so the boost there simply makes them more fun for people in those sorts of games. If you're in a PF game where the wizard/other tier 1 or 2 class player would try to outshine the other players, you'd be facing the same problems in 3.5.

stainboy

2011-09-28, 11:49 AM

Alter Self was changed. It had pretty much the limitations removed. Want to use it to gain darkvision? In 3.5, you couldn't, in PF, you can! Size bonuses are in play. It requires less encyclopedic knowledge to use effectively, which means a nerf on the high op end of things(assuming your char also knows all these things), but it's likely better for most players. As a human, it lets you polymorph into a human and gain strength. Because of your size. What?

You can't seriously claim PF buffed Alter Self. Here's an exhaustive list of things PF Alter Self can give you:

Darkvision
Low Light Vision
Scent
Swim 30'
+2 Dex or +2 Str
Small or Medium size

That's it. The 3.5 version would let you fly and grow natural weapons and turn your tiefling into an advespa and all kinds of other crazy crap.

Also I am all for any buff that makes it easier to get Darkvision. If PF isn't going to fix the Stealth rules (owait loooool) then Darkvision should be free with one rank in Stealth.

RelentlessImp

2011-09-28, 11:52 AM

You can't seriously claim PF buffed Alter Self. Here's an exhaustive list of things PF Alter Self can give you:

Darkvision
Low Light Vision
Scent
Swim 30'
+2 Dex or +2 Str
Small or Medium size

That's seriously it. The 3.5 version would let you fly and grow natural weapons and turn your tiefling into an advespa and all kinds of other crazy crap.

{{scrubbed}} it was a nerf to high op and a buff to low op, which it was. Before you needed to dumpster dive through books looking for a good form of your type to alter self into. Now? Screw it. So yes, high op, with someone who knows that an Outsider can use Alter Self to become a Dwarf Ancestor for +17 AC, or a humanoid can become a troglodyte for +7 AC, it's a nerf.

{{scrubbed}}

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 11:53 AM

Not really. Combat manuevers are quite possible to use against the enemy, and how successful the enemy is varies wildly depending on what the enemy is.

0% to 0% is not a wide variance.

Most of which comes from tricks the wizard does rather than the hit dice and rely on some big assumptions on your part. For example, fighters multiclass less in PF than 3.5 as they now have actual class features and thus, reasons to stay fighter.

Fighters are still a frontloaded class with no meaningful class features. Wizards has their one reason to not go pure classed removed.

And the reason it isn't is....?

Exercise to the reader, same as for him.

As his post above yours shows, no, that's not it, he's simply of the belief that combat manuevers are not worth doing.

Mathematically proven to not function*.

stainboy

2011-09-28, 11:54 AM

If you'd bothered reading what he said: it was a nerf to high op and a buff to low op, which it was. Before you needed to dumpster dive through books looking for a good form of your type to alter self into. Now? Screw it. So yes, high op, with someone who knows that an Outsider can use Alter Self to become a Dwarf Ancestor for +17 AC, or a humanoid can become a troglodyte for +7 AC, it's a nerf.

That's not all he said, though. Is reading comprehension a class all of you failed?

There is no op so low that darkvision is better than flying and natural weapons.

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 11:56 AM

There is no op so low that darkvision is better than flying and natural weapons.

To find flying races, you have to go raid a bunch of books. Natural weapons are easier, but since they're almost always inferior to manufactured weapons in this case...

Tyndmyr

2011-09-28, 11:58 AM

And the dex I'll need to actually hit with it? It's not a RTA after all.
I'll stick with magic, thanks.

At level 1, the difference between touch AC and normal AC is not typically great. Greater damage and lack of limits on useage more than compensates for that in most situations. If you're dumping dex and str, then only the evocation ability is relevant.

That list of yours is in addition to unlimited cantrips, not in place of them.
The fact still remains that I have more things to do in PF when the slots run out than play archer.

But in practice, you probably will play archer, because it's generally the best of options. People didn't generally use cantrips in 3.5 for damage either, even if they had them open. The crossbow did more per action.

None of which give you the power that 3.5 Polymorph has. The "shape" line simply give you a new look, stat buffs, movement modes, and later on new attack forms. Meanwhile Polymorph replaced your race entirely with just one spell.

Sort of. Polymorph also had limits. PF wrote that particular line somewhat better(mostly in that it's clearer. I like that). The overall progression is not dissimilar to 3.5, and while dividing it into multiple spells is a nerf, it is not a great one, nor is it sufficient to greatly impact caster/melee balance.

Once you're there though, it's harder to get out.

Not really. 5 ft adjust is awesome. Yes, the Step up line exists...3.5s Stand Still/thicket of blades was far more lethal.

Please, a +1hp average increase is not going to turn you into Conan. You still have to use the protections you did before, you're just less prone to being mauled by your housecat.

It's not a mere +1 hp.

You get a extra +2 to a stat with PF races. Being a core caster, you only care about your casting stat, your con, and perhaps your dex. You've made it clear that dex is unimportant to you.

And then there's favored class. If you're a wizard, you invariably pick the hp, since you have plenty of skills for what you need, being int based.

So, you're looking at a +2-+4(at level 1) hp boost per level. That is a significant fraction of total hp.

You can't quote False Life as an effective defensive spell, and then say that MORE hp as a static, undispensable bonus is irrelevant.

RelentlessImp

2011-09-28, 12:01 PM

There is no op so low that darkvision is better than flying and natural weapons.

Sure. But a +2 Dex and +1 size bonus to AC is basically a free +2 touch AC. Scent is an excellent ability, as it defeats invisibility. Swim speed can come in handy.

Sorry, but he's right: from a low op standpoint, alter self is better than it was.

stainboy

2011-09-28, 12:03 PM

Ok, so we're suggesting that even though PF alter self does a tiny tiny fraction of what 3.5 alter self does (plus two things that aren't a big deal), it's buffed because you don't have to hunt through monster manuals to find those things.

The kind of player who wants to turn into monsters but can't read monster manuals does not enter into balance discussions. Their wizards aren't better than melee. They are in fact worse because all they do is spam terrible spells like Acid Arrow. We don't even know how their wizards work because they don't know most of the rules.

And anyway, balance by obfuscation is terrible. Making information easier to find is always better. If it exposes a balance problem, that balance problem was already there.

Reverent-One

2011-09-28, 12:03 PM

0% to 0% is not a wide variance.

So you've gone from monsters always succeed to never succeed? You really need to make up your mind.

Fighters are still a frontloaded class with no meaningful class features. Wizards has their one reason to not go pure classed removed.

Good thing PF gives fighters actual class features.

Exercise to the reader, same as for him.

If you're going for the idea that you ready an action to cast the spell and make the 5 foot step as part of that, the issue there is that the Step up action is an Immediate Action, which can be taken at any time.

Mathematically proven to not function*.

Ah, more empty claims with no evidence.

RelentlessImp

2011-09-28, 12:05 PM

Larpus

2011-09-28, 12:08 PM

So you can ignore it? Nah, this one I'll leave as an exercise to the reader. I'm not completely heartless though, so here's a hint: It's in the 5 foot step and readied action sections.
I...don't really get it.

Readying is a standard action, so readying a 5-foot step does you no good.

And if you're talking about readying your casting as to "when my enemy moves" and then moving a 5-foot step, causing the melee guy to move, triggering your condition and causing his action to be interrupted, enabling you to cast before he actually moves and gets to you is obvious RAW exploit and if any DM allows this he is an idiot.

stainboy

2011-09-28, 12:17 PM

See? That's a better argument rather than completely ignoring what someone says. Good on you.

Alter Self was changed. It had pretty much the limitations removed.

Yeah, I read Tyndmyr's post. Tyndmyr stated that PF Alter Self was less limited than 3.5, so I countered by demonstrating that it was more limited. You've picked out a different thing Tyndmyr said (buff to low op) and chosen to interpret that as me not having read his post.

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 12:18 PM

RelentlessImp

2011-09-28, 12:26 PM

Reverent-One

2011-09-28, 12:26 PM

My mind is quite made. Your ability to remember your own words, not so much. You were talking about you, as in a PC, using maneuvers on them, as in an opponent. To which I say that 0%-0% is not a wide variance. This argument is very simple, very straightforward, and does not deviate from its course.

Let me quote myself here:

Not really. Combat manuevers are quite possible to use against the enemy, and how successful the enemy is varies wildly depending on what the enemy is.

You only argued with my claim of variance, which I only used for the enemies.

I specifically included the word meaningful specifically so that you would not try to pull that, and yet you did it anyways.

Because we disagree on what meaningful is in this case.

No, I'm going for the fact that you can already ready free actions (such as a 5 foot step) as part of a Standard action (such as disrupting a spell). And this does not require you to waste a feat, it does not require you to waste an Immediate action (which means no Swift next round), and does not require you to sacrifice your 5 foot step for the next round as well. You are spending resources to be worse than you can be for free. It literally does less than nothing.

Except that by not using your standard to ready, you can attack on your turn and get an AoO on them for casting and potentially disrupt their spell. Two attacks are better than one.

Because you lack the ability to do the math yourself and see for yourself?

No, because I've done the math and you're utterly wrong.

stainboy

2011-09-28, 12:32 PM

That sort of argument for Alter Self makes a lot more sense than the arguments that try to defend low op martial characters.

Mind elaborating? I don't get what you're saying here.

RelentlessImp

2011-09-28, 12:33 PM

Mind elaborating? I don't get what you're saying here.

He's saying the same thing that people have been saying since Giacomo came onto the boards: A good argument is a good argument, but saying the Monk is a good class is planning for failure.

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 12:44 PM

You only argued with my claim of variance, which I only used for the enemies.

In that case... "100%-100% is not a wide variance".

Because we disagree on what meaningful is in this case.

It's not hard to see why minor number changes far lower than the numbers you lost is not meaningful class features.

Except that by not using your standard to ready, you can attack on your turn and get an AoO on them for casting and potentially disrupt their spell. Two attacks are better than one.

Except that that isn't how it works.

No, because I've done the math and you're utterly wrong.

Would that be like claiming that 50% is something other than one half?

He's saying the same thing that people have been saying since Giacomo came onto the boards: A good argument is a good argument, but saying the Monk is a good class is planning for failure.

Not exactly.

The argument that Alter Self is better in a low op environment because it straight up tells you what you do and do not get instead of having to raid monster books for a creature of the same type as yourself and 5 HD or less is a bit weak, but it's far better than say... people trying to claim that Fighters/Monks/Paladins/Rangers/PF Martial characters of any kind/etc aren't that bad because the enemies will be nerfed to suck even worse than they do, or some other obviously false and foolish claim. Because the truth of the matter is that swinging a sword around in a low op game is a non starter. Whereas using spells in a straight forward manner has some merit, because the people that cast those spells are still fine.

Tyndmyr

2011-09-28, 12:51 PM

Yeah, I read Tyndmyr's post. Tyndmyr stated that PF Alter Self was less limited than 3.5, so I countered by demonstrating that it was more limited. You've picked out a different thing Tyndmyr said (buff to low op) and chosen to interpret that as me not having read his post.

I said it removed the limitations that Alter Self previously had. It did so. Things like Darkvision could explicitly not be granted by Alter Self beforehand.

For some players, this is good news. For a few players, they already had darkvision, and wanted to use extensive knowledge of splatbooks and presumably IC knowledge of obscure creatures(I note that high op builds often leave off things like sufficient knowledge skills to justify their character knowing of information critical to the build) for massive buffs to specific things. For these few high op players, it was a nerf. For pretty much everyone else, it was a buff.

In 3.5, at high op levels, casters utterly shred melee. PF mostly extended this to moderate, and sometimes even low op levels. You didn't prep exactly the right spells for the day with divination tricks? Spont spell will fix that up. You occasionally choose sorc spells poorly? More spells known will help mitigate that. You didn't bother to go PrC hunting for your wizard? No problem, you'll get an awesome capstone anyhow.

Caster/Melee balance is most certainly not fixed by PF. If anything, more players are likely to stumble into the imbalance by the way the classes are designed.

The few nerfs to spells are rather rare, with the vast majority of spells being unchanged. Those spells that WERE changed frequently are more of a lateral change. Grease isn't a pure nerf. Alter Self isn't a pure nerf. Both gave up arguably nice things, but got other fun stuff in exchange. This is very clearly insufficient to notably affect caster/melee balance.

Reverent-One

2011-09-28, 12:54 PM

In that case... "100%-100% is not a wide variance".

A wolf, a creature with the trip special ability, one known for tripping, has a grand total CMB of +2. It doesn't have a 100% chance of tripping a wizard with 8 STR and DEX, much less, say, a level 1 fighter with 18 str and 14 dex, which it only has a 25% chance. There goes your "the enemies trip 100% of the time" argument, and it took all of 5 seconds to disprove.

It's not hard to see why minor number changes far lower than the numbers you lost is not meaningful class features.

Because not everyone plays at the optimization level you apparently do, and in other cases they'll actually come out ahead in PF.

Except that that isn't how it works.

And the reason for that is....?

Would that be like claiming that 50% is something other than one half?

No, it's actually doing the math and not just making empty claims, see my point about the Wolf above.

Frosty

2011-09-28, 12:54 PM

Step-Up does NOT take up your standard action, however, which is good. At the end of the day, you were able to use your standard action in some other fashion during your turn (or use full-round action), and you'll still have the ability to remain Adjacent to the caster, forcing a Concentration check. Forcing the Concentration check is what feats like Step-Up is designed to do anyways, because people can actually fail those in PF.

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 01:01 PM

Tyndmyr

2011-09-28, 01:09 PM

Keep in mind that Step Up uses up your following turn's five foot step in addition to eating your swift action. It makes your movement more timely...but it doesn't actually make you more mobile overall.

So, say you step up to a caster, they cast dimension door to escape...now, unless you also happen to be threatening another target, no full attack for you. The five foot adjust/full attack is remarkably common for melee.

On the plus side, no need to invest points into concentration as a caster. And while the DCs are a bit tougher to hit, they're now based off primary casting stat(plus CL, which is pumpable for other reasons already), which is superior to basing them off con. Yay for being slightly more SAD and needing less skill points.

Since casting defensively has a variable component of 2*spell level, the normal CL increases from leveling up ensure it never actually gets tougher to make checks for your highest level spells. Any increases from feats, CL boosters, or casting stat increases makes it easier. Therefore, while, like in 3.5, you can fail defensive casting checks early on, eventually you're just not going to fail or care about them.

Level 1: DC 17 to cast defensively.
1 CL +4(at least) for casting stat = 45% chance of passing. That is the highest chance of failure you'll face for casting defensively in your entire career, and that's unoptimized.

Reverent-One

2011-09-28, 01:18 PM

You're really not good at this, are you?

Ad hominem much?

Doesn't matter. I'm using stock enemies as the baseline.

As am I.

Also 1d20 + caster level + your main stat is the same, or in many cases higher than 1d20 + character level + 3 + your secondary stat. You know, just in case you don't 5 foot step for some reason.

So you don't think it's possible to boost your skills besides simply putting in level + 3 ranks in them? Huh, guess you're not as much an optimizer as I thought. There's also the fact that the DC is higher to cast defensively in PF. And there's the previously mentioned Step Up to handle the caster 5 foot stepping, which you apparently don't have an argument for.

Keep in mind that Step Up uses up your following turn's five foot step in addition to eating your swift action. It makes your movement more timely...but it doesn't actually make you more mobile overall.

So, say you step up to a caster, they cast dimension door to escape...now, unless you also happen to be threatening another target, no full attack for you. The five foot adjust/full attack is remarkably common for melee.

Assuming that they had dimension door prepared or known, then yes, they get away, and you just made the caster use a spell and not make an attack that round. Not bad for potentially giving up your full attack for one round.

On the plus side, no need to invest points into concentration as a caster. And while the DCs are a bit tougher to hit, they're now based off primary casting stat(plus CL, which is pumpable for other reasons already), which is superior to basing them off con. Yay for being slightly more SAD and needing less skill points.

Since casting defensively has a variable component of 2*spell level, the normal CL increases from leveling up ensure it never actually gets tougher to make checks for your highest level spells. Any increases from feats, CL boosters, or casting stat increases makes it easier. Therefore, while, like in 3.5, you can fail defensive casting checks early on, eventually you're just not going to fail or care about them.

Except that since the DC increases at a higher rate, it doesn't get easier simply by putting a single rank in a skill each level unlike in 3.5. If not having to put in effort to invest in getting a few more hit points counts as removing a weakness, requiring more investment to offset the increased DCs should count as adding one.

TurtleKing

2011-09-28, 01:21 PM

{Scrubbed}

RelentlessImp

2011-09-28, 01:24 PM

Exactly, casting in melee in 3.5 was a joke. Thank you for proving my point.

Since my original, inflammatory comment was scrubbed, I feel the need to call you out on this BS practice of quoting only what serves your needs in another way.

The practices outlined in the links Shoving It To Beatsticks (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=331.0) and You Got CAPed (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10935.0) are just as valid in PATHFINDER as they are in THREE-POINT-FIVE. Except for the following:

One: Melee are not as easily able to IP-proof themselves in Pathfinder as they are in 3.5. Point goes to CASTERS.
Two: Casters are stronger, with the ability to get higher save DCs on their SoSes, making what was already the best tactic in the game BETTER. Point: CASTERS.

{Scrubbed}

stainboy

2011-09-28, 01:24 PM

The few nerfs to spells are rather rare, with the vast majority of spells being unchanged. Those spells that WERE changed frequently are more of a lateral change. Grease isn't a pure nerf. Alter Self isn't a pure nerf. Both gave up arguably nice things, but got other fun stuff in exchange. This is very clearly insufficient to notably affect caster/melee balance.

For the record all I'm talking about is Alter Self. I do agree that PF spell nerfs don't amount to much. It's just a list of spot fixes based on the few specific spells that came up on the Paizo boards during beta. They don't accomplish any more than the short ban lists that almost every DM already used. If banning the half-dozen most broken spells never fixed melee/caster imbalance I don't know why randomly nerfing a few spells would either.

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 01:34 PM

Since Reverent has nothing to add that hasn't been already addressed or corrected, I will not be responding to him until he adds something new.

The practices outlined in the links Shoving It To Beatsticks (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=331.0) and You Got CAPed (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10935.0) are just as valid in PATHFINDER as they are in THREE-POINT-FIVE. Except for the following:

One: Melee are not as easily able to IP-proof themselves in Pathfinder as they are in 3.5. Point goes to CASTERS.
Two: Casters are stronger, with the ability to get higher save DCs on their SoSes, making what was already the best tactic in the game BETTER. Point: CASTERS.

Thank you for summarizing my arguments into two paragraphs.

Tyndmyr

2011-09-28, 01:35 PM

Assuming that they had dimension door prepared or known, then yes, they get away, and you just made the caster use a spell and not make an attack that round. Not bad for potentially giving up your full attack for one round.

It's relevant in any round that ends with you without an opponent to attack.

Note that casters, thanks to quicken spell, have very easy access to action economy. The fact that he cast a dimension door doesn't mean he's necessarily not attacking that round.

Except that since the DC increases at a higher rate, unlike in 3.5 it doesn't get easier simply by putting a single rank in a skill each level. If not having to put in effort to invest in getting a few more hit points counts as removing a weakness, requiring more investment to offset the increased DCs should count as adding one.

It doesn't require more investment. 3.5 requires skill points. PF has +2 DC for a spell 1 level higher, but it also gives you a +1 on the check for every CL you have. It's really pretty hard to get a new level of spells without getting two CLs. So, you stay at par merely by continuing to play. It's quite literally almost impossible to get worse at it.

Now, things like boosting your casting stat or going for caster level increases...these you will be doing anyhow. Even the newest of casters in my current game, when we explained what each of the stats did, when we explained her primary spellcasting stat, cut us off with "So, I'll always want to put it in that one, then?". You are not investing anything any differently here.

So, level eight human caster, in 3.5...

You probably have a +2 from con, a full 11 ranks from skills, for about a +13. For casting defensively on your highest level spell, you only have to pull a 19, so it's already pretty(75% chance) likely you'll pull it off, and this is without any notable optimization...just decent stat and skill allocation.

Same, same, in PF.

You probably have a +7 from casting stat(+4 normal, +1 from racial mod, +1 from level ups, +1 enhancement item), and a +8 CL from levels for a total of +15. Your highest level spell will have a DC of 21. You have the exact same odds of pulling it off.

There is no difference in allocation of resources. Both casters pumped casting stat, and had an acceptable con score, and put no feats, etc into casting defensively. If either had, the defensive casting check gets even more lol-worthy...but frankly, they're usually going to pass the check regardless, so it's really not a big deal.

The only notable difference is the PF char has 8 extra skill points left over.