Should I get Pathfinder? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Bovine Colonel

2011-12-05, 09:36 PM

What I'm asking here is whether or not there are enough differences between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder to make it worth getting PF, or any other reason why I should (or shouldn't) get PF.
There's not quite that much difference between the two. Pathfinder is certainly an improvement in at least some respects, but if you've already got books for 3.5 I suggest you stick with 3.5. Incidentally, you can find pretty much everything published for Pathfinder at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

I too am curious about Pathfinder. Are classes that are yet to be remade in PF backward compatable, like 3e is to 3.5?
3.5 classes are generally considered compatible with Pathfinder. Some things (class skills, HD and BAB correlation, etc) may need changing but game balance isn't really affected.

Khantin

2011-12-05, 09:37 PM

The books are really nice, but even then I use online resources when I am near a computer so I can do text searches and not have to dig through many hundreds of pages.

Psyren

2011-12-05, 09:55 PM

You can always mix the two, there really isn't much adjustment needed for most classes. Non-PF races and classes generally need to be adjusted upward.

Lemonus

2011-12-05, 09:56 PM

Can you pretty much play PF just using the SRD?

Psyren

2011-12-05, 10:14 PM

Can you pretty much play PF just using the SRD?

Yeah, pretty much. It's even easier than playing with the 3.5 SRD, because PF published their XP, WBL and even point buy charts.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-12-05, 10:21 PM

navar100

2011-12-05, 10:21 PM

From a financial standpoint, if you bought the whole 3E library "starting over" with Pathfinder might see like a waste. However, it's not like you need the whole Pathfinder library.

You can get by with just the Core Rulebook, which is a PHB and DMG in one. There are significant changes to 3E stuff so that it feels like an update to the 3E system. You also get a sense of what to do to convert your 3E material. True, Pathfinder now has Magus and Oracle to use instead of Duskblade and Favored Soul. If you want to buy Advanced Players' Guide and Ultimate Magic, great, but if you don't and would prefer to stick with Duskblade and Favored Soul so as not to spend more money, you can tell what to do to adapt. Duskblade probably just needs an updated spell list. Favored Soul could be modeled after Pathfinder Sorcerer and have "soul lines". So as not to do much work, you can tag on a bloodline from Unearthed Arcana onto Favored Soul as class abilities and be done. To mirror Pathfinder Sorcerer more just come up with lists of bonus spells known depending on the bloodline.

If money isn't an issue, then Pathfinder is a good buy. It is an update to the 3E system and has continuing support. It has its fans and detractors; I'm a fan. It will never satisfy those who are enraged by 3E magic, but then nothing short of ending magic will do that (4E). Others take issue with changes in some combat feats. If upon reading them they also bother you, no harm is done to continue using the 3E version for those particular feats.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-05, 10:26 PM

TheVileVillain

2011-12-05, 11:06 PM

Novawurmson

2011-12-05, 11:08 PM

I prefer using a PF basis and then backporting anything I need from 3.5. Ideally on top of that if there's a PF and a 3.5 thing with the same name (Power Attack comes to mind) I'd consider allowing both.

This. Pathfinder is like a big patch for 3.5; doesn't change much, but has a lot of nice tweaks here and there. I like to say that Pathfinder is about 5-10% better than 3.5 (in my opinion); everyone gets a few more choices and a little more polish. Don't throw out your 3.5 material, just combine the two.

Real Sorceror

2011-12-05, 11:15 PM

As other people have noted, Paizo posts their entire Core line in the PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/) for free. This includes: Core Rules, Gamemastery Guide, Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, and both Bestiaries (soon to include Bestiary 3 and Advanced Race Guide).

Its their strategy to avoid internet piracy: give us everything for free so we literally have no reason to steal.

That said, the books are amazing quality and contain much more information (both fluff and crunch) than any comparable 3.5 volume. At the very least I'd suggest picking up a Core Rulebook.

Most of the non-core PF material is found on the OGC (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/), which is updated by the fans.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-05, 11:21 PM

Pathfinder books are worth every cent if you can afford them. They have allot more content and cost a bit more than 3.5 books. The rules are more streamlined, everything is clarified, and your players will feel like they are getting more from their classes despite the fact that the monsters are still balanced to fight them.

NO.

Pathfinder does not fix balance problems. Fighters still have to take out their backup ranged weapon when flyers come out. Tier 1 is still very much tier 1. Heck, the only real difference is a good boost to the core paladin, which is now a good tier 4, and a decent boost to the ranger, making them a high tier 4.

Also, more streamlined and clarified rules? The rules are just as hard to learn as 3.5 rules are. Clarified, maybe, but core 3.5 was about as clarified as well.

Curious

2011-12-05, 11:25 PM

NO.

Pathfinder does not fix balance problems. Fighters still have to take out their backup ranged weapon when flyers come out. Tier 1 is still very much tier 1. Heck, the only real difference is a good boost to the core paladin, which is now a good tier 4, and a decent boost to the ranger, making them a high tier 4.

Also, more streamlined and clarified rules? The rules are just as hard to learn as 3.5 rules are. Clarified, maybe, but core 3.5 was about as clarified as well.

While I agree with you for the most part, I would argue that Pathfinder is actually more intuitive in some situations, namely favored class and multi-classing, negative levels, CMB/CMD, and skill list. They certainly didn't fix the system, but I use their rules as a basis to implement 3.5 material, rather than the other way around.

Real Sorceror

2011-12-05, 11:35 PM

NO.

Pathfinder does not fix balance problems. Fighters still have to take out their backup ranged weapon when flyers come out. Tier 1 is still very much tier 1. Heck, the only real difference is a good boost to the core paladin, which is now a good tier 4, and a decent boost to the ranger, making them a high tier 4.
Um, how is a Fighter needing a ranged weapon for fliers a balance issue? Everyone has to do that. Even casters need to prepare ranged spells if they want to hit targets out of reach. Thats how its meant to work...

The class balance still isn't perfect, but it has been improved upon, even in the Fighter's case.

Also, more streamlined and clarified rules? The rules are just as hard to learn as 3.5 rules are. Clarified, maybe, but core 3.5 was about as clarified as well.
I found things much easier to understand. Sorry it didn't happen for you. :/

Mando Knight

2011-12-05, 11:41 PM

Um, how is a Fighter needing a ranged weapon for fliers a balance issue? Everyone has to do that. Even casters need to prepare ranged spells if they want to hit targets out of reach. Thats how its meant to work...

How many casters prepare primarily touch/close-range offensive spells without preparing Fly as well? And how many feats do they need to spend to get their ranged spells up to the same level as their favored close-range spells?

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-12-05, 11:43 PM

The class balance still isn't perfect, but it has been improved upon, even in the Fighter's case.Eh, if you compare PF only to 3.5 only, the balance is about the same. Wizards got some spell nerfs early on, but later it's basically the same list. The fighter's main mid-op tactics got nerfed, and their archetypes are nowhere near as good as 3.5's ACFs. Yes, that includes the one that lets you move and attack... at level 20.

The nice stuff comes in when you combine them. You get to taste the streamlining benefits - skills, combat maneuvers, no god damn 100 gp pearls and important spell slots just to figure out what your equipment might do if it's not especially cursed, agh. I hated that one. Hated DMs who banned artificer's monocle about as much. Where was I? Right, you get to have the little benefits and upgrades and keep the content in 3.5 that made things more interesting and fair for mundanes.

Real Sorceror

2011-12-06, 12:02 AM

How many casters prepare primarily touch/close-range offensive spells without preparing Fly as well? And how many feats do they need to spend to get their ranged spells up to the same level as their favored close-range spells?
It would be odd for a Sorcerer/Wizard not to, but even a high level Cleric or Druid can legitimately fill up all their spell slots for the day without having a ranged attack or a means of reaching the opponent.

That aside, why is it a bad thing for Fighters to need ranged weapons? Weapons are sort of their thing. Taking their second Weapon Training in bows and grabbing one or two ranged feats seems fine.

I don't play Fighters myself, but I haven't heard anything but praise from my friends who do.

edit: On second thought, probably better not to derail the thread in a Fighter debate. I hear those can get pretty long.

Eh, if you compare PF only to 3.5 only, the balance is about the same. Wizards got some spell nerfs early on, but later it's basically the same list. The fighter's main mid-op tactics got nerfed, and their archetypes are nowhere near as good as 3.5's ACFs. Yes, that includes the one that lets you move and attack... at level 20.

The nice stuff comes in when you combine them. You get to taste the streamlining benefits - skills, combat maneuvers, no god damn 100 gp pearls and important spell slots just to figure out what your equipment might do if it's not especially cursed, agh. I hated that one. Hated DMs who banned artificer's monocle about as much. Where was I? Right, you get to have the little benefits and upgrades and keep the content in 3.5 that made things more interesting and fair for mundanes.
3.5 was getting so huge that my group stopped using it specifically to avoid bloat and unforseen powergaming options. Still, you're right. Paizo designed it specifically so that the rulesets are still compatible in most cases.

Snowbluff

2011-12-06, 12:05 AM

I'd download the Core Rulebook, but only because the 3.5 ones are out of print. Everything is almost perfectly compatible.

Leon

2011-12-06, 12:09 AM

NO.

Pathfinder does not fix balance problems. Fighters still have to take out their backup ranged weapon when flyers come out. Tier 1 is still very much tier 1. Heck, the only real difference is a good boost to the core paladin, which is now a good tier 4, and a decent boost to the ranger, making them a high tier 4.

Also, more streamlined and clarified rules? The rules are just as hard to learn as 3.5 rules are. Clarified, maybe, but core 3.5 was about as clarified as well.

How is that a Balance issue?
If you have a caster in the group you should be buffing the group with the useful spells than be selfish with things like Fly.

Tiers are what you make of them - many seem to like them but over all they are but another way of stating what you think is good vs what anyone else thinks is good.

PF has added quite a lot of nice things to the game and the massive added bonus is that all the important stuff - core rules, classes etc is freely available online.

If you don't like it for the fact that you believe it didn't fix X,Y or Z then you are valid to not like it but that does not make it any less of a great continuation of D&D 3.5

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-06, 12:12 AM

If you have a caster in the group

That's why. Who needs a fighter when an extra cleric can fill the same role not quite as well, but with a ton of healg and the ability to summon more meatshields? Yet a caster is absolutely vital.

Leon

2011-12-06, 12:26 AM

That's why. Who needs a fighter when an extra cleric can fill the same role not quite as well, but with a ton of healg and the ability to summon more meatshields? Yet a caster is absolutely vital.

If you don't have a caster (which is completely possible) then you will find other ways around a problem than a over reliance on magic to solve everything.
Even if you have another cleric in the group its still a better group that is Supported by the classes than can do so rather than have them be solo paragons.

Really who needs to play anything.... all classes are valid choices for anyone to play.

Ravens_cry

2011-12-06, 12:35 AM

Clerics, even in 3.5, are only a better option as a frontliner in my opinion if you get to spend several rounds buffing or you can use some tricks (Multiple Nightsticks and Divine Metamagic) to make some buffs all day duration.
That's not always an option because of limited book selection or other tweaks.
What I like most about Pathfinder is they don't just fire off a base class and forget about it, they continue to offer support with new Archetypes and expanded lists of selectables like Rogue Talents.
Oh, and they tweaked some famously poor classes to make me, at least, actually want to play them. Monks and Paladins come to mind.

Psyren

2011-12-06, 12:35 AM

Pathfinder does not fix 3.5's balance issues. If balance is your primary aim, that's what 4e is for.

(Or Legend maybe; yeah, give that a go.)

The Gilded Duke

2011-12-06, 12:54 AM

Pathfinder Adventure Paths make it worth it. I'm running Kingmaker for the second time. Also, a lot of the Alternate Class Features are really fun to use. There is less emphasis on multiclassing and prestige classes. For the fighter and flying enemies bit, I didn't see it as too much of a limit in normal play.

Either get a potion of fly, or have an alchemist in the group and drink one of their extracts of fly.

That said, the Advanced Player's Guide classes are a lot of fun, Alchemist and Witch especially. The Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic classes aren't quite as interesting in my opinion, I'd only get those books for the Alternate Class Features.

Flickerdart

2011-12-06, 12:58 AM

Real Sorceror

2011-12-06, 01:06 AM

It's a real shame that the Pathfinder books seem to have taken the aesthetic philosophy of "exactly like 3.5". 4e has much nicer everything,from art to layout to branding. And the pretty pictures are the only reason to own dead tree material rather than just use the free version.
Whaaaaaat? :smallannoyed:
Wayne Reynolds is god. Shame on you.

Ok, show of hands here. How many of you have actually played Pathfinder and looked through the Core Rulebook? Because I'm getting the feeling that a lot of you are very unfamiliar with the system and are just going off hearsay or what you saw in Beta testing.

Mnemnosyne

2011-12-06, 01:06 AM

I don't much care for pathfinder. I looked it over. Some things are "improved." Others aren't. Overall, it simply isn't worth learning the new system for some questionable improvements over 3.5, not when I already know 3.5 and enjoy it just fine as it is.

If you have some sort of problem with 3.5, maybe pathfinder changes that particular thing, but maybe it doesn't. Look it over and see if it does. But overall, unless you're dissatisfied with 3.5 for whatever reason, I'd just stick with it as is. Well, not only would I, that's what I am doing. :smallbiggrin:

P.S: 3.5 fixed Fighters. They just misspelled the name of the class when they released the update - it's spelled "Warblade" now. :smallamused:

Ravens_cry

2011-12-06, 01:07 AM

With a Fighters feats and BAB, they can take a composite long bow and be descent enough to contribute even against most flying creatures.
Or they can configure for Archery more exclusively.

Callos_DeTerran

2011-12-06, 01:56 AM

It's a real shame that the Pathfinder books seem to have taken the aesthetic philosophy of "exactly like 3.5". 4e has much nicer everything, from art to layout to branding. And the pretty pictures are the only reason to own dead tree material rather than just use the free version.

Not the only reason, I don't know about anyone else, but my brain just doesn't retain information that I read online. I have to keep going back and referencing it over and over again, but if I read something in book format then I rarely need to go back to look something up for anything beyond the specifics of a rule or ability.

Also, I like being able to hold what I use, especially since one of my IRL groups doesn't use laptops at the table (too many chances for distraction and not enough of the players HAVE a laptop), so I'd need the books anyway.

Duncan_Ruadrik

2011-12-06, 02:14 AM

my gaming group moved over to Pathfinder at my suggestion, and everyone has been quite happy since then. It definitely streamlined certain, small things. It also closed the gap of power between casters and all others in minor, but still appreciable respects.

So, according to my experience and opinion, sure.

Gavinfoxx

2011-12-06, 02:45 AM

If 3.5 is 3.0 v 1.2, Pathfinder is 3.0 v 1.3, Trailblazer is 3.0 v1.4, and Legend is 3.0 v 1.95...

Legend > *

Psyren

2011-12-06, 02:49 AM

If 3.5 is 3.0 v 1.2, Pathfinder is 3.0 v 1.3, Trailblazer is 3.0 v1.4, and Legend is 3.0 v 1.95...

Legend > *

Well, on the one hand they don't have wizards. On the other hand, they don't have wizards.

Rankar

2011-12-06, 03:02 AM

Pathfinder is an enjoyable system. I wouldn't say its better or worse than 3.5. Its not a bad investment if you do get the books. Myself and 2 of my players have books. The other 2 players use PDF versions and browse online for their info.

If you already have 3.5 books and don't need to switch, stick with 3.5. I've got a handful of 3.5 but all my current players just started getting into RPGs and its just easier to get your hands on Pathfinder material.

imneuromancer

2011-12-06, 03:24 AM

Gavinfoxx

2011-12-06, 03:43 AM

options for character classes to make them balanced, playable and fun.

I'd agree with a lot of what you said -- pathfinder tries to make the classes playable and fun, but it most certainly does NOT improve balance. To do that, you need something other than normal 3.5e or Pathfinder entirely...

molten_dragon

2011-12-06, 03:47 AM

I've played a little pathfinder, and it's a great game.

The thing is though, it's great for all the same reasons that 3.5 is great. My personal opinion is that pathfinder is not different enough from 3.5 to be worth owning both, and doesn't fix enough of the broken things about 3.5 to be worth buying as a fix. If I was just starting an RPG collection, I'd more than likely buy pathfinder, but since I've already got a bunch of 3.5 stuff, I'm going to stick with that.

Dsurion

2011-12-06, 04:13 AM

If you'd like to know some of the things that are different (or the same), Saph wrote an excellent guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890) on the subject.

Andreaz

2011-12-06, 04:40 AM

TL;DR: Class comparison is the same. All classes have more stuff in a manner that makes them more fun to play. All the rules are available for FREE. Conclusion: play it

deuterio12

2011-12-06, 04:47 AM

Personally, I see Pathfinder as splatbooks for your 3.X game. Free splatbooks since, as already mentioned, all their crunch is freely and legally available on the net.

As other people mentioned, PF improved in some things and got worst in others, so just cherry-pick what you like and include it in your game!

sonofzeal

2011-12-06, 04:53 AM

It's a purported "balance fix", but the designers have repeatedly demonstrated they didn't actually understand much of what was wrong with 3.5's balance. Note that this doesn't mean it's worse - it may indeed be ever so slightly better - but it still failed in its raison d'etre.

The other thing it does is generally buff every class slightly. This makes everyone converting from 3.5 to PF feel awesome and badass, because they gained extra hitpoints and doodads, but the fundamental dynamics are pretty much the same. Most classes function very much like they did before, power gaps are just about as wide, and the standard Tiering is pretty much the same.

In short... if my group is playing PF, I'll play PF with them, because it's not worse, whatever some people might say. But it's not particularly better either, and I see no reason to go teaching myself a new set of splatbooks to search through, and discard or be forced to heavily modify a lot of existing material I'm fluent with just to make it fit.

Killer Angel

2011-12-06, 04:53 AM

I don't much care for pathfinder. I looked it over. Some things are "improved." Others aren't. Overall, it simply isn't worth learning the new system for some questionable improvements over 3.5, not when I already know 3.5 and enjoy it just fine as it is.

The passage from 3.5 to PF, is almost like the one from 3.0 to 3.5: they changed a lot of minor things, but the chassis is the same; this will often leave you with the unpleasant sensation of "surprising yourself mixing old and new rules in your mind" and with the need to check many things (spells description, and so on). And this is a big downside, to me.

But still, the changes are almost all good: PF doesn't fix the balance problem, but some classes were improved (even the sorcerer!) and the few "nerfed" (the druid) were so strong that don't suffer.
In the end, I find it more funny to play with (although we still play with 3.5 also).

Edit: we experimented 4.0, but the result was unpleasant. And that's another topic.

Andreaz

2011-12-06, 04:59 AM

In the end it'll always boil down to your opinion on learning new things. People are generally reactive in a bad way to that, sadly.

Another big point for me is the fact there's new material coming regularly. the Magus, for example, does wonders that make duskblade/abjurant champions green with envy. And the Aegis lets you go all I AM IRON MAN on the world.

LordBlades

2011-12-06, 05:42 AM

With a Fighters feats and BAB, they can take a composite long bow and be descent enough to contribute even against most flying creatures.
Or they can configure for Archery more exclusively.

I think you might be missing the core issue:

If you're a spellcaster, you're going to specialize in casting spells. No matter where your opponent is, near or far, or what kind of opponent it is you're most likely going to engage him with spells, the very thing you built your character to be good at.

If you build a fighter to be good at melee (which IMHO at least should be a valid way to build a fighter) sometimes the opponent will be out of reach and then you'll have to bring out your bow (which is not what you built your character to be good at).

The sheer difference of potential between a fighter and a caster aside, when one archetype can bring it's full strength to bear in almost every situation and another only in a subset and is forced to use inferior backup options in the rest, that is a balance problem.

Ravens_cry

2011-12-06, 05:57 AM

Maybe, but the idea that a fighter can't help deal with flying creatures without magical support beyond magic weapons and armour is just wrong. With some fly, you can engage in a more personal way, but it ain't necessary.
Besides, a spell caster may sling spells near or far, but some spells are more suited than others.For example almost anything with a fortitude save is nix when fighting undead as are enchantments. Even if, like a wizard or cleric, you have other spells potentially available, they may simply not be available, right then. It doesn't matter too much if you have the perfect spell in your spell book or on your spell list if it isn't prepared. It's hardly your full strength if the creature is immune or resistant to your favourite effects.
Yes, a fighter is not going to have the potential versatility of a wizard or cleric. But the difference in actual play I have experienced isn't great enough in my opinion to make either class un-fun.

Keneth

2011-12-06, 06:17 AM

I'd say that actually buying Pathfinder material isn't an amazing investment if you already own the 3.5 books (a lot of them, if only have the core books, then you might as well). Apart from the stunning art by Wayne Reynolds, you can find just about everything you need online as was already said.

As far as playing Pathfinder is concerned, the answer is a definite yes. It doesn't fix everything, the great divide between casters and lower-tier classes is still present and very much apparent at mid to high levels. That said, it does improve on the system quite a bit and it's not like you have to stop using 3.5 material just because you start playing PF, it might need a little adjusting but they're pretty much compatible.

Personally I see it as the logical next step from 3.5, although certainly not the final step, there's lots of room for improvement still.

Real Sorceror

2011-12-06, 06:23 AM

I think you might be missing the core issue:

If you're a spellcaster, you're going to specialize in casting spells. No matter where your opponent is, near or far, or what kind of opponent it is you're most likely going to engage him with spells, the very thing you built your character to be good at.

If you build a fighter to be good at melee (which IMHO at least should be a valid way to build a fighter) sometimes the opponent will be out of reach and then you'll have to bring out your bow (which is not what you built your character to be good at).

The sheer difference of potential between a fighter and a caster aside, when one archetype can bring it's full strength to bear in almost every situation and another only in a subset and is forced to use inferior backup options in the rest, that is a balance problem.
Ok, now I've heard this like 3 times in the same thread. The entire point of the Fighter and similar classes like Cavalier is that they accomplish their shtick through entirely mundane means. So yes, that means they won't have lazer beams or wings or whatever built directly into their class features. If they did we'd be playing Exalted. And while playing godman can be fun sometimes, a real medieval fantasy game needs characters who don't have supernatural powers just as much as it needs magical characters.

And so I stress that having no way of dealing with flying/ranged combatants besides investing in a ranged weapon is not a "balance issue" or a "thing that Pathfinder didn't fix". It was never broken to begin with.

Besides, theres nothing saying a Fighter will ever be put in a situation where he can't do his thing. A responsible DM is supposed to tailor each encounter for his party. If they are meant to overcome the challenge, he will see to that victory is possible and that everyone can contribute in a meaningful way. Poor DMing can happen in any system.

LordBlades

2011-12-06, 06:44 AM

And so I stress that having no way of dealing with flying/ranged combatants besides investing in a ranged weapon is not a "balance issue" or a "thing that Pathfinder didn't fix". It was never broken to begin with.

That particular thing is merely an example of the wider issue: some archetypes are way more viable than others. And that is a balance issue that needs fixing. I do agree that a fantasy game needs non-magical characters as much as it needs magical ones, but I don't think a wizard should completely rewrite the battlefield reality with the same amount of effort it takes the fighter to swing a sword and make a (small) dent into a single enemy's HP.

Besides, theres nothing saying a Fighter will ever be put in a situation where he can't do his thing. A responsible DM is supposed to tailor each encounter for his party. If they are meant to overcome the challenge, he will see to that victory is possible and that everyone can contribute in a meaningful way. Poor DMing can happen in any system.

The fact that some archetypes need tailored encounters so they can 'contribute in a meaningful way' while others can easily respond to whatever is thrown at them (hell, fighter types can't even flee effectively come to think about it) doesn't hint to any balance issues to you?

Killer Angel

2011-12-06, 06:50 AM

The fact that some archetypes need tailored encounters so they can 'contribute in a meaningful way' while others can easily respond to whatever is thrown at them (hell, fighter types can't even flee effectively come to think about it) doesn't hint to any balance issues to you?

Also, the position "The DM can fix it, so it's not a balance problem" reminds me of a certain Fallacy...

Real Sorceror

2011-12-06, 07:09 AM

That particular thing is merely an example of the wider issue: some archetypes are way more viable than others. And that is a balance issue that needs fixing. I do agree that a fantasy game needs non-magical characters as much as it needs magical ones, but I don't think a wizard should completely rewrite the battlefield reality with the same amount of effort it takes the fighter to swing a sword and make a (small) dent into a single enemy's HP.
How would you go about fixing it?

The quick n' easy way would be to take away the caster's options or give mundane characters magic, but neither of those is very satisfying, nor does it even make sense from a flavor perspective. One of the things I hated about 4e is that casters could no longer fly (along with most of their other utility spells) and that every other character gained blatant or psuedo magical abilities to make everyone the same. Variety is the spice of gaming.

The fact that some archetypes need tailored encounters so they can 'contribute in a meaningful way' while others can easily respond to whatever is thrown at them (hell, fighter types can't even flee effectively come to think about it) doesn't hint to any balance issues to you?
Maybe I just don't agree that a caster can 'easily respond to whatever is thrown at them'. In my eyes a Wizard is just as vulnerable as a Fighter, you just have to attack them from a different angle. Their CMD, Fort save, and hp, for example, will almost certainly be lower than a Fighter of the same level. If pressed in melee they will always have to cast defensively. If you want to be a real dink, attack the Wizard while hes preparing spells for the day, use lots of golems, or always choose creatures that are immune to whatever element the Sorcerer chose.

Are there inherent imbalances in the game? Sure. Are they so horrible that we should bring them up in every thread and discount a whole system because it didn't reinvent the wheel from the ground up? No.

PS. Am I a little biased because I think Paizo is the perfect model of a gaming company and James Jacobs is a gentleman and a scholar? Yes.

LordBlades

2011-12-06, 07:30 AM

How would you go about fixing it?

The quick n' easy way would be to take away the caster's options or give mundane characters magic, but neither of those is very satisfying, nor does it even make sense from a flavor perspective. One of the things I hated about 4e is that casters could no longer fly (along with most of their other utility spells) and that every other character gained blatant or psuedo magical abilities to make everyone the same. Variety is the spice of gaming.

I hate 4e too just for the record (they balanced down instead of up or toward the middle).

What I'd do? Two things mainly, for start. First of all, remove 'no save just die' effects and pretty much every 'you're screwed no matter what you do' option. Secondly, drastically increase the cast time and/or the risk involved in using powerful spells. Whatever the wizard could do in the time it takes to swing a sword (standard action) should be around the same power level as a sword swing. If you want really powerful effects, stuff like imprisonment, maze and whatnot it should take several rounds (in which you are vulnerable) and/or carry a toll that would make you at least think if the reward is worth the risk.

Maybe I just don't agree that a caster can 'easily respond to whatever is thrown at them'. In my eyes a Wizard is just as vulnerable as a Fighter, you just have to attack them from a different angle. Their CMD, Fort save, and hp, for example, will almost certainly be lower than a Fighter of the same level. If pressed in melee they will always have to cast defensively. If you want to be a real dink, attack the Wizard while hes preparing spells for the day, use lots of golems, or always choose creatures that are immune to whatever element the Sorcerer chose.

Between defensive spells, contingencies and mobility spells, good luck getting near a well played caster in order to attack him where it hurts if you're not a caster yourself. And if you're using casters to attack casters, then it's just an arms race where the fighter just sits idly by and watches. Also, you'd be surprised how much better do a caster's defenses look compared to a fighter due to buffs.

Are there inherent imbalances in the game? Sure. Are they so horrible that we should bring them up in every thread and discount a whole system because it didn't reinvent the wheel from the ground up? No.

When that system's stated goal was to balance 3.5, failed to do deliver in that regard and then the company did it's best to silence all voices on their own boards saying otherwise yeah, I feel they should be brought up.

DruchiiConversion

2011-12-06, 07:46 AM

I tend to think as a balance patch/improvement on 3.5, Pathfinder is a step backwards rather than forwards. Others disagree, and that's fine.

However, that's not the question here, as I understand it - the OP can certainly make up his or her mind about which ruleset is better by consulting online resources - one thing that I can definitely say about the Pathfinder books is that they're better than using online resources. The production values of the book are high, there's plenty of artwork - all the things that could be done to make an RPG book a nice collector's piece seem to be priorities. In that regards, yes - the Pathfinder books are worth your money. Even if you don't intend to play the system in preference to D&D 3.5 (the system I still run), I totally can't deny that the books look and feel good.

Real Sorceror

2011-12-06, 08:07 AM

I hate 4e too just for the record (they balanced down instead of up or toward the middle).

What I'd do? Two things mainly, for start. First of all, remove 'no save just die' effects and pretty much every 'you're screwed no matter what you do' option. Secondly, drastically increase the cast time and/or the risk involved in using powerful spells. Whatever the wizard could do in the time it takes to swing a sword (standard action) should be around the same power level as a sword swing. If you want really powerful effects, stuff like imprisonment, maze and whatnot it should take several rounds (in which you are vulnerable) and/or carry a toll that would make you at least think if the reward is worth the risk.
Pathfinder already removes all of the save or dies (aside from Phantasmal Killer, but that still gives two saves and is ignored by a lot of foes anyway).
I don't necessarily have a problem with adding casting time to certain spells so long as the caster still has things he can do during combat. A spell with a casting time of even one minute will not realistically be cast in most encounters. Its also pretty unsatisfying to spend 10 minutes casting a spell just to have it negated by a good roll.

Between defensive spells, contingencies and mobility spells, good luck getting near a well played caster in order to attack him where it hurts if you're not a caster yourself. And if you're using casters to attack casters, then it's just an arms race where the fighter just sits idly by and watches. Also, you'd be surprised how much better do a caster's defenses look compared to a fighter due to buffs.
Thats assuming a mid to high level caster. And aside from a few minor buffs, most personal spells barely last an hour, even with Extend Spell.
And yes, there are always different levels to encounters that some people won't be able to participate in. The mage vs mage being one (considering most classes in the game have casting, this can still be very diverse). There are whole playing fields that used to be specific to just the Rogue or Bard, but thankfully they've alleviated that a little with their skill system.
And no, judging by my username, I wouldn't be that surprised by a caster's buffs. I know what casters can do and I'm still saying a Fighter can steal my thunder. Maybe not in every encounter, but enough to where nobody dismisses him or feels like hes dead weight. In 90% of our games the face character is usually a melee character.

When that system's stated goal was to balance 3.5, failed to do deliver in that regard and then the company did it's best to silence all voices on their own boards saying otherwise yeah, I feel they should be brought up.
I've never seen the devs be anything but friendly and generally awesome, so I'll have to take your word for it. The only devs I've seen that are more friendly are at Cryptic Studios, and then only by a little.

LordBlades

2011-12-06, 08:36 AM

Pathfinder already removes all of the save or dies (aside from Phantasmal Killer, but that still gives two saves and is ignored by a lot of foes anyway).
I don't necessarily have a problem with adding casting time to certain spells so long as the caster still has things he can do during combat. A spell with a casting time of even one minute will not realistically be cast in most encounters. Its also pretty unsatisfying to spend 10 minutes casting a spell just to have it negated by a good roll.

It's not necessarily about save or die, but rather effects that screw with you without allowing the chance to do anything. Like Forcecage (which is practically 'you have teleportation or you're dead') or high CL Blasphemy(and similar). Save or die is a bit lame (roll well and somebody has wasted a round, roll bad and you died) but not the biggest problem. Pathfinder did a few steps in the right direction, but still left the main problem spells largely untouched.

I do agree that maybe longer casting time isn't the best solution. I'm not a game designer sadly. The goal should IMHO be to attach a high risk component to the high reward that is magic.

Thats assuming a mid to high level caster. And aside from a few minor buffs, most personal spells barely last an hour, even with Extend Spell.

It refers to mid level and above casters(let's say 6-7+). At very low levels everyone is equally squishy(usually one good crit away from death) so that leaves only 3-4 levels outside this range. (At that level both hour/level and extended 10 min/level spells (which last 2 hours per cast at level 6) are viable to keep up most adventuring day. Unless you bump into a lot of random encounters while traveling (which caster can mainly circumvent with the overwhelming amount of mobility/stealth/divination options they have at their disposal) 4 hours(covered by 2 casts of an extended 10 min/level buff) should usually be enough to get inside the dungeon, do whatever you need and get out.

And yes, there are always different levels to encounters that some people won't be able to participate in. The mage vs mage being one (considering most classes in the game have casting, this can still be very diverse). There are whole playing fields that used to be specific to just the Rogue or Bard, but thankfully they've alleviated that a little with their skill system.
And no, judging by my username, I wouldn't be that surprised by a caster's buffs. I know what casters can do and I'm still saying a Fighter can steal my thunder. Maybe not in every encounter, but enough to where nobody dismisses him or feels like hes dead weight. In 90% of our games the face character is usually a melee character.

It was about fighters(and non-magical, non-ToB fighter-ish characters), not melee in general. There are pretty decent melee options out there, stuff like
ToB, Totemists, DMM Clerics and Druids. I play Druids quite a lot and apart from optimized chargers, I have yet to see a fighter that's not a charger that wouldn't make me go 'whatever this guy can do I can do better, and still have plenty of spells to spare;.

navar100

2011-12-06, 09:42 AM

Flickerdart

2011-12-06, 09:48 AM

Nope. It hints as a DM who resents his job.
Fixing the system should not be the DM's job. It should be the job of the people who designed it. The DM's job is to tell a story with the players, and when one player's class is demigodly in its power and the other is pitiful and weak, it limits the range of stories that can be told within that game.

Tzevash

2011-12-06, 09:53 AM

Better skill management, class improvements, more customizing. I really don't catch what are the cons of "D&D 3.75" compared to previous editions.

Just play it!

LordBlades

2011-12-06, 09:58 AM

Fixing the system should not be the DM's job. It should be the job of the people who designed it. The DM's job is to tell a story with the players, and when one player's class is demigodly in its power and the other is pitiful and weak, it limits the range of stories that can be told within that game.

It also doesn't help at all that it doesn't say on the tin 'class X is stronger than class Y' (some systems do). On the contrary, most of the PHB/DMG seems to imply that classes are equal, and that a player rolling a monk should contribute equally to the one rolling a druid.

Better skill management, class improvements, more customizing. I really don't catch what are the cons of "D&D 3.75" compared to previous editions.

Just play it!

For me personally? False promises aside (I actually had pretty high hopes for PF) I feel they haven't improved enough to be worth the hassle to learn all the little things they changed from 3.5

Lost Demiurge

2011-12-06, 10:00 AM

Tzevash

2011-12-06, 10:03 AM

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-06, 10:09 AM

Pathfinder CORE cleans up a lot of worst abuses of 3.5 that are just annoying and stupid, as well as adding a lot of little abilities and options for character classes to make them balanced, playable and fun.

If nothing else, Pathfinder folds a lot of the GOOD ideas from the various 3.5 splatbooks into the CORE rules, allowing much of the flexibility of the splatbooks without the stupidity and abuses.

Then there are the obviously better parts of pathfinder, like the skill system and the Combat Defense (CMD) system, which is almost worth getting the books just so combats will run correctly.

The expanded Pathfinder material tends to start creeping toward splatbook creep, which IMHO was the downfall of 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5. It isn't BAD right now, but much more and there could be problems....

Generally, if you are using 3.5 and your group understands it and isn't abusing it, then don't change. If you find you are playing 3.5 with a lot of house rules so that things run well or aren't abused, then you should probably take a look at Pathfinder.
I hate when people think like this. Sure, with SpC your wizard gets Mindrape. But in core he gets Gate, Shapechange, Dominate Person/Monster, Time Stop, Polymorph, PaO, etc.

Core wizard can be GOD. Core wizard can be Batman. Splats make them slightly more powerful, but the power difference is already so huge it just doesn't matter. Compare to the new options for paladin and ranger spells in SpC.

Oh, and a single 3.5 splatbook did more for melee than PF ever did.

Better skill management, class improvements, more customizing. I really don't catch what are the cons of "D&D 3.75" compared to previous editions.

Just play it!

"Class improvements". Sure, on the surface the new fighter looks all shiny, but his best feats were nerfed. Just buy ToB.

Pros of PF-
Cleaner combat system
Better skills
Combat maneuver users more viable against big opponents
Nerfs to transmutation and battlefield control
Magus
MoMS, Martial Artist, and Quingong monk archetypes
Buffed paladin and ranger

Cons of PF-
No Tome of Battle (this isn't 3.P)
Didn't fix the fighter
Basically all conjuration that isn't BFC is still a big problem
No Battle Blessing
Still has massive balance issues, especially with the new sorcerer

Psyren

2011-12-06, 10:17 AM

askandarion

2011-12-06, 10:32 AM

I think Pathfinder's fine if you're still enjoying 3.5-style play. I like it because it continues that style, actually. Tweaks and changes are nice too, yes, (I like how they touched up most of the classes), but it's still 3.5 and it is fairly easy to import 3.5 into PF and vice versa- but you can also cut out 3.5 and use only PF if you're looking to avoid the splatbloat like my DM. It does enough to feel new without being completely new, so it can be intuitive for those coming over from 3.5. Some folks can't stand that, or that it doesn't address what they specifically disliked about 3.5. Again, that was the point- it's a variation (or refinement, depending on who you ask) on 3.5, not a new system. If the power variance is something you can't stand in 3.5, or other fundamental aspects of the style of the 3.5 system, you still won't stand it here as others have shown. That's what 4th Ed tried to address, so that's your better option (or other systems people throw around, but I haven't played them except for White Wolf, and that system doesn't engender itself towards fantasy I feel).

And yes, everything's pretty much free, so try it out and see what you think. Won't cost nuthin' but time. I kick money Paizo's way so we can continue getting stuff that I like, though.

Yora

2011-12-06, 11:15 AM

I go with pathfinder because I prefer to run games with giving the players a single book which they can roam for options. And the PF PHB seems a lot better than the 3.5e PHB. If you already are using 10+ splatbooks, I don't think the advantages of PF are that great.

Arbitrarious

2011-12-06, 11:51 AM

We've just started Pathfinder. Overall there isn't anything about pathfinder that is worse the 3.5 and more then a few things that are better. It's been good. I would like to see magic reigned in and more mundane options. ToB did a great job as many disciplines aren't magical in any way but let you do fun things with reasonable investment. Setting Sun is a personal favorite.

Talentless

2011-12-06, 11:53 AM

Y'know, I've been running Kingmaker for a while now...

The fighter, who optimized, is doing just fine at level 8 as he was at level 1. He's gone up, and his to-hit and damage rolls are a thing of beauty and pain to my monsters. He picked up a level of inquisitor recently, but it's more for special effects really.

The necromancer sorceror's doing okay, better now that she can make skeletal wyverns.

The healbot priest keeps the party held together but is crap at melee fighting, or anything that he can't searing ray.

The archer rogue is coming into her own, with a bow of frost and backup hand-to-hand tricks which she never uses. She'll go shadowdancer soon, for the fun of it.

And the artificer keeps all of them progressing with nifty toys, while slinging around wizard-type boom effects.

They MAUL through most encounters. I have to scale up from the book, usually, to keep them on their toes. Ain't nothing can stand toe to toe for long with that fighter! And he DOES have a backup bow, and he's pretty deadly with it. Not as optimized as the rogue, but that's fine.

They've all got their niches. And it all works.

So yes, OP, I would recommend picking up or getting into Pathfinder. At least up to level 8, it's been more fun than 3.5, and I don't have to worry so much about keeping people balanced artificially...

Of course, it helps that my folks are a group of old friends who know not to min max or give me a hassle. But that goes without saying for any game.

What point buy are you using for the stats?
I ask this because the first AP i ran for a group I used a 30 point buy for my players (they were new, and i wanted them to feel heroic but...) without reading what the encounters were balanced around (which is 15 point buy). They mauled everything in sight.

Also, your group has an Artificer, which, with Kingmaker's freeform timeline available, they can have a lot of crafting downtime to personalize the gear the group gets to completely optimize the gear rather than just using what loot comes their way.

That said, none of the Adventure Paths are designed to be inherently SUPER challenging.

I'm also going to throw in on the get Pathfinder. While a lot of the 9th level spells are still broken as all hell, a lot of the lower level spells have dropped in power, still good, but not OMGTakethisoryou'restupid like they were in 3.5, and I like a lot of the changes to everything else that has been done.

Note: they still are the best selections for their level, but they aren't so far ahead that you can't get by without them.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-06, 12:02 PM

I prefer an internally-credible world to a balanced one. Yeah, magic-users are capable of more stuff than the muggles are; that's the whole point, it's magic. It's not a bug, it's a feature. If they weren't, what's the point of having magic?

In most settings, the superior power of individual casters is held in check by (a) their grossly fewer numbers compared to mundanes, (b) their antgonism/rivalry towards one another across alignment lines and (c) the large numbers of otherworldly/extraplanar threats that demand their attention.

Harry Potter would be pretty pointless if Dudley could still beat him up after he started attending Hogwarts.

Then get a new system. In D&D and PF, it's just as easy to be a wizard as it is a fighter. Yet you're far more powerful for the exact same work. You can be a cleric and get far more power with less restrictions than a paladin of the same level with the same amount of work.

It's like trying to play Exalted with two heroic mortals and two solars. The heroic mortals can contribute, but they ould contribute far better as solars.

Psyren

2011-12-06, 12:40 PM

Then get a new system. In D&D and PF, it's just as easy to be a wizard as it is a fighter.

And? The proportion of PCs to NPCs in the world is a minority. It doesn't change the fact that, say, Faerun has tons more warriors than mages.

Taking class levels is a metagame issue. Anybody can pick up a sword, not anybody can master arcane mysteries.

Also, no u.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-06, 12:50 PM

Taking class levels is a metagame issue. Anybody can pick up a sword, not anybody can master arcane mysteries.

Yeah, because first level spells are totally arcane masteries and that guy who picked up a sword is definitely not just a commoner.

Real Sorceror

2011-12-06, 02:07 PM

Then get a new system. In D&D and PF, it's just as easy to be a wizard as it is a fighter. Yet you're far more powerful for the exact same work. You can be a cleric and get far more power with less restrictions than a paladin of the same level with the same amount of work.

It's like trying to play Exalted with two heroic mortals and two solars. The heroic mortals can contribute, but they ould contribute far better as solars.
Y'know, in every one of your posts I get the feeling that you don't actually enjoy playing any of these games. :/

Edit: I'm also gonna lay this out there, since I see lots of people here saying they love ToB: I hate ToB with a passion. It reeks of 4th edition and doesn't fix mundane combat in any way. Instead it adds three more complicated spellcasting classes.

Lost Demiurge

2011-12-06, 02:12 PM

What point buy are you using for the stats?
I ask this because the first AP i ran for a group I used a 30 point buy for my players (they were new, and i wanted them to feel heroic but...) without reading what the encounters were balanced around (which is 15 point buy). They mauled everything in sight.

Also, your group has an Artificer, which, with Kingmaker's freeform timeline available, they can have a lot of crafting downtime to personalize the gear the group gets to completely optimize the gear rather than just using what loot comes their way.

That said, none of the Adventure Paths are designed to be inherently SUPER challenging.

Heh. Actually, we did an obscenely good roll for stats. 4d6 and reroll 1's until they're no longer 1's. And you get to roll a new set if your stats added together are less than 80. We've been playing RPG's a long time and like being big damn heroes.

I HAVE had to scale up most of the encounters, mind. But that's fine, scaling is one of my specialties. If the other AP's are lowballed as well, I might have to pick up a few more. I like modules that start off low. You can always raise the difficulty from the set blocks a few notches and customize it to your group, but it's harder to lower it if the blocks are too high.

And yeah, the artificer's downtime combined with kingdom level resources is allowing a silly amount of customizability for their gear. It's pretty fun to watch, and the guy playing the art's taking care not to overoptimize folks. I think his latest project is a suit of platemail for the necromancer's dragon skeleton...

Mando Knight

2011-12-06, 02:22 PM

Whaaaaaat? :smallannoyed:
Wayne Reynolds is god. Shame on you.

He did some 4e art, too (specifically, the covers for the 4e core books are on his site (http://www.waynereynolds.com/WotCGallery1.htm)), and he either can't draw ankles and wrists, or thinks that people look better without ones that function.

navar100

2011-12-06, 02:24 PM

Real Sorceror

2011-12-06, 02:31 PM

He did some 4e art, too (specifically, the covers for the 4e core books are on his site (http://www.waynereynolds.com/WotCGallery1.htm)), and he either can't draw ankles and wrists, or thinks that people look better without ones that function.
Hes also done all the covers for the core Pathfinder books as well as all the PF iconic characters. His PF art looks just a bit better to me than his 4e art imo, but that could be because it was done later and artists tend to improve over time. As for bad joints, it doesn't bother me. Hes still vastly superior to the alternatives. If you want we could go back to Crabapple's watercolor art? :P

Mando Knight

2011-12-06, 02:39 PM

the spellcasters not demigodly in power,

...Not really. Spellcasters can still cheat death, disable enemies, walk on air, and still have enough spells left per day to teleport away, summon magical armor, or whatever they want to do.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-06, 02:46 PM

Fortunately the Pathfinder warrior classes are not pitiful and weak and the spellcasters not demigodly in power, nor vice-versa, so there's nothing to worry about.

Casters are still demigods.

Mundanes are tier 4 if you play them right (select correct archetypes, equipment, and feats), meaning they're competent enough to not die. Rogue is pushing tier 3, but isn't quite there. Casters are still tier 1 by a long shot though, and sorcerer got buffs, it's very easy to make case for a human sorcerer with that favored class ARF being 1.

In low-op games, 3.5 is just as good, so why bother? In mid- and high-op games, the problems are still there. PF is good for a better base system and new options, but pure PF is almost as bad as 3.5, worse if 3.5 includes ToB.

Mando Knight

2011-12-06, 02:55 PM

Casters are still tier 1 by a long shot though, and sorcerer got buffs, it's very easy to make case for a human sorcerer with that favored class ARF being 1.

Plus, the Sorcerer got a bit of a patch to its known spells problem via the Expanded Arcana (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/expanded-arcana) feat. Since a Sorcerer now gets bonus feats and everyone gets more feats in general, it's fairly easy to squeeze in a couple of these for the extra spells known.

Psyren

2011-12-06, 03:22 PM

Yeah, because first level spells are totally arcane masteries and that guy who picked up a sword is definitely not just a commoner.

Oh, sure they are. "I studied for a century before I even mastered my first 1st-level spell!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html) :smalltongue:

Ok, more seriously: have you read this table? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#age) Notice how all three classes that actually need formal education are on the far right? Coinkydink, no?

Tyndmyr

2011-12-06, 03:26 PM

What I'm asking here is whether or not there are enough differences between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder to make it worth getting PF, or any other reason why I should (or shouldn't) get PF.

Im well into pathfinder books, and I still wrestle with this.

Here's the deal. PF is very, very similar to 3.5. If you have played 3.5, you'll initially open up core PF and wonder why you just rebought the normal core books. There are some differences...but they're akin to a set of house rules scattered throughout the books. Some are great, some are not. Many of the core broken things(Candle of Invocation wish loop, etc) are still alive and well, and magic/melee has, if anything, gotten slightly more imbalanced towards magic.

I feel like they're an aright source to mine for ideas, and to strip things out of for your own games, and a decent source of new campaign material, but not sufficiently different to justify moving away from 3.5.

LordBlades

2011-12-06, 03:34 PM

@LordBlades

Well...

1) MAD-afflicted classes are more enjoyable to play, and more efficient... and also Sorcerers and Fighters got heavily revamped.
2) Everyone gets more feats, and with this and the traits you have more customization.
3) You can take non-class skills without too much point spending: fighters and such can have Diplomacy, Knowledge and other skills that add color and offer more ways to lead the game.

1) Apart from Paladin, I don;t think any of the MAD classes got better in any singificant way (not enough to get stuff like monk out of the very low tiers I think). As for the fighter, the heavy nerf on Power Attack means it's actually worse than in 3.5

2) Given, might help in some build, not do much in others.

3) There's already a fighter with diplomacy and whatnot in 3.5 ( and 4+int skills/level). It's called a warblade. As for the PF skill system, it does help some builds, and hinders others. For example one of my current PbP chars (lvl. 1 Archivist)is a wandering sage. As such he has skill points spread among all knowledges. Such a char would not have been possible in PF.

Helldog

2011-12-06, 03:35 PM

I feel like they're an aright source to mine for ideas, and to strip things out of for your own games, and a decent source of new campaign material, but not sufficiently different to justify moving away from 3.5.
But you aren't. You are continuing 3.5. It's just tweaked a little. And you get new material, almost for free. :smallwink:

Curious

2011-12-06, 03:42 PM

Fortunately the Pathfinder warrior classes are not pitiful and weak and the spellcasters not demigodly in power, nor vice-versa, so there's nothing to worry about.

Really? Are you actually arguing this? It has been proven, time and again, that spellcasters are so much more powerful than mundanes that they have shot off the graph and hit the ceiling. Pathfinder does nothing to change this fundamental imbalance, and anyone who says otherwise is either kidding themselves or playing with a very low-op group. Although, granted, judging by the op standards of the Paizo boards, that does seem to be their general player base.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-06, 03:44 PM

But you aren't. You are continuing 3.5. It's just tweaked a little. And you get new material, almost for free. :smallwink:

Meh. I don't like all the changes. Some are fine. Some...not so much. I don't WANT all the new material.

Instead of starting with PF and porting over 3.5 stuff, I'm much better off playing 3.5, and grabbing the couple things I want from PF.

Also, Curious is correct on the power curve. PF fixes nothing about the general magic/melee balance. Certain classes, like sorc/wiz are arguably better off in proportion to melee than they were.

Psyren

2011-12-06, 03:48 PM

Really? Are you actually arguing this? It has been proven, time and again, that spellcasters are so much more powerful than mundanes that they have shot off the graph and hit the ceiling. Pathfinder does nothing to change this fundamental imbalance, and anyone who says otherwise is either kidding themselves or playing with a very low-op group. Although, granted, judging by the op standards of the Paizo boards, that does seem to be their general player base.

If your caster players are going to op-fu the hell out of the game and wreck everything, they'll find a way to do that no matter what you play. The maturity level of that table is the problem here moreso than the system.

I've played plenty of PF games; Saph and others have DMed them too. Somehow, the campaign world hasn't resulted in a singularity and all of us spend more time here than the paizo boards.

System mastery may give you the tools to break the game, but nothing forces a player to use those tools to their potential. Unless that player is an antisocial iconoclast, in which case don't play with him.

Curious

2011-12-06, 03:55 PM

If your caster players are going to op-fu the hell out of the game and wreck everything, they'll find a way to do that no matter what you play. The maturity level of that table is the problem here moreso than the system.

I've played plenty of PF games; Saph and others have DMed them too. Somehow, the campaign world hasn't resulted in a singularity and all of us spend more time here than the paizo boards.

System mastery may give you the tools to break the game, but nothing forces a player to use those tools to their potential. Unless that player is an antisocial iconoclast, in which case don't play with him.

I think you've misunderstood me; I'm not saying that casters always break the game, or that you're playing the game wrong if you don't play your character to the maximum power-level possible. I'm just refuting his claim that wizards can't do such things in Pathfinder, when they definitely can.

MukkTB

2011-12-06, 04:31 PM

Pathfinder is clearly superior with regard to combat maneuvers and the skill system. Other than that the only thing I can say in its favor is that having nifty little abilities at each level for all classes makes them more fun to play.

Pathfinder fails to fix any significant balance issues. Yeah the paladin is nice. So what? The tier system is still in play and the developers have not really shown any system mastery with regards to their balance, just personal bias. Exactly why did the throwing rogue need nerfed? Did the fighter really need a PA nerf without giving it some other worthwhile goodies? If you want to nerf things shouldn't you spend your time kicking the tier 1 and 2 classes instead of the ones that aren't even magic users?

I repeatedly hear some people on this board treat the pathfinder devs (and players) as clueless pubbies. "We are so much much better then those idiots." Not an appealing sentiment to me. However there is some evidence that the PF devs made some mistakes.

PF is a very minor improvement over 3.5 for the skill system and the combat maneuver system. Everything is compatible but takes a bit of work. Its kind of like having some mostly nice house rules for 3.5. I'd recommend trying it but I don't feel that I can say that its a great improvement.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-06, 04:32 PM

Oh, sure they are. "I studied for a century before I even mastered my first 1st-level spell!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html) :smalltongue:

Ok, more seriously: have you read this table? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#age) Notice how all three classes that actually need formal education are on the far right? Coinkydink, no?

First part is, V's an elf. It takes a hundred years for them to learn the basics of anything. :smalltongue:

Second, that table says you have to be at least 16 to a be a level 1 sorcerer, 16 to be a level 1 fighter, and 17 to be a level 1 wizard, cleric, or druid. It's one year. The longer lived races have more separation, but they live longer anyway. If you have at least 11 in ONE mental stat, why wouldn't you take a casting class? Well, I guess level 1 is where it's roughly 50% depending on who wins initiative, in favor of the warrior due to Grease, Entangle, Sleep, etc. allowing a save.

But seriously, would you rather have a force of 50 1st level fighters, or a force of 50 first level wizards, sorcs, clerics, or druids, with Grease for the wizards and sorcerers who use crossbows, Bless, Bane and CLW for the clerics, and Entangle, CLW, SNA I, and animal companion (riding dog) for the druids. Because it's just as easy to field sorcerers as fighters, and only slightly harder to field the other three.

MukkTB

2011-12-06, 04:57 PM

If you assume characters get to choose their class the whole thing gets silly fast. If you assume they don't get to choose their class then how was it chosen?

Options: Bad/Bad

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-06, 05:09 PM

If you assume characters get to choose their class the whole thing gets silly fast. If you assume they don't get to choose their class then how was it chosen?

Well, it's not totally plausible for some things, but there is one thing. Everyone that is a paladin could be a sorcadin or cleric, so why would you be a paladin?

As for the others, everyone with 11 charisma can be a 1st level sorcerer, everyone with 11 intelligence can be a wizard, everyone with 11 wisdom can be a cleric or druid. Cleric of war both fills the same spot as fighter, druid fills the same as ranger. Sneaky arcane type can fill the same as rogue, although the first level being rogue for a ton of skill points can be good, but every level after that would be wizard or sorc.

Dr.Epic

2011-12-06, 05:11 PM

I never actually played it but I heard it takes the best of 3.5 and 4th edition, and blends them together.

Blisstake

2011-12-06, 05:12 PM

I never actually played it but I heard it takes the best of 3.5 and 4th edition, and blends them together.

It's a lot closer to 3.5.

And the best of 3.5 is probably ToB, so I don't think it's that either. Regardless, I still love PF :smalltongue:

Mando Knight

2011-12-06, 05:14 PM

As for the PF skill system, it does help some builds, and hinders others. For example one of my current PbP chars (lvl. 1 Archivist)is a wandering sage. As such he has skill points spread among all knowledges. Such a char would not have been possible in PF.
At level 1, it isn't, but you get the class skill bonus if you have a rank in a class skill. So at first level, you may have a few knowledge skills maximized and several not so much. Then as you progress in levels, you can spread out your skills a little more and have at least a +4 in all your class skills before too long without subtracting too much from your favored skills.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-06, 05:17 PM

It doesn't have any 4e. It's just heavily house ruled 3.5. They fixed a few things, streamlined the system. ToB did a better job for the goal though: balance. ToB+PF is probably the closest we'll ever get to balance with official books, but full casters are still two tiers ahead (and now the human sorcerer is pushing tier 1 as well), and anyone who says PF is the best thing since sliced bread is wrong.

Helldog

2011-12-06, 05:40 PM

and anyone who says PF is the best thing since sliced bread is wrong.
It is the best thing that could happen to a D&Der.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-06, 05:59 PM

It is the best thing that could happen to a D&Der.

It does not fix the balance problem in any significant way! So now the paladin's as good as the barbarian, and the monk can be with the splatbook support. Who cares? The barbarian's still way behind the wizard! And sorcerer, cleric, and druid!

It is not the Holy Grail of D&D 3.5, it is not the best thing that could happen!

Tome of Battle alone does far more than Pathfinder for balance!

Helldog

2011-12-06, 06:06 PM

Could you please chill out for a moment? Where did I say anything about balance?
In contrast to 3.5, PF is still being printed and expanded.
So yeah. My point stands.

Reverent-One

2011-12-06, 06:08 PM

It does not fix the balance problem in any significant way! So now the paladin's as good as the barbarian, and the monk can be with the splatbook support. Who cares? The barbarian's still way behind the wizard! And sorcerer, cleric, and druid!

And yet, people still played barbarians, fighters, ect, for years in 3.5 despite the fact that they were so much weaker than the higher tier classes. Obviously that isn't a dealbreaker for a lot of people.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-06, 06:10 PM

Could you please chill out for a moment? Where did I say anything about balance?
In contrast to 3.5, PF is still being printed and expanded.
So yeah. My point stands.

Just because it's still making books doesn't mean it the best thing ever.

Curious

2011-12-06, 06:15 PM

Just because it's still making books doesn't mean it the best thing ever.

Perhaps not, but I tend to think that Pathfinder publishing any books at all is a good thing for the continuation of the hobby. Without new books and new customers being injected into the community, 3.x is ultimately doomed to wither. Pathfinder can help extend that lifetime.

Also, I really like most of their splatbook classes. Love me some Witch and Summoner.

Helldog

2011-12-06, 06:20 PM

Just because it's still making books doesn't mean it the best thing ever.
Better Pathfinder then nothing at all. And your 3.5 materials will run out, sooner or later.
And what Curious said.

Blisstake

2011-12-06, 06:31 PM

It is not the Holy Grail of D&D 3.5, it is not the best thing that could happen!

Tome of Battle alone does far more than Pathfinder for balance!

You're missing the point. A lot of the people who love PF really don't give a crap about the finer points of balance. For example, I don't like how 3.5 added a few classes in ToB that completely obsoleted others, or added classes that never got any attention from other splatbooks (the Shugenja comes to mind), even if that improved balance in the long run.

Personally, I think trying to base PF on the balance suggestions proposed by the optimization community would have made Pathfinder worse, and probably wouldn't sell as well. I can't be certain of course, but it's just a theory of mine.

Optimator

2011-12-06, 06:42 PM

My group plays 3.5 but has the Pathfinder books. We use the archtypes, spells, and items from them. Kind of like Unearthed Arcana XL.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-06, 06:44 PM

Personally, I think trying to base PF on the balance suggestions proposed by the optimization community would have made Pathfinder worse, and probably wouldn't sell as well. I can't be certain of course, but it's just a theory of mine.

Eh? We'd balance everything at tier 3. And do a pretty damn good job of making sure everything was tier 4-2. Nerf problem spells (Polymorph lasting one round per level and Shapechange lasting one minute per level would be a good start, and halving the hit die amount allowed by Planar Ally/Binding lines. Oh, and take out Knock and let people pick Arcane Locks at... +10 DC?), give melee nice things (move+full attack is major, but also give an extra good saving throw, will for barbarians and paladins, reflex for fighters. Oh, and make the nice things class features so melee casters can't use them, at least not without losing CL), and nerf the casting classes themselves a bit (I'd say taking out one spell slots of each level should do it).

MukkTB

2011-12-06, 07:06 PM

As for the others, everyone with 11 charisma can be a 1st level sorcerer, everyone with 11 intelligence can be a wizard, everyone with 11 wisdom can be a cleric or druid.

All that proves is that NPCs in most normal campaigns don't actually get to choose their class. Last time I walked down a city street there were a couple city guard (warriors, maybe the chief inspector was a rogue or an expert) some merchants and peasants (commoners or experts) and a guy I think was a thief (rogue). If all that was required for a character to choose a better class was an 11 mental stat I think most of them would have selected one. I'm sure that the ones who didn't have 10 as any mental stat would have at least liked to have chosen rogue or fighter for their class.

EDIT - Also +1 for a balanced set of tier 3/4 classes with which to play the game. Although that's easy enough for a DM to houserule in. Just say "Players can play tier 3 and 4 characters." Making it into an official rulebook would have been nice. Split the spellcasters into their constituent tier 3 components the way the healer/dread necromancer/beguiler/bard have already begun.

navar100

2011-12-06, 07:23 PM

Casters are still demigods.

Mundanes are tier 4 if you play them right (select correct archetypes, equipment, and feats), meaning they're competent enough to not die. Rogue is pushing tier 3, but isn't quite there. Casters are still tier 1 by a long shot though, and sorcerer got buffs, it's very easy to make case for a human sorcerer with that favored class ARF being 1.

In low-op games, 3.5 is just as good, so why bother? In mid- and high-op games, the problems are still there. PF is good for a better base system and new options, but pure PF is almost as bad as 3.5, worse if 3.5 includes ToB.

Like I said, those who are enraged by 3E magic will not be satisfied with Pathfinder. Have fun with 4E. For the rest of us who don't get apoplectic about it, Pathfinder's take did a good job. I don't agree with all the spell nerfs, but I'm not enraged by them and get over it.

Spellcasters have cool stuff and warriors got lots of love in improvement. There's incentive to stay single-class, prestige classes are specialties, not must have better alternatives, and archetypes lower the need for them. Pathfinder took 3E into a good direction to continue its system.

If you hate 3E, Pathfinder is not for you.

Aron Times

2011-12-06, 07:32 PM

Pathfinder's adventure modules are very good. The rules are alright, but nowhere near balanced. If you want a consistent and balanced system, get 4e.

To sum it up:

Pathfinder modules? Worth a buy. Definitely worth a buy.
Pathfinder rulebooks? Hell no.

Blisstake

2011-12-06, 07:37 PM

Eh? We'd balance everything at tier 3. And do a pretty damn good job of making sure everything was tier 4-2. Nerf problem spells (Polymorph lasting one round per level and Shapechange lasting one minute per level would be a good start, and halving the hit die amount allowed by Planar Ally/Binding lines. Oh, and take out Knock and let people pick Arcane Locks at... +10 DC?), give melee nice things (move+full attack is major, but also give an extra good saving throw, will for barbarians and paladins, reflex for fighters. Oh, and make the nice things class features so melee casters can't use them, at least not without losing CL), and nerf the casting classes themselves a bit (I'd say taking out one spell slots of each level should do it).

I actually like having classes that are all over the tier list. Without seriously altering the classes, I really don't think there's a way to take down the primary casting classes to tier 3 or moving tier 5 classes higher, without a significant departure from the 3.5 rule set.

Keep in mind that the whole tier system is balanced around optimization in the first place. From my experiences with showing Tome of Battle to players who were new to the game, they all came to the conclusion that the classes in their are incredibly overpowered compared to even the wizard, and we all know that isn't true.

In fact, that's true for pretty much any tier system: it doesn't apply to the majority of players. And that's my biggest issue with the most prevalent complaints toward the balance of Pathfinder: there is no way to balance the system for everyone. I'd honestly rather have a system that's accessible to everyone, rather than one that's balanced around the highest levels of optimization.

That said; yes, I do think there are some balance changes that could have been made to Pathfinder to improve it for everyone (silly things like getting rid of the Candle of Invocation). Or classes that could be a bit better. But all in all, I don't feel class balance should be the main reason to like/dislike Pathfinder.

sonofzeal

2011-12-06, 07:39 PM

Like I said, those who are enraged by 3E magic will not be satisfied with Pathfinder. Have fun with 4E. For the rest of us who don't get apoplectic about it, Pathfinder's take did a good job. I don't agree with all the spell nerfs, but I'm not enraged by them and get over it.

Spellcasters have cool stuff and warriors got lots of love in improvement. There's incentive to stay single-class, prestige classes are specialties, not must have better alternatives, and archetypes lower the need for them. Pathfinder took 3E into a good direction to continue its system.

If you hate 3E, Pathfinder is not for you.
Did a good job... of what, exactly? I mean, they were pretty open about wanting it to be a balance-fix, and you're freely admitting they didn't actually do that.

All I see is that they buffed just about every class by a roughly similar margin and called it a day. Oh hey everyone, play our game and get new toys! Nevermind that the vast majority of it is just window dressing. At least it's not worse... right?

PF still lacks the vast quantity of options and resources that 3.5 has. And while 3.P gets the best of both, it's also awkward and occasionally impossible to integrate the two, given changes to some fundamental systems, without extensive houseruling. It's not terrible, and I'd be willing to play it if my group wanted to, but in general I just don't see why I should make the effort, nor do I understand the fangasms I see for it. My old housemate thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and thought it was more balanced, but it was pretty easy to disabuse him of that notion. It's not worse... but that's about all I've seen anyone establish.

Play Our Game: It's Not Worse than the Competition! (tm)

Flickerdart

2011-12-06, 07:41 PM

I really don't think there's a way to take down the primary casting classes to tier 3
Beguiler.

or moving tier 5 classes higher
Wildshape/Mystic Ranger, Trickster Spellthief, Dungeoncrasher Fighter.

sonofzeal

2011-12-06, 08:01 PM

Beguiler is not a primary casting class.
Anyone who gets 9th level spells is a primary casting class.

Edit: Is dungeoncrasher tier 3?
Debatable. Some of his other examples go from Tier 4 to Tier 3, rather than from Tier 5. But the point, I think, is a good one - class variants routinely change the tier of the class, so what he's discussing is by no means impossible.

Blisstake

2011-12-06, 08:04 PM

Beguiler.

Beguiler is nothing like a wizard. I don't think you could actually take a wizard or cleric and change them T3 without turning them into a completely different class (like a Beguiler).

Edit: Yeah, deleted the last post. Had a complete brainfart: It's definitely a primary class.

Wildshape/Mystic Ranger, Trickster Spellthief, Dungeoncrasher Fighter.

I'm actually not familiar where these are in the tier list. Could you fill me in? Also, I don't have access to Dungeonscape; what exactly was changed from the Fighter (all I know is the charge attack).

I heard arguments that the dungeoncrasher was one of those deceptively powerful classes in lower optimization levels, but I can't say for sure.

MukkTB

2011-12-06, 08:05 PM

I think most people would be happy with tier 3 and 4 for balance. Just tier 3 is a little restrictive. Trying to tweak everything to be 'exactly tier 3' may or may not be a little hard.

And the beguiler is a solid caster. It gains spells slower than a tier 1 character but that's the whole point of being tier 3: You're not as powerful as tier 1.

EDIT - The idea behind many tier 3 casters instead of just the wizard/cleric/druid is this. Calling up a demon, transforming the enemy into a toad, casting an illusion so some dude steps into a pit thinking its solid ground, turning into a dragon, regenerating health, coming back from the dead, creating undead, throwing lightning bolts, turning into a giant, and foreseeing the future are all fine. But they're not exactly fine when one guy does all of those things at over the course of 10 minutes or so.

Think about the narrative. When is the last time you remember reading about a character villain or hero who could do all those things at the same time? Most magical characters follow themes fairly closely. A necromancer can bring people back from the dead, but he cant throw fireballs. Its not that he chooses not to throw fireballs. He can't throw fireballs because he is a necromancer.

I'd rather split the wizard/cleric/druid up into enough classes to cover the spellcaster archetypes then let 3 classes try to cover all of them and become uber powerful because of their wide variety of abilities.

Blisstake

2011-12-06, 08:12 PM

Debatable. Some of his other examples go from Tier 4 to Tier 3, rather than from Tier 5. But the point, I think, is a good one - class variants routinely change the tier of the class, so what he's discussing is by no means impossible.

That's a good point, but I do feel like the Wildshape Ranger is quite a bit different from the original Ranger. When something increases to T3 from a variant, isn't that usually due to an increase in casting abilities or due to other magical/quasi-magic benefits? While it is certainly possible to change something to a more balanced tier, I'm not sure if that would be possible with the core 3.5 ruleset.

Some people would obviously prefer the departure from the familiar for more balanced gameplay. And Pathfinder would be pretty pointless for those people. That seems perfectly reasonable.

Others like familiarity or classes that actually aren't balanced (such as myself). Some people don't care and just want more content to the 3.5 line of products. I think that's who Pathfinder is best for.

I almost said designed for, but to be fair, I have no idea what's up with the developers of the game. I've heard everything from they're complete idiots, to geniuses, to manipulating [expletive].

Curious

2011-12-06, 08:13 PM

Play Our Game: It's Not Worse than the Competition! (tm)

I believe that Pathfinder also has one other redeeming quality; to those new to the game, the simplified rules makes a good springboard into the quantity of 3.5 material available. For those who already play 3.5, euuh.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-12-06, 08:51 PM

Did a good job... of what, exactly? I mean, they were pretty open about wanting it to be a balance-fix, and you're freely admitting they didn't actually do that.From what I gather Paizo's fanbase plays at low levels and doesn't optimize highly. So they focused on nerfing low-op, low-level stuff like Glitterdust and Wildshape. A noob isn't going to gate loop using Candle of Invocation; he's just going to see that the fighter got more plusses and the low level wizard can't end the encounter in one spell and call it a balanced day.

All I see is that they buffed just about every class by a roughly similar margin and called it a day. Oh hey everyone, play our game and get new toys! Nevermind that the vast majority of it is just window dressing. At least it's not worse... right?See below.

PF still lacks the vast quantity of options and resources that 3.5 has. And while 3.P gets the best of both, it's also awkward and occasionally impossible to integrate the two, given changes to some fundamental systems, without extensive houseruling.I haven't encountered this problem. Examples?

It's not terrible, and I'd be willing to play it if my group wanted to, but in general I just don't see why I should make the effort, nor do I understand the fangasms I see for it. My old housemate thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and thought it was more balanced, but it was pretty easy to disabuse him of that notion. It's not worse... but that's about all I've seen anyone establish.

Play Our Game: It's Not Worse than the Competition! (tm)You know what "not worse" means, when the products aren't identical? It means "almost surely better." At least a little better. It's also free online. So yeah.

MukkTB

2011-12-06, 09:54 PM

Well there is the cost in effort of learning the new rules. And while people say 'backwards compatible' about half the groups you'll run into play pathfinder only. Even if you try to go backward compatible you have to think about some things. I personally would allow both forms of power attack. Others may house rule other interpretations.

Switching to pathfinder is not without costs. About the same costs as joining a group with some different house rules than you're used to.

Flickerdart

2011-12-06, 10:01 PM

You know what "not worse" means, when the products aren't identical? It means "almost surely better." At least a little better. It's also free online. So yeah.
I have a persimmon and a tangerine. They are not identical. One is not worse than the other, but also not better. Difference does not imply a hierarchical distinction in any way, shape or form.

navar100

2011-12-06, 10:01 PM

Did a good job... of what, exactly? I mean, they were pretty open about wanting it to be a balance-fix, and you're freely admitting they didn't actually do that.

All I see is that they buffed just about every class by a roughly similar margin and called it a day. Oh hey everyone, play our game and get new toys! Nevermind that the vast majority of it is just window dressing. At least it's not worse... right?

PF still lacks the vast quantity of options and resources that 3.5 has. And while 3.P gets the best of both, it's also awkward and occasionally impossible to integrate the two, given changes to some fundamental systems, without extensive houseruling. It's not terrible, and I'd be willing to play it if my group wanted to, but in general I just don't see why I should make the effort, nor do I understand the fangasms I see for it. My old housemate thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and thought it was more balanced, but it was pretty easy to disabuse him of that notion. It's not worse... but that's about all I've seen anyone establish.

Play Our Game: It's Not Worse than the Competition! (tm)

Fangasm? How about balancegasm? All this talk about "balance" I really don't give a damn. What passes for "balance" around here amounts to everyone is the same. Not my cup of tea; hence I don't play 4E. As for the Tier System, it can suck a lemon. It does not dictate The One True Way. Why should it bother you so much people actually like 3E and/or Pathfinder?

Really, it absolutely, positively does not bother me or lots of other people at all that a wizard can cast Gate. We do not run in horror because a fighter needs to take out a bow when the party is attacked by flying creatures. Hip, hip hooray the druid has an Animal Companion. It sure did help us in that battle in the woods. We'll miss his presence as we enter the dungeon walking up and down steps and ropes or spend a few weeks in town.

All that matters is what happens for our particular game, not theoretical potential of what a class can do given every option everywhere. We expect combats to be fun, fair challenges with the occasional easy ones and occasional difficult ones with a DM who doesn't resent having to create such combats based upon what the party can or cannot do.

Such things are irrelevant to the game system used. Relevance is whether a system can deliver. Pathfinder can deliver. 4E can deliver. All that matters is your particular taste.

This is all the OP needs to know:

If you hate 3E, don't get Pathfinder. If you like 3E, Pathfinder is worth the look. It made significant changes in increasing warrior abilities, decreasing some problematic spells, and altered feats and the skill system. Paizo is a company continuing the 3E system line if you're interested in new stuff. If you don't care about that, they offer a free version of its Core rules. You can run a game using it to see if you like the changes or not. It is compatible to use partially if you like some of what it did but prefer the original 3E version of its changes. 3E stuff that has no Pathfinder equivalent will work fine in a Pathfinder game. Pathfinder might inspire you to make your own changes, such as any class with d4 HD becomes d6 and any d6 HD class becomes d8, or maybe not. If you try Pathfinder but just aren't thrilled with it at all, oh well. Using the free version meant you didn't "waste" money.

All talk by anyone if they like or dislike Pathfinder is irrelevant.

sonofzeal

2011-12-06, 11:02 PM

From what I gather Paizo's fanbase plays at low levels and doesn't optimize highly. So they focused on nerfing low-op, low-level stuff like Glitterdust and Wildshape. A noob isn't going to gate loop using Candle of Invocation; he's just going to see that the fighter got more plusses and the low level wizard can't end the encounter in one spell and call it a balanced day.
Fighters get more features - but PF also generally nerfed feats, at least the ones worth taking for a melee warrior, which is where a Fighter's power generally came from. I'm not sure I'd call that a net gain for the Fighter. And Wizards and Sorcerers suddenly gained better HP and a whole host of useful class features, including potential metamagic reducers... and people expect balance to be improved?

I haven't encountered this problem. Examples?
A lot of 3.5's PrCs rely on modifying class features or spells that PF radically altered.

You know what "not worse" means, when the products aren't identical? It means "almost surely better." At least a little better. It's also free online. So yeah.
If you're starting from scratch, never having learned 3.5, then going with PF is probably a good choice.

If you're familiar and fluent with 3.5, then learning PF is probably harder and less beneficial than simply coming up with your own set of houserules. It would not be at all difficult for me to come up with a series of houserules that {a} are easier to learn than PF's conversion, {b} do more to mitigate balance issues, and {c} are more readily compatible with existing 3.5 material. See the Minimum Intervention Balance Fix in my sig for the way I'd start - and that was cobbled together in maybe an hour or two of actual work, all told.

Gavinfoxx

2011-12-06, 11:15 PM

Edit: I'm also gonna lay this out there, since I see lots of people here saying they love ToB: I hate ToB with a passion. It reeks of 4th edition and doesn't fix mundane combat in any way. Instead it adds three more complicated spellcasting classes.

I don't know if this will help... but you know that the best way to model historic european renaissance-era swordsmanship (ie, using greatswords and breastplates and stuff) with D&D rules is by using the Warblade, right? So it is the book that actually ENABLES realism in martial arts far beyond where D&D had managed before?

Leon

2011-12-07, 12:13 AM

Core wizard can be GOD.

The can is the important part here - a wizard is like every other class it can be very powerful when well played or it can be a joke if badly played.

Fixing the system should not be the DM's job. It should be the job of the people who designed it. The DM's job is to tell a story with the players, and when one player's class is demigodly in its power and the other is pitiful and weak, it limits the range of stories that can be told within that game.

How a system is "broken" will vary from group to group and how they use the rules provided.

All classes are the same in a ground state of not being played - how a class is played makes it powerful or not, some like the wizard are easier to take to the extremes than others. But that is not inherent in the class.

Dsurion

2011-12-07, 12:16 AM

OP, this thread is obviously devolving into yet another "NO U" thread... So I'm going to ask now, do you think you'll be switching to Pathfinder?

Reverent-One

2011-12-07, 12:17 AM

If you're familiar and fluent with 3.5, then learning PF is probably harder and less beneficial than simply coming up with your own set of houserules. It would not be at all difficult for me to come up with a series of houserules that {a} are easier to learn than PF's conversion, {b} do more to mitigate balance issues, and {c} are more readily compatible with existing 3.5 material. See the Minimum Intervention Balance Fix in my sig for the way I'd start - and that was cobbled together in maybe an hour or two of actual work, all told.

Not really. I played 3.5 quite a bit before 4e/PF, and the group I play in in RL is as or more experienced with 3.5 as I am and it wasn't a difficult shift at all. A personal set of houserules like you suggest would require greater (probably far greater) debate and more fundamental changes in the rules like the ones in your sig probably wouldn't fly.

EDIT: It's really not a matter of familiarity with 3.5, but you and your group's tendency to tweak 3.5 that would determine how much use PF is. If you already were going around and making a number of fixes to the various class/spells/what have you, PF probably isn't going to go far enough for you. If you mostly played 3.5 by the rules, making a minor tweak for personal preference here and there (like "Str can be used for Intimidate instead of Cha"), and generally just followed the rule of "Don't be a **** and try to break the game", PF has a lot to offer.

Curious

2011-12-07, 12:21 AM

The can is the important part here - a wizard is like every other class it can be very powerful when well played or it can be a joke if badly played.

The thing is, there is still a disparity; a well played fighter is good at killing things, but that's it. A well played Wizard can literally do whatever he wants.

How a system is "broken" will vary from group to group and how they use the rules provided.

All classes are the same in a ground state of not being played - how a class is played makes it powerful or not, some like the wizard are easier to take to the extremes than others. But that is not inherent in the class.

Uh, what? If the wizard is more capable and powerful when equally optimized, then it very well is inherent in the class.

Leon

2011-12-07, 12:29 AM

You're missing the point. A lot of the people who love PF really don't give a crap about the finer points of balance.

I'd say that a lot of people who play 3.5 don't give a crap about it either only the loud minority that end up on forums do. Like many things the people on forums make up a small slice of the overall population of a game and are quite often vocal about what they believe things should be like.

Really? Are you actually arguing this? It has been proven, time and again, that spellcasters are so much more powerful than mundanes that they have shot off the graph and hit the ceiling. Pathfinder does nothing to change this fundamental imbalance, and anyone who says otherwise is either kidding themselves or playing with a very low-op group. Although, granted, judging by the op standards of the Paizo boards, that does seem to be their general player base.

A Spellcaster is no more powerful than a non spellcaster until played that way - yes you can break a game with one, doesn't mean you have to.
You can break the game with other classes aswell its just not as easy.

If you have the classic Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard party that group is going to be much better off with the caster types supporting with the options available to them (particularly as the cleric is the best party support class) than being a selfish prig and not doing so. If you are playing in a group and are lording your class choice over some one else's then you are a bad player. It is a group game and a group will always do better than a collection of solo players.

Curious

2011-12-07, 12:36 AM

A Spellcaster is no more powerful than a non spellcaster until played that way - yes you can break a game with one, doesn't mean you have to.
You can break the game with other classes aswell its just not as easy.

No, you can't. It is literally impossible to do much anything beyond massive amounts of damage without access to spells (or some other form of supernatural ability). And most of the time that is overkill anyways.

If you have the classic Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard party that group is going to be much better off with the caster types supporting with the options available to them (particularly as the cleric is the best party support class) than being a selfish prig and not doing so. If you are playing in a group and are lording your class choice over some one else's then you are a bad player. It is a group game and a group will always do better than a collection of solo players.

The thing is, the party would be doing even better if you replaced the Fighter and Rogue with, say, another Cleric and a Beguiler, or an Illusion-focused Wizard. Beyond that, if a character requires buffs from other party members to contribute in any meaningful manner, then they are a drain on party resources, and can not really be called members of the party at all. Just hangers-on who get in the way.

Leon

2011-12-07, 12:40 AM

The thing is, there is still a disparity; a well played fighter is good at killing things, but that's it. A well played Wizard can literally do whatever he wants.

Uh, what? If the wizard is more capable and powerful when equally optimized, then it very well is inherent in the class.

Optimization is a choice a player makes - it is not inherent in anything.

What makes the Wizard better to do anything he wants than a Fighter?

A well played fighter is going to be more than just a killing machine, indeed any well played character is going to be able to do more than just X that they are commonly known to do - some will just do it in different ways

sonofzeal

2011-12-07, 12:46 AM

Not really. I played 3.5 quite a bit before 4e/PF, and the group I play in in RL is as or more experienced with 3.5 as I am and it wasn't a difficult shift at all. A personal set of houserules like you suggest would require greater (probably far greater) debate and more fundamental changes in the rules like the ones in your sig probably wouldn't fly.
PF changed: most core feats, several skills, many spells, all the core races, CMD/CMB, etc.

Even just re-learning what Power Attack does is an investment, given that I'd probably keep expecting it to work the 3.5 way unless I paid special attention. I wouldn't call it extraordinarily difficult... but it would certainly be some time until I really settled down and stopped expecting things to go the 3.5 way. I'd have to continually check my sources on everything for quite a while. Admittedly the PFSRD is a great resource for that, but I'd have to be leaning on it heavily for all sorts of stuff I take for granted in 3.5. How does TWF work now? How do I optimize Trip? Does Protection From Evil still do what I expect it to?

Compare with this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211407). It's pretty unapologetic in nerfing awesome classes and buffing weaker ones, but is pretty darn simple with how it goes about it. Feats work like you'd expect. Skills work like you'd expect. Spells work like you'd expect. Races are the same. Classes have hardly changed - just one or two new class features which can be read and learned in a couple minutes.

Making Clerics only uber inside a narrower range of activities is an easy change, and a flavourful one, but helps balance them against Fighters a whole lot better than PF's massive series of changes. It's easier to learn, does more for balance, and is entirely compatible with everything I know of from 3.5. Which is exactly what I claimed.

SirFredgar

2011-12-07, 12:47 AM

Optimization is a choice a player makes - it is not inherent in anything.

What makes the Wizard better to do anything he wants than a Fighter?

A well played fighter is going to be more than just a killing machine, indeed any well played character is going to be able to do more than just X that they are commonly known to do - some will just do it in different ways

While I'd like to beleive in an Ideal world this is the case, it is not. If you remove the human condition, that is the player, and look at only raw mechanics the fighter will be leagues behind the wizard.

While the fighter chasis gets a number of feats to improve his in-combat prowess, feats are limited. You will only ever have so many. A wizard doesn't need feats, he gets spells (and can even use certain spells to get fighter feats on the fly). He can learn, and cast any spell ever come up by any other wizard ever, with only the expendature of gold and time.

In fact, and mid-high level play you can build a caster to operate much like a fighter, be just as effective (if not more so), AND have magic to boot.

How can a fighter be called equal under these circumstances? Mechanically speaking they are far behind. Sure, a player can always royally mess up a build, or just not play their character right at all (I have seen teir 1 characters play like teir 3 because of poor players), but taking the player out of the equation should shed some light on the fact that melee (fighter specifically) really has a lot to envy in a spellbook.

Curious

2011-12-07, 12:48 AM

What makes the Wizard better to do anything he wants than a Fighter?

A well played fighter is going to be more than just a killing machine, indeed any well played character is going to be able to do more than just X that they are commonly known to do - some will just do it in different ways

Really. How is your fighter going to fly then, with his different ways? How about plane shifting? Or crossing a continent in a day, or anything else that isn't related to hitting things with a big stick?

A wizard is better than a fighter because he [i]can[/] do all these things, plus more. And if he can't, he can learn how to within a few days.

Leon

2011-12-07, 12:50 AM

No, you can't. It is literally impossible to do much anything beyond massive amounts of damage without access to spells (or some other form of supernatural ability). And most of the time that is overkill anyways.

The thing is, the party would be doing even better if you replaced the Fighter and Rogue with, say, another Cleric and a Beguiler, or an Illusion-focused Wizard. Beyond that, if a character requires buffs from other party members to contribute in any meaningful manner, then they are a drain on party resources, and can not really be called members of the party at all.
Just hangers-on who get in the way.

Are you absolutely guaranteed that it would? No you'd not think so but it would work just as well with the two melee classes as compared to the two more casters - your personal preference may be that the casters would be better but that is just your personal preference and not that of everyone else.

No character absolutely requires Buffs to work well but those buffs make the whole team work better even with the two classes swapped out for two others.

LordBlades

2011-12-07, 12:59 AM

While the fighter chasis gets a number of feats to improve his in-combat prowess, feats are limited. You will only ever have so many. A wizard doesn't need feats, he gets spells (and can even use certain spells to get fighter feats on the fly). He can learn, and cast any spell ever come up by any other wizard ever, with only the expendature of gold and time.

This. Also, as a wizard if you make a mistake in picking your spells, no problem, you'll prepare other spells tomorrow; as a fighter, if you pick the wrong feats you're stuck with them forever, barring DM fiat or retraining.

Keep in mind that the whole tier system is balanced around optimization in the first place. From my experiences with showing Tome of Battle to players who were new to the game, they all came to the conclusion that the classes in their are incredibly overpowered compared to even the wizard, and we all know that isn't true.

That's a common misconception. The tier system works assuming all classes are played at equal level of optimization. Why the most people don't see it work that way is because they play as suggested by the book, which leads to rather different levels of optimization. The 3.5 PHB actually nudges you in the right direction for a decent fighter and especially barbarian (big 2-handed weapon and power attack), whereas for the cleric and wizard, it suggests healbot and blaster respectively, which is a very suboptimal way to play the respective classes.

Real Sorceror

2011-12-07, 01:39 AM

I don't know if this will help... but you know that the best way to model historic european renaissance-era swordsmanship (ie, using greatswords and breastplates and stuff) with D&D rules is by using the Warblade, right? So it is the book that actually ENABLES realism in martial arts far beyond where D&D had managed before?
No. No it doesn't. Even the "mundane" styles like Iron Heart or White Raven quickly become pseudo magical really fast, and become pretty much impossible for a mundane person near the end. Tome of Battle is Spells for Warriors. Its "solution" to balancing the system is giving everyone spellcasting, which frankly looks suspiciously like 4e.

If I really wanted to emulate IRL combat, I'd probably use some kind of parry and active AC system. But since the Fighters in my group seem pleased as punch with how Fighters work, I don't think I'll bother.

MukkTB

2011-12-07, 01:39 AM

The tier system exists. The tier system is real. Even without the Schrodinger Wizard the normal wizard is better by far than the other lower tier classes. The same for the cleric and druid. Rogue/Fighter/cleric/wizard is strictly worse than beguiler/druid/cleric/wizard. Casting magic >>> not casting magic. Fighters can hit things hard. Wizards can rearrange the cosmos. Lets talk about things a magic user can do that a fighter can't unless they buy an item made by a magic user.
See the future.
See far away places.
Teleport hundreds of miles.
Travel in time for short periods with wish.
Travel to other dimensions.
Fly.
Save or die spells.
Create illusions.
Control other peoples minds totally.
Become nearly invulnerable.
Create weapons of mass destruction.
Summon monsters.
Turn people into animals.
Turn into a giant monster.
Resurrect people from the dead.
Heal wounds and cause regeneration.
Create undead.
...

Fighters cannot do these things.

LordBlades

2011-12-07, 01:43 AM

sonofzeal

2011-12-07, 01:52 AM

No. No it doesn't. Even the "mundane" styles like Iron Heart or White Raven quickly become pseudo magical really fast, and become pretty much impossible for a mundane person near the end. Tome of Battle is Spells for Warriors. Its "solution" to balancing the system is giving everyone spellcasting, which frankly looks suspiciously like 4e.

If I really wanted to emulate IRL combat, I'd probably use some kind of parry and active AC system. But since the Fighters in my group seem pleased as punch with how Fighters work, I don't think I'll bother.
ToB does a great job of modelling "larger than life" heroes like Conan, Xena, Hercules, Riddick, etc. These characters are rather superhuman, like any high level character should be, but aren't magical.

As LordBlades said, if you want real-world analogues, stick to low-level no-magic - or play another game entirely. GURPS might fit you better. D&D is always going to be a bit "Action Heroic", even with Fighter20.

MukkTB

2011-12-07, 01:52 AM

E6 is pretty good for 'normal people.' I quite like E6. In E6 a scrappy fighter with some luck can kill a spell caster.

Allanimal

2011-12-07, 06:47 AM

PF changed: most core feats, several skills, many spells, all the core races, CMD/CMB, etc.

Has anybody done a side-by-side comparison of the changes between 3.5 and pathfinder? I hear many comments (power attack is different) but haven't yet seen the specifics.
Before I start looking for differences in the PFSRD, I'm guessing someone has already made a table (or similar)

sonofzeal

2011-12-07, 06:56 AM

Has anybody done a side-by-side comparison of the changes between 3.5 and pathfinder? I hear many comments (power attack is different) but haven't yet seen the specifics.
Before I start looking for differences in the PFSRD, I'm guessing someone has already made a table (or similar)
Problem is, it's too many to count. Pretty much everything was re-written, although sometimes the only change is the wording. For example...

3.5:
Armor Proficiency (Light) [General]
Benefit
When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks.

Normal
A character who is wearing armor with which she is not proficient applies its armor check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride.

Special
All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

Pathfinder:
Armor Proficiency, Light (Combat)
You are skilled at wearing light armors.

Benefit: When you wear light armor, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only to Dexterity- and Strength-based skill checks.

Normal: A character who is wearing armor with which he is not proficient applies its armor check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving.

Special: All characters except monks, sorcerers, and wizards automatically have Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.
It does basically the same thing, except PF makes it affect Disable Device / Open Lock, which have been rolled into a single skill, whereas neither was affected before. That isn't necessarily a bad thing... but it's different, and I only just found it now because I went out looking for two feats that had exactly the same function, and instead found slight differences between the two.

(Edit) On second reading, and verification here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/armor#TOC-Armor-Check-Penalty)... apparently in Pathfinder, riding horses in heavy armor sucks? So sorry Paladin, apparently Knights in Shining Armor fall off their horses a lot. I was willing to give PF the benefit of the doubt on Disable Device, but I strongly disagree with this. Mounted Combat doesn't see that much use anyway, and making it significantly worse for the characters most likely to use it, and simultaneously undermining one of the classic archetypes of medieval fantasy, seems very much the wrong direction to go in.

Yora

2011-12-07, 08:59 AM

Wings of Peace

2011-12-07, 09:02 AM

If you're looking for it to be so radically different that it will feel like a new system then no, don't get Pathfinder.

sonofzeal

2011-12-07, 09:11 AM

It's not that bad. Full plate has a penalty of -6. Masterwork reduces it to 5 and as an 11th level fighter, you'd be down to -3. At 11th level, 3 points does barely make a dent into skill checks in which you have invested.
Yeah, but what's a typical lvl 5 Paladin looking at. And more importantly.... why was this change made?

This is what I dislike about PF - they changed just about everything, and half of it seems to be purely for the sake of changing it. I can see some logic here, in that they streamlined it to all Dex- and Str- based skills rather than listing a series of specifics, but the change doesn't make the game better, and quite probably makes it worse. Not because it's a nerf, sometimes nerfs are necessary, but because it's nerfing some of the weaker classes in the game, and renders one of the single most distinctive fantasy archetypes even more awkward to pull off.

So thanks but no thanks. I'm comfortable with 3.5, and I see no reason to go through the effort of re-teaching myself every little detail just because Paizo felt the need to fix what wasn't broken - especially since they didn't fix what was broken.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-07, 09:16 AM

I repeatedly hear some people on this board treat the pathfinder devs (and players) as clueless pubbies. "We are so much much better then those idiots." Not an appealing sentiment to me. However there is some evidence that the PF devs made some mistakes.

In seriousness, they not only missed the core wish loop, when playtesters pointed it out to them, they responded not by fixing the problem, but by banning folks involved. It's hard to describe this in a way that isn't quite negative. "Clueless" is probably fair. I could have fixed more issues with 3.5 if I was drunk the entire time.

Edit: To analyze a bit deeper...they appear to have been fairly fixated on lower levels, with an emphasis on melee. There appears to be a great deal of worrying about balancing melee options against each other. There is...some improvement on this front, though the range of value of various options is still pretty wide.

Caster "nerfs" were very limited. The vast majority of spells are identical to their previous incarnations. Many of the changed spells are not strictly nerfed, either. For instance, grease got boosted from round/level to minutes/level. While you can make the case that the changes to the spell were more bad that good...it's very marginal, and it still ends up being a great spell. Overall change to caster power as a result of spell changes is EXTREMELY limited.

And the casters got bucketloads of class features that mostly patched up their weak points. What's the one thing that theoretically balanced arcanists in 3.5? Squishiness! Now sure, we all know that optimizers can stack buffs and things to mitigate that(and they still can in PF), but your low op players probably didn't do that excessively, and hp damage is still a legit concern in low op games. Higher hd, favored class hp bonuses and greater availability of secondary stats means that your caster is averaging 2-3 hp more a level and squishiness has mostly ceased to be a problem. This DOES affect balance, even at a fairly low op level.

LordBlades

2011-12-07, 09:22 AM

In seriousness, they not only missed the core wish loop, when playtesters pointed it out to them, they responded not by fixing the problem, but by banning folks involved. It's hard to describe this in a way that isn't quite negative. "Clueless" is probably fair. I could have fixed more issues with 3.5 if I was drunk the entire time.

Also, more recently, when they introduced the PF version of the Vow of Poverty somebody on another forum pointed me to a thread where in response to people complaining the feat was too weak, the designer replayed something like 'I don't care it's too weak, people should pick stuff based on RP reasons, not power level'

Tyndmyr

2011-12-07, 09:29 AM

Also, more recently, when they introduced the PF version of the Vow of Poverty somebody on another forum pointed me to a thread where in response to people complaining the feat was too weak, the designer replayed something like 'I don't care it's too weak, people should pick stuff based on RP reasons, not power level'

Eh, yeah, that's a horrible attitude. IMO, an ideal system will result in people who pick things for RP reasons having a competent char, and people who pick things for power reasons having a roleplayable char. You want everyone to meet in the middle, not promote one over the other.

LordBlades

2011-12-07, 09:32 AM

Eh, yeah, that's a horrible attitude. IMO, an ideal system will result in people who pick things for RP reasons having a competent char, and people who pick things for power reasons having a roleplayable char. You want everyone to meet in the middle, not promote one over the other.

Exactly, and if you put out a feat that enables a certain archetype (the ascetic, 'I don't need material wealth type') it would be nice to make sure nobody gets punished for actually wanting to RP that archetype.

sonofzeal

2011-12-07, 09:42 AM

I repeatedly hear some people on this board treat the pathfinder devs (and players) as clueless pubbies. "We are so much much better then those idiots." Not an appealing sentiment to me. However there is some evidence that the PF devs made some mistakes.
Sean K Reynolds was one of the bigger names working with them - I believe he even wrote the forward to the main Pathfinder book. Here's his thoughts on the relative value of various Core feats (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html). Note that Natural Spell is cheaper than Toughness. Extend Spell is cheaper than Mobility. Skill Focus: Concentration is cheaper than Combat Casting. Spirited Charge is cheaper than Athletic. And every single other feat is cheaper than Two Weapon Fighting.

Now, that's not to say the same logic went into the creation of Pathfinder... but when we hear comments from the Devs like how it's "broken" to allow Monks to take Improved Natural Attack, it's hard to believe otherwise. Two Weapon Fighting, which is horribly suboptimal on a number of levels* in 3.5 barring sources of precision damage, doesn't get improved at all. The "Two Weapon Warrior" archetype for Fighter only slightly mitigates this - but then Twohanded weapons get their own Archetype and improve even more relatively.

So no, I really don't think the Devs knew what they were doing, and I don't see anything wrong with saying so.

* 1) it costs feats, 2) it gives a penalty to hit, 3) str on mainhand plus 0.5*str on offhand merely breaks even with 1.5*str for twohanding, 4) you have to pay to enchant twice, 5) you can take a hand off or on a twohanded weapon as a free action, 6) Power Attack is less favourable, 7) you have to invest massively in Dex to qualify for the feats, and 8) your Standard Action attack is worse while your Full Attack only breaks even with max feat investment. You have to invest heavily to make it work, and in return you get the same damage with lower accuracy and less flexibility. From what I can see PF fixed exactly one of those, and only for 9th lvl Fighters who chose to specialize in that path. Hoooray.

Yora

2011-12-07, 09:45 AM

So what? When I look at all the garbage that WotC has produced over the years, the PF-Books still seem to have a very high amount of quality work inside them.

LordBlades

2011-12-07, 09:45 AM

Read that article

magic missile is a benchmark for spells because it's the best 1st-level spell

This is about as far as I got before bursting into laughter

Curious

2011-12-07, 09:48 AM

Exactly, and if you put out a feat that enables a certain archetype (the ascetic, 'I don't need material wealth type') it would be nice to make sure nobody gets punished for actually wanting to RP that archetype.

They actually did just that; one of the developers, SKR I think, actually stated in a forum post that he wanted players to sacrifice something for wanting to play without equipment. So not only are they espousing roleplaying over power, they are actively punishing you for it.

Yora

2011-12-07, 09:50 AM

So it would have been better than players who chose to play without equipment don't get anything in return at all?

Curious

2011-12-07, 09:52 AM

So it would have been better than players who chose to play without equipment don't get anything in return at all?

No, it would be better if players who wished to play without equipment were given a mechanic that allowed them to roleplay their character without being punished by the system.

LordBlades

2011-12-07, 09:52 AM

So it would have been better than players who chose to play without equipment don't get anything in return at all?

Well, if the feat is bad enough, no longer you get next to nothing in return but you also lose a feat slot.

Reverent-One

2011-12-07, 09:54 AM

PF changed: most core feats, several skills, many spells, all the core races, CMD/CMB, etc.

Even just re-learning what Power Attack does is an investment, given that I'd probably keep expecting it to work the 3.5 way unless I paid special attention. I wouldn't call it extraordinarily difficult... but it would certainly be some time until I really settled down and stopped expecting things to go the 3.5 way. I'd have to continually check my sources on everything for quite a while. Admittedly the PFSRD is a great resource for that, but I'd have to be leaning on it heavily for all sorts of stuff I take for granted in 3.5. How does TWF work now? How do I optimize Trip? Does Protection From Evil still do what I expect it to?

And yet neither I nor the rest of the group I play with or other friends I've introduced to PF had much issue making the change. Sure the odd rule occansionaly gets missed originally, but the same thing happened in 3.5.

Compare with this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211407). It's pretty unapologetic in nerfing awesome classes and buffing weaker ones, but is pretty darn simple with how it goes about it. Feats work like you'd expect. Skills work like you'd expect. Spells work like you'd expect. Races are the same. Classes have hardly changed - just one or two new class features which can be read and learned in a couple minutes.

Making Clerics only uber inside a narrower range of activities is an easy change, and a flavourful one, but helps balance them against Fighters a whole lot better than PF's massive series of changes. It's easier to learn, does more for balance, and is entirely compatible with everything I know of from 3.5. Which is exactly what I claimed.

Great, you came up with a list of rules, doesn't mean that the rest of the group will agree with those rules, which is what I was claiming. And while your rules may make less changes than PF, that's a problem, not a feature, as your rules also lack many of the improvements PF made to the rules, including skills, races, and classes.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-07, 09:55 AM

So what? When I look at all the garbage that WotC has produced over the years, the PF-Books still seem to have a very high amount of quality work inside them.

3.5 improved rather notably over it's lifespan, though. When I look at things like ToB, I think "at least they learned from their earlier mistakes".

PF had 3.5 to build on. In the same way that 3.5 is much preferable to earlier editions for me, and it addresses earlier issues, I would expect PF to address well known issues in 3.5. Especially because they sort of promised it would.

Yora

2011-12-07, 10:16 AM

I would expect PF to address well known issues in 3.5. Especially because they sort of promised it would.

I give you that. This one was just completely messed up. Total failure, no objections here.
But as I see it, Pathfinder does not attempt to cater to the people who put a lot of edffort into making very well constructed character builds and giving some major thoughts on optimization. To me, it all feels a lot more like a game for people who have an idea for a character and want an easy solution out of the box and then don't spend too much time with thoughts on how to improve the build and instead have fun with the adventures.
And for that PHB and AGP seems just a lot neater than bothering with the whole Complete and Races of* lines. For a more casually inclined game, PF seems quite a bit more convenient.

Psyren

2011-12-07, 10:59 AM

3.5 improved rather notably over it's lifespan, though. When I look at things like ToB, I think "at least they learned from their earlier mistakes".

I can understand them not implementing a ToB-like system though, what with all the folks who still see it as "weaboo-fightan-magic." I don't agree, but I can understand why. And with Ultimate Combat being legal in PFS, there'd be little to no place for regular melee if maneuvers/stances/what-have-you became available.

Having said that, I really think they should do something similar to ToB at some point. It was a great way to combine 4e's "melee can have nice things" with 3.5's "let the classes play differently."

Essence_of_War

2011-12-07, 11:03 AM

Sean K Reynolds was one of the bigger names working with them - I believe he even wrote the forward to the main Pathfinder book. Here's his thoughts on the relative value of various Core feats (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html). Note that Natural Spell is cheaper than Toughness. Extend Spell is cheaper than Mobility. Skill Focus: Concentration is cheaper than Combat Casting. Spirited Charge is cheaper than Athletic. And every single other feat is cheaper than Two Weapon Fighting.

Now, that's not to say the same logic went into the creation of Pathfinder... but when we hear comments from the Devs like how it's "broken" to allow Monks to take Improved Natural Attack, it's hard to believe otherwise. Two Weapon Fighting, which is horribly suboptimal on a number of levels* in 3.5 barring sources of precision damage, doesn't get improved at all. The "Two Weapon Warrior" archetype for Fighter only slightly mitigates this - but then Twohanded weapons get their own Archetype and improve even more relatively.

Holy Cow, I'd never seen that before and I nearly spit my coke out when I saw his point rankings.

Yora

2011-12-07, 11:09 AM

I agree with the 10 rules, but how that results in Natual Spell, which is pretty much the best thing ever, is rated at the very bottom is beyond me.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-07, 11:28 AM

I agree with the 10 rules, but how that results in Natual Spell, which is pretty much the best thing ever, is rated at the very bottom is beyond me.

It's not so much what he takes into account as what he fails to account for. Most of the ten rules are...fairly obvious. No cap is better than a cap? Yes, any brand new player could see that.

The problem is...not all numbers are equal. Agile is not among the best feats, because the numbers it boosts are...not the most important of numbers. The amount of times you roll balance and escape artist checks will probably be relatively low and their importance will likely be minimal.

The evaluation of Combat Reflexes and other feats shows a lot of misunderstanding of why people take feats. People rarely take Combat reflexes primarily to AoO while flat footed...they usually do so as part of a dex heavy build to get a LOT of AoOs. Additional attacks is a fairly notable number. 1 extra attack is quite frequently worth a LOT more than +1 to say, attack. If it gets you even 1 extra attack, it's well superior to weapon focus.

Ditto for his evaluation of Cleave. Sure, it may not arise quite as often as weapon focus, but the benefit(an extra attack)is of rather notable value. Any time you are not hitting on only 20s(but a +1 would change that), it is going to be a more valuable effect than weapon focus. I can crunch average to-hit numbers and chance of a given blow killing an enemy to get actual numeric effects, but that's not necessary to see that his estimate is way off.

For the love of god, he rated Quicken as half the value of Scribe Scroll. Clearly, he's missing things.

Edit: I just saw that he rated Leadership at 8. That's right, having another party member is apparently less valuable than having Weapon Focus. I am...puzzled as to what course of logic could lead to this, but again, I'm pretty sure I would do better while drunk out of my mind.

Gavinfoxx

2011-12-07, 01:06 PM

No. No it doesn't. Even the "mundane" styles like Iron Heart or White Raven quickly become pseudo magical really fast, and become pretty much impossible for a mundane person near the end. Tome of Battle is Spells for Warriors. Its "solution" to balancing the system is giving everyone spellcasting, which frankly looks suspiciously like 4e.

If I really wanted to emulate IRL combat, I'd probably use some kind of parry and active AC system. But since the Fighters in my group seem pleased as punch with how Fighters work, I don't think I'll bother.

Eh, I'm not sure about that. Steely Strike looks like some of the concepts talked about in the german Fechtbuchs, and Lightning Recovery can show the flow of a fight really well, what with the rapid changes in directions, and there's also the fact that in a real fight, you need to withdraw and change your stance to be able to try something again, (ie, people tend to have an exchange or two and then move back to a neutral stance to try again), which fits with the recovery mechanics... things like that...

Flickerdart

2011-12-07, 01:18 PM

Even the "mundane" styles like Iron Heart or White Raven quickly become pseudo magical really fast, and become pretty much impossible for a mundane person near the end.
Um...in 3.5, you're out of the realm of the humanly possible around level six. Expecting a 20th level warrior to fight Tarrasques and dragons with the skills possible for a mundane person is hilariously misguided.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-07, 01:26 PM

Um...in 3.5, you're out of the realm of the humanly possible around level six. Expecting a 20th level warrior to fight Tarrasques and dragons with the skills possible for a mundane person is hilariously misguided.

Quite possibly faster. I mean, a warforged warlock is basically iron man at level 6. Flying robot shooting energy beams from his hands.

And, unlike Iron Man, he can do this basically forever.

What exactly is "humanly possible" is sketchy at best in D&D. You're better off not worrying overly much about realism in it and just embracing the flying death machines of awesomeness.

Psyren

2011-12-07, 01:27 PM

Um...in 3.5, you're out of the realm of the humanly possible around level six. Expecting a 20th level warrior to fight Tarrasques and dragons with the skills possible for a mundane person is hilariously misguided.

A lot of people forget that a Fighter 20 can wade through lava, fall off cliffs and leap across chasms. However weak they might be compared to other classes, they'd still seem like demigods in our world.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-07, 02:47 PM

A lot of people forget that a Fighter 20 can wade through lava, fall off cliffs and leap across chasms. However weak they might be compared to other classes, they'd still seem like demigods in our world.

To add to the inhuman stuff, a level 1 fighter with a feat in the PF CRB (Catch Off Guard) and 18 strength can pick up something that weighs 300 lb and use it without penalty.

Edit: Did I say fighter? I meant commoner. :smallamused:

MukkTB

2011-12-07, 03:24 PM

The pathfinder devs really banned people who were asking them to get rid of an infinite loop? What? Why?

They pathfinder devs are really responsible for that feat cost idiocy? Have they ever played with optimized characters? What is this?

Whats this roleplay a bad character thing? Do you really want to punish the roleplayers over the powergamers? If anything the roleplayers should be treated better. Shouldn't you make options equal so roleplaying becomes the major concern when choosing how the character develops?

Suddenly I begin to lose respect.

Yora

2011-12-07, 03:44 PM

LordBlades

2011-12-07, 04:11 PM

I think maybe there is a possibility that people who are making a valid point, could still be acting like total *******s. We never get to hear the whole story, only the one part that sounds the most exciting.

Well, what I said is pretty much taken word for word off the PF boards. The devs clearly stated they feel some feats should.be bad mechanically due to 'RP value'

Psyren

2011-12-07, 04:24 PM

I think maybe there is a possibility that people who are making a valid point, could still be acting like total *******s. We never get to hear the whole story, only the one part that sounds the most exciting.

This is really my reaction; without seeing any of the threads where these "helpful people" were actually banned, a lot of context is lost.

Real Sorceror

2011-12-07, 04:45 PM

Um...in 3.5, you're out of the realm of the humanly possible around level six. Expecting a 20th level warrior to fight Tarrasques and dragons with the skills possible for a mundane person is hilariously misguided.

Ok, poor choice of words on my part. I see where you all misunderstood. I don't necessarily want a completely mundane warrior class (though one without casting is essential). Its a fantasy game and everyone is going to be a super-heroic.

What I really meant is that I think its necessary to have a simple warrior class. ToB, opinions aside, is not simple. In fact in some ways its more complicated than spellcasting. This is one of the reasons I dislike 4e. There is no "jump-in" class. Everything is complex.

This is why I like Fighter the way it is. Its probably the easiest class in the game to learn, but can still be made very powerful by an experienced player due to its customizable nature.

And this whole tier system? Trash. Everything about it assumes a group of individuals competing against eachother and the DM for exp and loot. Table-top RPGs are about teamwork. Classes should be looked at by how they synergize with eachother and work together rather than how they support themselves in a vacuum.

Doug Lampert

2011-12-07, 05:07 PM

And this whole tier system? Trash. Everything about it assumes a group of individuals competing against eachother and the DM for exp and loot. Table-top RPGs are about teamwork. Classes should be looked at by how they synergize with eachother and work together rather than how they support themselves in a vacuum.
Crap.

Cleric/Cleric/Druid/Wizard is VASTLY stronger than Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard even if playing totally cooperatively.

Teir one classes cooperate BETTER than teir six. A fighter can't do SQUAT to help make anyone else better at their job. A caster can make a fighter almost competent. Shame that the same effort will also make the druid's AC even more competent and that all casters have more slots for buffs, but there it is.

Tiers work FINE at describing cooperative play. If your CHARACTER'S in character goal is to survive and prosper then if he's a caster he should prefer the all caster party.

Flickerdart

2011-12-07, 05:33 PM

This is why I like Fighter the way it is. Its probably the easiest class in the game to learn, but can still be made very powerful by an experienced player due to its customizable nature.
Wrong. A Fighter is very difficult to build, because it requires system mastery to find the good feats. Barbarian is a much easier class to learn.

And this whole tier system? Trash. Everything about it assumes a group of individuals competing against eachother and the DM for exp and loot. Table-top RPGs are about teamwork. Classes should be looked at by how they synergize with eachother and work together rather than how they support themselves in a vacuum.
Super wrong. A T1 will always have more offer to the party than a T4. The Tier system looks at class versatility, true - but a versatile class plus another versatile class work better together as a team than a versatile class and a non-versatile class. Teamwork doesn't mean that the wizard came to the table just so that he could give the fighter buffs. Teamwork means that everyone contributes equally, and a lower-tier class cannot contribute as much as a higher-tier class.

MukkTB

2011-12-07, 05:40 PM

Higher tiers are better. However I like to play tier 3 if I can help it.
Tier 3s overshadow the people playing things like fighters and rogues less.
Tier 3s have a wide application of their abilities so there's always stuff for you to do that's not going to make the DM tear his hair out.
A tier 1 character can be played very badly compared to decent optimization. I'd rather play a mid tier character sort of competently than play a high tier character badly.

EDIT - My point is that just because we say high tier characters are more powerful we aren't saying that you shouldn't play low tier characters or that you're a bad person for liking lower tiers. Fun >>> Character Power

sonofzeal

2011-12-07, 06:40 PM

Great, you came up with a list of rules, doesn't mean that the rest of the group will agree with those rules, which is what I was claiming. And while your rules may make less changes than PF, that's a problem, not a feature, as your rules also lack many of the improvements PF made to the rules, including skills, races, and classes.
I don't tend to think of "it's exactly like before but with bells on" as "improvement". Nor do I think of applying Armor Check Penalty to Ride that way, nor buffing the best classes in the game even further. Hanging bells and shinies on everything may feel like improvement if you're converting, but it's largely illusionary. It's change for the sake of change, and I disagree with that on principal.

And heck, people may disagree with some of my rules, but I disagree with some of PF's rules (like ACP on Ride). And the number of changes PF made is ridiculous. I mean seriously, did they really have to rewrite every single feat?!?

So what? When I look at all the garbage that WotC has produced over the years, the PF-Books still seem to have a very high amount of quality work inside them.
Well, the art's good. And the setting's good. And everything has bells on now. But if we're talking about a group-up rewrite of 3.5, there's so much missed potential that it's depressing.

Again, take TWF. It's horrible for everyone except Rogues and others with huge sources of bonus damage (see footnote here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12337893&postcount=149)). I would love to have seen PF fix that, and bring the two-sword warrior back into viability. Instead, they leave it exactly the same and add a pathetic excuse of an Archetype (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/two-weapon-warrior) as if to claim there isn't a massive disparity here. The very least they could have done was roll TWF/ITWF/GTWF into the same feat, but they didn't even do that.

I really don't understand Paizo's logic at all, I don't agree with their decisions, and I don't need other people to write half-arsed houserules for me. They "fixed" things that weren't broken, didn't fix the things that were, and then everyone goes gaga over it because they hung bells and whistles all over the place.

I'm sorry, no. Not for me.

Real Sorceror

2011-12-07, 06:49 PM

Wrong. A Fighter is very difficult to build, because it requires system mastery to find the good feats. Barbarian is a much easier class to learn.
Well thats retarded. A Fighter is incredibly easy to build. What you want to say is that its difficult to optimize, which isn't necessarily true either.

Real Sorceror

2011-12-07, 07:01 PM

sonofzeal

2011-12-07, 07:16 PM

Well thats retarded. A Fighter is incredibly easy to build. What you want to say is that its difficult to optimize, which isn't necessarily true either.
Fighter still requires more effort to build, because there's more choices. A Barbarian is straight out of the box, slap Power Attack and maybe Cleave, then whatever other doodads you want. Fighters require a lot more choices. A lvl 4 Barbarian has two feats and one of them's pretty much a given); a lvl 4 Fighter has five, and none of them are givens.

Fighters are always more work. Maybe not by a huge amount, but still more.

Is this whole tier thing actually used in practice? I've never seen it outside of internet forums. I know nothing like this existed in the 6-7 groups I've played with over the years. If someone actually told me face to face that I couldn't play a class because it was "too weak" and would bring the group down, I'd leave right there and then. This isn't WoW. D&D isn't about forming a super-synchronized raid group that needs to operate like clockwork.
I routinely tell people in my gaming group what the Tier of the class they're choosing is - not to demand that they play something else, but just to warn them. Many people seem to gravitate towards "cool" classes like Monk, without realizing just how much life sucks for them, and I consider giving fair warning only proper. Most choose to play the class anyway, but at least they go in with eyes open. And we'll often institute favourable houserules if a newer player is playing a weaker class.

So yes, it's used in practice, and not in the draconian way you seem to be expecting.

MukkTB

2011-12-07, 07:23 PM

MukkTB

2011-12-07, 07:25 PM

In a good D&D group a proper understanding of the tier system and keeping optimization to the right levels results in a group where everyone pulls the same load. Its more fun if everyone can contribute the same amount to the team.

navar100

2011-12-07, 10:37 PM

How is the tier system used in practice? Have you ever seen some guy totally outperform somebody else in the same game? Have you ever wondered why exactly or have you just concluded that one guy was stupid? If you want to actually understand you have to grasp the tier system and optimization levels.

Furthermore when you actually start trying to balance things YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE TIER SYSTEM. Why? Because people have an urge to nerf the fighter when they see him doing halfway competent things. They have an urge to nerf the rogue and the other physical classes. They don't understand what a tier 1 character can do in an adventure.

Years ago a player in my group was lamenting how useless he felt his rogue was in combat. He saw me play my cleric casting spells, swinging his morningstar, going all hog-wild. The sorcerer was primarily a blaster but effectively blasting bad guys to bits.

His problem? No, it had nothing whatsoever to do with his lower tier. It was his battle tactics. He relied heavily on Use Magic Device for a wand of fireball. He didn't tumble into flanking. He didn't understand the true power of sneak attack.

What did we do? Ban Tier 1? Ban Tier 4? No, nothing so stupidly drastic. We taught him. Because he likes to use the wand of fireball, he understands fireball damage. When the player actually got to sneak attack, the DM would call out "Fireball on a stick" over and over. I taught him tactics such as tumbling into flanking. I mentioned feats he should take to help him. It was too late for the two-weapon fighting tree for that character, but others were still good, like Weapon Finesse. Yes, he didn't know to take Weapon Finesse.

That campaign ended. For the next one I helped him. He took Weapon Finesse. He took Two-Weapon Fighting. He tried out tumbling. He really got into it . "Fireball on a stick", he was delighted as he rolled all those d6s from using two weapons. He was having a blast, even though for that campaign I was playing a Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell cleric way back when Persistent Spell was only +4 levels. He only cared how easily I dispatched foes in the sense that he was happy I was able to do so as the party as a whole were doing so. The fighter and barbarian were right along with him.

Then he had an epiphany of his own. He learned the limitations of sneak attack. He understood not all creatures were vulnerable to it. He learned that two-weapon fighting has limitations on movement. He wasn't upset by this; he just understood and developed tactics and build choices to reflect this. For the next campaign he cared not about sneak attack at all. He played a fighter/DM home made prestige class. Admittedly the prestige class was beefier than published warrior-type prestige classes, but the point is he didn't need my help anymore. He learned how to create an effective character. He absolutely did not care at all whatever versatility the spellcasters were able to do. He welcomed it. He contributed in his own way.

Yes, system mastery is important to create effective warrior classes. If someone is having trouble, you teach him. The tier system is irrelevant.

Reverent-One

2011-12-07, 11:26 PM

I don't tend to think of "it's exactly like before but with bells on" as "improvement". Nor do I think of applying Armor Check Penalty to Ride that way, nor buffing the best classes in the game even further. Hanging bells and shinies on everything may feel like improvement if you're converting, but it's largely illusionary. It's change for the sake of change, and I disagree with that on principal.

I'm not talking about things like ACP on Ride or whatever, I mean cross class skills not costing double the skill points and condensing similar skills, making expanding your character's skill set notably easier, I mean the races getting improved features, with Half-elves and half-orcs no longer being the bastard children...wait, poor choice of words, I mean replacing the existing Favored Class rules that were so disliked they are near universally ignored with something useful, I mean removing most dead levels. Those are definitely not just changes for the sake of change, but improvements 3.5 could really use.

And heck, people may disagree with some of my rules, but I disagree with some of PF's rules (like ACP on Ride). And the number of changes PF made is ridiculous. I mean seriously, did they really have to rewrite every single feat?!?

No, which is why they didn't.

I really don't understand Paizo's logic at all, I don't agree with their decisions, and I don't need other people to write half-arsed houserules for me. They "fixed" things that weren't broken, didn't fix the things that were, and then everyone goes gaga over it because they hung bells and whistles all over the place.

I'm sorry, no. Not for me.

You're already complaining about all the things they did change and how hard it is to learn all the changes when they've changed relatively minor things, and yet you still have to also complain they didn't overhaul the basics of a whole lot of mechanics, which would require a heck of a lot more relearning and shoot any thought of backwards compatibility to death? There's just no pleasing some people.

sonofzeal

2011-12-07, 11:41 PM

I'm not talking about thinks like ACP on Ride or whatever, I mean cross class skills not costing double the skill points, making expanding your character's skill set notably easier, I mean the races getting improved features, with Half-elves and half-orcs no longer being the bastard children...wait, poor choice of words, I mean replacing the existing Favored Class rules that were so disliked they are near universally ignored with something useful, I mean removing most dead levels. Those are definitely not just changes for the sake of change, but improvements 3.5 could really use.
Removing crossed class skills and Favoured Class rules were good moves, I'll give them credit there. And Half-Elves and Half-Orcs needed a boost too. But did Humans really need a free +2 to any ability score?

No, which is why they didn't.
I keep looking for examples that aren't change and not seeing any... except possibly Two-Weapon Fighting which was one of the few ones that drastically needed a change. I'm sure there might be a couple others, but as I said I've had trouble finding any.

You're already complaining about all the things they did change and how hard it is to learn all the changes when they've changed relatively minor things, and yet you still have to also complain they didn't overhaul the basics of a whole lot of mechanics, which would require a heck of a lot more relearning and shoot any thought of backwards compatibility to death? There's just no pleasing some people.
The least they should have done for Two Weapon Fighting was roll TWF/ITWF/GTWF into a single feat. That would have been dead easy for them, dead easy to learn, and is a pretty common houserule anyway... but no. Instead they revamp Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip, none of which particularly needed it.

I don't think there's anything hypocritical in pointing out that most of their "fixes" don't actually fix anything, and that they left a heck of a lot of problems unsolved for such a massive re-write. They fixed much of what wasn't broken, and didn't fix much of what was. There were a few good ideas in there, and you mentioned several of them already, but rather than just going after the things that needed changing they just buried the whole thing under a pile of dross - some good, some bad, most of it neutral. I really don't see why that should win anyone's praise or affection.

Or let's put it this way. A good fix should {a} preserve as much as possible while still fixing, {b} actually fix all the easily-fixable problems, and {c} not add in any new ones. Given that PF fails at all three, I don't really see the point.

Curious

2011-12-07, 11:53 PM

I keep looking for examples that aren't change and not seeing any... except possibly Two-Weapon Fighting which was one of the few ones that drastically needed a change. I'm sure there might be a couple others, but as I said I've had trouble finding any.

Really? Most of the feats are literally direct copies from the 3.5 SRD. I tend to have trouble finding feats that aren't exactly the same.

Reverent-One

2011-12-08, 12:01 AM

Removing crossed class skills and Favoured Class rules were good moves, I'll give them credit there. And Half-Elves and Half-Orcs needed a boost too. But did Humans really need a free +2 to any ability score?

It fits their system of the core races having a +2 net gain in stats, they seem to like being consistent about such things (see also how they handle the BAB/HD relationship).

I keep looking for examples that aren't change and not seeing any... except possibly Two-Weapon Fighting which was one of the few ones that drastically needed a change. I'm sure there might be a couple others, but as I said I've had trouble finding any.

Combat Reflexes, Improved Init, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid shot, and Weapon Finesse to name a few.

I don't think there's anything hypocritical in pointing out that most of their "fixes" don't actually fix anything, and that they left a heck of a lot of problems unsolved for such a massive re-write. They fixed much of what wasn't broken, and didn't fix much of what was. There were a few good ideas in there, and you mentioned several of them already, but rather than just going after the things that needed changing they just buried the whole thing under a pile of dross - some good, some bad, most of it neutral. I really don't see why that should win anyone's praise or affection.

Again, if they actually fixed a lot of the things that 3.5 could have used having fixed, they would be changing so much they'd fail at what was obviously a primary goal, backwards compatibility with 3.5. Personally, the changes to skill system, races, removal of dead levels, archetype system, new classes like those in the APG are extremely worthy of praise. The more minor changes are definitely a big YMMV thing (for example, I like PF Cleave more than 3.5 Cleave, but it's not a dealbreaker for me either way), but given that most of it is available for free online, they've given a lot of new material and solid houserules for 3.5 players, who are also free to ignore the ones that they don't like.

sonofzeal

2011-12-08, 12:52 AM

Really? Most of the feats are literally direct copies from the 3.5 SRD. I tend to have trouble finding feats that aren't exactly the same.
Most were at very least rewritten, even if the result's the same. In Reverent-One's list of examples, over half of them are in this category. Many others changed in subtle ways (like "Light Armor Proficiency", which most characters have). Sometimes the new wording clarifies things which should have been obvious but weren't by RAW, like Combat Reflexes, but then others fail to correct similar RAW oversights, like Weapon Finesse.

So yes, most that I've seen were changed, even if they remain highly similar.

It fits their system of the core races having a +2 net gain in stats, they seem to like being consistent about such things (see also how they handle the BAB/HD relationship).
Yeah, but... there's no reason for it. It just shifts the balance point upward, and makes other 3.5 races jealous in comparison - and let's be honest, few 3.5 races are as good as Core ones were anyway.

Actually, this is a perfect example of my "bells and whistles" complaint. There was zero need for it, it's not like Core Races were suffering in comparison to "splatbook power creep" or something. It feels great to people converting from 3.5 to PF which makes it seductive, but the benefit is illusionary because everything else just got boosted too. Non-core 3.5 races are now harder to play in PF games; you either have to houserule in a stat boost yourself, or suffer in comparison. More importantly, SAD classes/builds (which were generally the most powerful anyway) benefit most from this.

It exacerbates power disparity, hampers compatibility, and adds nothing to the system except to seduce new players.

Combat Reflexes, Improved Init, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid shot, and Weapon Finesse to name a few.
As I just mentioned, over half of those got reworded at very least, for no apparent reason. I don't consider that a good thing.

Again, if they actually fixed a lot of the things that 3.5 could have used having fixed, they would be changing so much they'd fail at what was obviously a primary goal, backwards compatibility with 3.5. Personally, the changes to skill system, races, removal of dead levels, archetype system, new classes like those in the APG are extremely worthy of praise. The more minor changes are definitely a big YMMV thing (for example, I like PF Cleave more than 3.5 Cleave, but it's not a dealbreaker for me either way), but given that most of it is available for free online, they've given a lot of new material and solid houserules for 3.5 players, who are also free to ignore the ones that they don't like.
Hundreds of people on this very board do exactly that. It's not like 3.5 is exactly hurting for freely available houserules. And, as I previously stated, I vastly prefer houserules to exist for definable purposes, rather than just changing everything I'd known and was comfortable with and was working fine.

People were running improved skill systems years before PF. There's dozens of rebalanced Half-elf and Half-orc ideas out there. Removing dead levels is neither here nor there - high Tier classes are more likely than most to have dead levels in the first place, and I'd rather not pile extra goodies on them any more than I have to.

LordBlades

2011-12-08, 02:19 AM

Is this whole tier thing actually used in practice? I've never seen it outside of internet forums. I know nothing like this existed in the 6-7 groups I've played with over the years. If someone actually told me face to face that I couldn't play a class because it was "too weak" and would bring the group down, I'd leave right there and then. This isn't WoW. D&D isn't about forming a super-synchronized raid group that needs to operate like clockwork.

Yes it is actually used in practice. The fact that ypou haven't come across it is just anecdotal evidence. I've personally had plenty of experience with too strong or too weak characters and it's not fun for anyone once you realize it. To give you a couple of examples:

Weak character in strong group: new player joins my gaming group, and brings a ninja to a DMM Cleric, Druid, Incantatrix, rogue-ish wizard gish and pison party. Being a RL buddy going through a tough time, we had to let him join and he wouldn't budge from playing a ninja. What followed were 2 months of frustration. For the DM because he couldn't challenge him properly. In combat his to-hit and AC were 10-15 points (or more) lower than the druid or cleric. Anything that would hit them decently would instagib him, and anything that could hit him decently they would instagib. As a skill monkey, the rogue/wizard had more SP and skill boosting spells, ending up with way higher modifier. For us (the players) it was frustrating because keeping the ninja alive(he was rather keen on going melee with his TWF shortswords) became a tougher challenge than killing the opposition.

Strong character in weak group: One summer holiday I went back to my hometown and ran into some old friends that had picked up D&D and I got to watch a couple of sessions. They had been playing for a couple of months max, so fairly new. Party: druid, paladin, ranger, rogue, hexblade. Rogue, ranger and hexblade attempt to mug an old blind troll (not illegal in that country since only humanoids had any rights) and the NG druid opposes them. They eventually start fighting when the plaladin returns from an errand and sees his companions under attack by some animals, so he charges in. The druid easily manhandled and subdued all the 4 party members attacking him (he then gave them a lecture on 'thou shalt not steal' mentality). In fights vs. monsters it was roughly the same: druid would do the heavy lifting (not to mention provide all the party's utility, healing and travel) while the others would gently poke the enemies with their pathetic damage.

As for being told 'you can't play' because your character is too weak I guess that's depends from group to group. In mine, being in line with the party power wise is part of the gentleman's agreement. And you can build pretty much any archetype at any reasonable power level. Notice that I said power level, not tier; you can get different tiers into the same power range by using different levels of optimization(ex you can have an unoptimized sorcerer, decently built bard and optimized barbarian in the same game no problem) If you're bringing something subpar, not only does my character need to work more for the same results, but now I need to think of a RP reason for my character (regardless of personality) to want some weakling not only tag along, but get equal share of loot regardless of not-contributing.

TL;DR: If having party members contribute disproportionately to a fight is all right with your group, good for you, but that doesn't mean it should be all right with any group.

MukkTB

2011-12-08, 02:27 AM

Your cleric/rogue story is a perfect example of a lower tier character needing more optimization to keep up with a higher tier character and feel like he is contributing the same amount.

MukkTB

2011-12-08, 02:42 AM

sonofzeal

2011-12-08, 03:11 AM

Pathfinders blatant buffing of everything is an outright attempt to seduce new players.

Pathfinder giving classes bells and whistles isn't so bad. Getting a lot of little things can be pretty fun. Having dead levels is awful.
I'm willing to grant that. I prefer classes that gain new things every level, too. But just like buffing racial ability scores plays right into Tier 1's SAD hands, filling in dead levels does the most more the classes that need it least. Monks have class features every level already; Clerics have 19 dead levels, as do Sorcerers, and Wizards have 15. This would be a surmountable obstacle, if the developers put the time and effort into making sure their additions tilted the playing field in the appropriate directions. But PF Monk is still the weakest, and PF Wizard is still the strongest, and it's hard to say if that gap has narrowed or if it's actually gotten bigger.

So... A for Effort, but C for Cluelessness.

MukkTB

2011-12-08, 03:27 AM

From a pure balance standpoint, giving a tier 1 character a tier 5 or 6 ability instead of a dead level probably won't change the balance in any significant way. (I'm not claiming Paizo did this. But just from a pure theoretical perspective.) I also believe that getting a new spell level (spells/day + spells known?) is by default not really a dead level.

Id agree that the wizard and sorcerer didn't need what they were given. Paladins can rejoice while fighters and barbarians can pout. Not all that great. Although I thought the druid was nerfed by PF?

Dsurion

2011-12-08, 03:39 AM

The least they should have done for Two Weapon Fighting was roll TWF/ITWF/GTWF into a single feat. That would have been dead easy for them, dead easy to learn, and is a pretty common houserule anyway... but no. Instead they revamp Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip, none of which particularly needed it.Hey now! Power Attack most certainly needed a change. Just... Not the way Pathfinder handled it.

If an option is so ubiquitous that everyone chooses it, it ceases to be an "option". Which is why I make the 3.5 Power Attack just another combat option available to anyone with 13+ Str (same with Weapon Finesse - I think everyone should do this).

Khantin

2011-12-08, 07:05 AM

Id agree that the wizard and sorcerer didn't need what they were given. Paladins can rejoice while fighters and barbarians can pout. Not all that great. Although I thought the druid was nerfed by PF?

All polymorph and shapeshifting effects were nerfed pretty heavily. Instead of picking a creature and getting all of its cool abilities and stats, you get a set bonus to your stats based on the level of the spell you are using, and a restricted list of other abilities.

beast shape (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/beast-shape)

From a balance perspective it makes sense to nerf polymorph, but I really disliked it from a roleplay perspective. 3.5/pf is first and foremost a game, it's a massive game with a lot of ways to ruin it for other players, if you can't play without wrecking it for others maybe you should go back to kindergarten and relearn the basics.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-08, 09:51 AM

Although I thought the druid was nerfed by PF?

Yeah, they're now only 2-1/2 classes instead of 3.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-08, 10:12 AM

Yes, system mastery is important to create effective warrior classes. If someone is having trouble, you teach him. The tier system is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant.

It's just that other things are relevant too.

navar100

2011-12-08, 10:16 AM

I like the bloodlines for sorcerers. Yes, it's a power boost, but that's not why. Bloodlines give sorcerers flavor. In 3E going into a prestige class is a no-brainer. You always get more than staying as a sorcerer. In Pathfinder, you have to give up significant stuff to go into a prestige class. I find this a good thing. It means you really, really have to want the prestige class.

I too was perturbed by the change in Power Attack, but after seeing it in practice find it working alright. It does mean there's no more Shock Trooper tricks, but I don't find it a bad thing. Pathfinder Power Attack still allows you decent extra damage. With one-handed weapons now getting +2 damage per -1 to hit (I know the minus to hit is fixed), it's a nice option. Two-handed weapons get +3 damage per minus. They still benefit more, a good thing, but now it's not overwhelming more. The change in Power Attack allows sword and shield style to be a viable option in comparison to two-handed weapons. I find this a good thing. Warriors aren't lacking for damage potential. Rangers still have favored enemies, barbarians rage, paladins smite, and fighters get free pluses in weapon groups.

I disagree the Power Attack change is inherently bad. Liking it or not is varying mileage personal preference.

Reverent-One

2011-12-08, 10:19 AM

Yeah, but... there's no reason for it. It just shifts the balance point upward, and makes other 3.5 races jealous in comparison - and let's be honest, few 3.5 races are as good as Core ones were anyway.

Actually, this is a perfect example of my "bells and whistles" complaint. There was zero need for it, it's not like Core Races were suffering in comparison to "splatbook power creep" or something. It feels great to people converting from 3.5 to PF which makes it seductive, but the benefit is illusionary because everything else just got boosted too. Non-core 3.5 races are now harder to play in PF games; you either have to houserule in a stat boost yourself, or suffer in comparison. More importantly, SAD classes/builds (which were generally the most powerful anyway) benefit most from this.

It exacerbates power disparity, hampers compatibility, and adds nothing to the system except to seduce new players.

It's a personal preference, like any houserule. Races now default as a positive in some regard rather than neutral. It's better than how 3.5 did IMO.

As I just mentioned, over half of those got reworded at very least, for no apparent reason. I don't consider that a good thing.

Uh, no, they didn't.

Hundreds of people on this very board do exactly that. It's not like 3.5 is exactly hurting for freely available houserules. And, as I previously stated, I vastly prefer houserules to exist for definable purposes, rather than just changing everything I'd known and was comfortable with and was working fine.

People were running improved skill systems years before PF. There's dozens of rebalanced Half-elf and Half-orc ideas out there. Removing dead levels is neither here nor there - high Tier classes are more likely than most to have dead levels in the first place, and I'd rather not pile extra goodies on them any more than I have to.

Houserules of questionable quality buried in some thread in a forum != rules published by an actual company, if only for the ease of finding and sharing them. I haven't seen any skill rewrites like PF's, their race changes are more than simply boosting the half races, and the fighter and paladin would like to talk to you about lower tier classes lacking dead levels. The extra goodies the higher teir classes get as well mitigate the "whelp, I cast two spells, guess I'm using a crossbow for the rest of the day" early level issues and generally aren't going to make them any more tier 1 than they already are (a d6 + 1/per 2 levels touch attack isn't a big deal if you can end the encounter with one spell). And as navar100 said, they also give those classes reasons not to PrC and some actual flavor.

Psyren

2011-12-08, 10:30 AM

There IS a reason for the power boost - it opens up design space.

Look at 3.5 - every single race choice defaults to either "human," "specific race because of {insert ACF/Substitution level}" or "suboptimal personal preference." If you wanted to make that choice for fluff reasons, you were forced to be suboptimal at your chosen profession.

It also flew right in the face of the fluff. "half-orcs tend towards sorcery" several sourcebooks claim, yet they are awful choices for sorcerers in 3.5. "Gnomes are natural bards/wizards" but if you go by their racial adjustments in 3.5, you have to wonder why on Toril that would be the case.

By setting the balance point for races higher, you encourage more diversity at the table, which leads to richer games.

The same is true for the base classes. In 3.5, if effectiveness is your goal, there is no reason to stay in your base class. To make the choice meaningful, they had two options; nerf every single PrC in some way, or reward you for staying in your base class. The latter is much simpler, and even with that several PrCs (both in PF, and 3.P) offer enough goodies that there's still plenty of reason not to stay. It's just not a kneejerk choice like it was in 3.5.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-08, 10:40 AM

The pathfinder devs really banned people who were asking them to get rid of an infinite loop? What? Why?

I don't know that the original thread still exists, and if it does, I certainly can't find it. If memory serves, the poster WAS a bit incredulous/dismissive of the designers for missing this fairly obvious thing.

Still, even if your feelings are hurt, or you feel the manner in which he stated the finding warrants a ban....you still don't leave the broken infinite loop in. I don't get that.

They pathfinder devs are really responsible for that feat cost idiocy? Have they ever played with optimized characters? What is this?

Everything I see about the changes screams that they play low level, and very low op. Things that are nerfed are common things encountered at that level. There's a lot of fiddling with minor details for things like balancing melee options against each other a little better. The results of these changes are mixed, but the fact that they fiddle with that, while their reaction to high level casters is "Give them more powerful abilities!" indicates that their experiences are limited.

Whats this roleplay a bad character thing? Do you really want to punish the roleplayers over the powergamers? If anything the roleplayers should be treated better. Shouldn't you make options equal so roleplaying becomes the major concern when choosing how the character develops?

Suddenly I begin to lose respect.

Well, you can't ever really treat roleplayers better. True powergamers can roleplay if need be to get advantages. But...that outcome is hardly the worst of things. You definitely should never make roleplay-friendly choices a punitive trap.

Yeah, the more you dig, the more generally unsatisfied you tend to end up. Don't get me wrong...it's not ALL terrible. I do like the skill changes, mostly(except fly. If run/burrow are not skills, fly should not be either). I like more frequent feats. The favored class thing is better now. It's just that there's a great deal I dislike.

There IS a reason for the power boost - it opens up design space.

Look at 3.5 - every single race choice defaults to either "human," "specific race because of {insert ACF/Substitution level}" or "suboptimal personal preference." If you wanted to make that choice for fluff reasons, you were forced to be suboptimal at your chosen profession.

It also flew right in the face of the fluff. "half-orcs tend towards sorcery" several sourcebooks claim, yet they are awful choices for sorcerers in 3.5. "Gnomes are natural bards/wizards" but if you go by their racial adjustments in 3.5, you have to wonder why on Toril that would be the case.

By setting the balance point for races higher, you encourage more diversity at the table, which leads to richer games.

No you don't. In 3.5, your sorc has to choose between going human for the feat, or going some obscure race for a higher casting stat or other handy bonus. So, while human is a really good choice, you do consider other things. Lesser planetouched might be solid.

In PF, you get the feat, you get a bonus to your casting stat, and oh look, humans only can take free extra spells known as their favored class. You get to eradicate the main weakness of the sorc. No other race competes.

In PF, a player would have to be crazy to choose an option other than human for a sorc. So, your specific example shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Psyren

2011-12-08, 10:53 AM

No you don't. In 3.5, your sorc has to choose between going human for the feat, or going some obscure race for a higher casting stat or other handy bonus. So, while human is a really good choice, you do consider other things. Lesser planetouched might be solid.

In PF, you get the feat, you get a bonus to your casting stat, and oh look, humans only can take free extra spells known as their favored class. You get to eradicate the main weakness of the sorc. No other race competes.

In PF, a player would have to be crazy to choose an option other than human for a sorc. So, your specific example shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Yeah, I agree that the Human FC bonus for sorcerers was overpowered. That's what, one broken race-class combination out of how many?

PF enabled race-class combinations that in 3.5 would have been headscratchers at best. Enjoy your 3.5 half-orc paladin for instance. And Half-elves... lol?

Tyndmyr

2011-12-08, 11:52 AM

Yeah, I agree that the Human FC bonus for sorcerers was overpowered. That's what, one broken race-class combination out of how many?

PF enabled race-class combinations that in 3.5 would have been headscratchers at best. Enjoy your 3.5 half-orc paladin for instance. And Half-elves... lol?

It would still have been an excellent choice for say, wizard. The choice is no longer "primary stat boost or feat". It's "primary stat boost and feat or primary stat boost and stat I don't care about much".

So, you still end up with less choice, not more. Non human races are generally a trap.

In 3.5, a half-orc paladin was a poor choice mostly because half-orc was not a great choice. That said, it's a full bab class, you're getting str, and your skill list is not great to begin with. The loss of int is marginal. Cha is slightly more important, but trading it out for strength is fair. It's not abysmal, but there are better options. Someone who wants str and is limited to phb races might pick it.

In 3.5, for monoclass chars, favored race is irrelevant.

In PF, half-orcs get the +2 to favorite stat. This is, compared against human, entirely balanced out by humans getting exactly the same thing. So...there's no reason to take this instead of just being human and getting a feat too.

In PF, human paladins have the alternate option to get energy resistance as a favored class option. This isn't huge, but it's kind of cool and a useful options. Half orc paladins get...nope, nothing.

Oh, and the fact that you count as both human and orc for any effect related to race is mostly a negative. It doesn't say for prereqs, so that doesn't help you at all...it just means that, say, rangers are more likely to get favored enemy bonuses against you.

Nope, pretty much just made half orc paladin more pointless.

TheArsenal

2011-12-08, 11:55 AM

Well thier adventure paths are great.

Psyren

2011-12-08, 12:02 PM

So, you still end up with less choice, not more. Non human races are generally a trap.

Incorrect. "Trap" implies "taking this will hurt you" which none of the non-human races do anymore.

In 3.5, for monoclass chars, favored race is irrelevant.

Exactly; this is a problem, and one that PF nicely fixed without kludgy substitution levels.

In PF, half-orcs get the +2 to favorite stat. This is, compared against human, entirely balanced out by humans getting exactly the same thing. So...there's no reason to take this instead of just being human and getting a feat too.

Oh? Is there a PF feat that gets you a bite attack? How about darkvision? How about both at once? Not to mention they do get feat equivalents, such as Lucky or Exotic Weapon Proficiency.

Going human is now a meaningful choice (i.e. I'd rather have a general feat than those other things) instead of mandatory (I'd rather not suck by having a net -2 stats.) In other words, I can go H-O without feeling I got cornholed by the system.

In PF, human paladins have the alternate option to get energy resistance as a favored class option. This isn't huge, but it's kind of cool and a useful options. Half orc paladins get...nope, nothing.

Which is better than the less than nothing (i.e. disincentives) they were getting in 3.5. But I guess that's not enough for you.

Reverent-One

2011-12-08, 12:14 PM

Oh, and the fact that you count as both human and orc for any effect related to race is mostly a negative. It doesn't say for prereqs, so that doesn't help you at all...it just means that, say, rangers are more likely to get favored enemy bonuses against you.

What? No. It says for they can count as human for any effect related to race, which includes feat pre-reqs. Explict reference to this is from this feat:

The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins.
Prerequisite: Human.
Benefit: Choose another humanoid race. You count as
both human and that race for any effects related to race.
For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both
a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats,
how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.

Exact same wording at the half-orc racial feature, and the example makes it clear that the wording means it counts for feats.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-08, 12:25 PM

Incorrect. "Trap" implies "taking this will hurt you" which none of the non-human races do anymore.

No. They still hurt you relative to picking human. Boosting everything equally doesn't change trap status.

Exactly; this is a problem, and one that PF nicely fixed without kludgy substitution levels.

Except that human is awesome in that they get better alternate favored class bonuses than basically anyone else.

Oh? Is there a PF feat that gets you a bite attack? How about darkvision? How about both at once? Not to mention they do get feat equivalents, such as Lucky or Exotic Weapon Proficiency.

The darkvision existed in 3.5 as well. That was not a relative change.

Bite attack? PF half orcs do not get a bite attack. I don't know what you're talking about. Are you counting toothy? Because, if so, that replaces existing racial features, and it's a 1d4 bite attack, so it's pretty terrible.

EWP? He gets to treat weapons with "orc" in the name as martial. This is pretty terrible. 3.5 had misc fluffy proficiencies too. They are generally irrelevant. This gets you the orcish double axe as the only weapon that qualifies. Wee, have fun enjoying the fun of twf. This EWP gets you no special abilities or anything. It's just another generic two ended weapon. Hell, the SIMPLE weapon quarterstaff is almost as good. Since you have to take something that gives you all martial weapons proficiency to get this, you're obviously better off taking a martial weapon. No value.

Going human is now a meaningful choice (i.e. I'd rather have a general feat than those other things) instead of mandatory (I'd rather not suck by having a net -2 stats.) In other words, I can go H-O without feeling I got cornholed by the system.

No. The reason people went orcish/half orcish was "I want strength more than a feat. I don't care about the mental penalties much". It was a legit reason. That reason is gone.

You *could* try to play a orcish sorc/wiz now, I suppose. Except a human is still far, far better at it.

Which is better than the less than nothing (i.e. disincentives) they were getting in 3.5. But I guess that's not enough for you.

I've already demonstrated that the human/half orc gap is wider in PF than it is in 3.5. That's a greater disincentive, not a lesser one.

Flip through the PF Favored Class options (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedRaces.html) for yourself. Humans are the obviously superior choice in a great many of them, even before you include the free feat.

There is essentially nothing that is clearly better than free feat + equally good primary stat + favored class options.

What? No. It says for they can count as human for any effect related to race, which includes feat pre-reqs. Explict reference to this is from this feat:

Exact same wording at the half-orc racial feature, and the example makes it clear that the wording means it counts for feats.

I'll grant that this is a strong implication. That would upgrade it to mostly neutral. Unfortunately, it clearly does not count for such things as favored class options or alternate racial traits. That might actually make it an advantage. As it is, it ends up being fairly unlikely to come up...but probably still marginally negative. human/orc is not really an improvement over orc. It gives you access to Eclectic, but that's of marginal use since you can't use a second favored class on a PrC. It would also qualify you for the feat you mention...but that would be rather pointless.

Mando Knight

2011-12-08, 12:37 PM

Curious

2011-12-08, 12:40 PM

The big weird issue with PF I have is that they make literally no attempt at balancing monster races (at least they know LA is terrible), then go ahead and list such races that can start at level 1... Aasimar (+4 stat modifier! Built in energy resistance! Darkvision! Daylight, in case Darkvision isn't enough! Outsider (Native)! Diplomacy bonus!) and Noble Drow (At-will SLAs, +8 total stat modifier, a relatively non-negligible SR...) especially.

If you closely examine the entry in the bestiary, you will notice that the Noble Drow Cleric provided as an example has a CR equal to her level, whereas most other player races have a CR equal to their class level - 1. Ergo, Drow Nobles are LA + 1.

Also, I would take human over Aasimar any day of the week.

Psyren

2011-12-08, 12:44 PM

No. They still hurt you relative to picking human. Boosting everything equally doesn't change trap status.

You're still wrong. A 3.5 half-orc going paladin would be a trap because it made you ineffective at being a paladin. A PF half-orc going paladin is not.

It's really basic math, I don't see why this is so difficult to get. +2 > -2.

Except that human is awesome in that they get better alternate favored class bonuses than basically anyone else.

Humans are still a great choice; they are however no longer in total isolation from everyone else.

The darkvision existed in 3.5 as well. That was not a relative change.

Humans have darkvision in 3.5? Do you have a quote for that? I don't know what you're talking about. :smallconfused:

EWP? He gets to treat weapons with "orc" in the name as martial.

No, not that; you can get dire flails and spiked chains as Martial also.

No. The reason people went orcish/half orcish was "I want strength more than a feat. I don't care about the mental penalties much". It was a legit reason. That reason is gone.

You can still get strength, and do so without mental penalties at all. It's called putting the +2 in Strength.

You *could* try to play a orcish sorc/wiz now, I suppose. Except a human is still far, far better at it.

I'm not seeing a point here.
PF half-orc caster/gish > 3.5 half-orc caster/gish.
PF half-orc melee = 3.5 half-orc melee.
+1 > 0.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-08, 01:03 PM

You're still wrong. A 3.5 half-orc going paladin would be a trap because it made you ineffective at being a paladin. A PF half-orc going paladin is not.

It's really basic math, I don't see why this is so difficult to get. +2 > -2.

Because you're comparing in isolation. Trading cha out for str is a valid option for a paladin. Losing the feat in addition hurts notably, but in core only, str options are limited.

Pathfinder added +2 to EVERYTHING. This is not a relative change. This does NOT make half orc better than human, because human gets the EXACT SAME STAT BOOST.

So, instead of a choice that is admittedly human skewed, but actually results in different things, your choice is "do you want the feat or not?" Picking the "not" option is not really reasonable.

Humans are still a great choice; they are however no longer in total isolation from everyone else.

They are in more isolation now.

Humans have darkvision in 3.5? Do you have a quote for that? I don't know what you're talking about. :smallconfused:

Half orcs did. If it was a determining feature in PF, it would have been in 3.5 too. It really wasn't. Light sources are pretty easy to come by. Again, you are mistaking differences within an edition for differences between editions.

No, not that; you can get dire flails and spiked chains as Martial also.

Not "also". Instead of. If, and only if, alternate racial traits are in play. Human has a feat so...if they cared, they could get this. Or anything else. Yes, you can play games with alternate features for most things. Humans have a better standard feature than almost any alternate feature. Hell, despite having some solid alternate features(hello, massive bonus to stabilization and negative hp before dying), their main racial trait is so good nobody really considers most of them.

Oh, except for that trait I just listed. That doesn't replace the feat, it just replaces the skill boost. Wow, humans are crushing orcs all over the place.

You can still get strength, and do so without mental penalties at all. It's called putting the +2 in Strength.

Yes. PF stats are higher than 3.5 stats. PF human puts the +2 in Str as well. NO NET CHANGE.

I'm not seeing a point here.
PF half-orc caster/gish > 3.5 half-orc caster/gish.
PF half-orc melee = 3.5 half-orc melee.
+1 > 0.

Er, not really. First off, factor out the +2, because in the conversion to PF, EVERYONE gets a +2. This is just inflation. It does not make the half orc better than anyone else.

Secondly, your gish uses either int or cha as a casting stat, not both. So, your PF gish has a +2 to the casting stat and a -2 to str relative to the 3.5 gish half orc. This is a balanced trade, and is roughly equal.

Oh, the melee doesn't care about how bad his cha is? He just got worse relative to everyone else.

So...
PF half-orc caster/gish = 3.5 half-orc caster/gish.
PF half-orc melee < 3.5 half-orc melee.

There we go. Inflationary changes to everyone does not make one race superior.

And, frankly, if you're playing a gish, there is basically no motivation to choose half orc in PF. It's a terrible pick.

Psyren

2011-12-08, 01:28 PM

Doug Lampert

2011-12-08, 05:38 PM

"Inflationary?" Did all the monsters get +2 Con or AC or saving throws when I wasn't looking? Were the DCs for every ability check raised on the sly? Did the bonus spells/PP calculation get altered somehow? So why does the net +2 for all the PC races suddenly not matter?

Your argument is waffling back and for- well, a more accurate description might be that it's drunkenly weaving all over the road. "The stat boost doesn't matter, because humans get it too and a feat!" Yeah, but they don't get darkvision or ferocity or orc-blooded or weapon familiarity or any of the things they can replace those features with. Those things might not matter to you and that's great, but you're instead trying to pretend they don't exist entirely simply because they hurt your argument.

"A 1d4 bite is crappy!" So is a 1d4 slam, yet I see a ton of people taking Warforged just to get it, for whichever PrC or feat or what have you that needs a natural attack. Plus, you know, you might not have your weapons all the time or you might want that second attack before level 6 or you might need bludgeoning damage when all you have is a greatsword etc.

"Everyone has +2 so it's meaningless!" Yet in 3.5, they didn't. Compare apples to apples, not to volkswagens. The within-system comparison is meaningless when you're trying to compare one system to another instead.

Most of the monsters were beefed up, and all of the NPCs were, and combat manuevers were changed so much as to not be really comparable. If you claim that the half-orc is a viable paladin REGARDLESS of how much better the human is (and that's the only way I can see to read your claims) then that's no different from 3.5 so no improvement there. If you are not looking at the alternatives then the half orc can be a paladin in either system.

You have offered NOTHING that makes a half orc a better choice for a paladin as compared to a human in PF that did not exist in 3.5. Not one item or fact. Strength is more important to a paladin than charisma so +2 Str for -2 to Cha was a good trade in 3.5, and PF doesn't offer that trade. Instead both the human and the half-orc get the exact same racial mods, so that CAN'T be a reason to take half-orc, and nothing else you have mentioned is anything they don't get in 3.5 where you ADMIT they were a bad choice.

Additionally the human gets nifty favored class bonueses and still gets a free feat and skills.

Hence half orcs are a worse choice in PF than in 3.5. Because choices are ALWAYS about alternatives. If the alternatives have improved more than half orc then half orc is now WORSE as a choice, even if the half-orcs numbers are higher.

DougL

Psyren

2011-12-08, 05:50 PM

that's no different from 3.5 so no improvement there.

3.5 Half-Orc (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/races.htm#halfOrcs)
PF Half-Orc (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/core-races/half-orc)

If you see no difference between these two (especially in terms of being a paladin) then I see no reason to even debate with you.

And you can still get the +2 Strength; Your Cha adjustment will be 0 instead of -2 in that case. Still better.

Doug Lampert

2011-12-08, 05:56 PM

3.5 Half-Orc (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/races.htm#halfOrcs)
PF Half-Orc (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/core-races/half-orc)

If you see no difference between these two (especially in terms of being a paladin) then I see no reason to even debate with you.

And you can still get the +2 Strength; Your Cha adjustment will be 0 instead of -2 in that case. Still better.

If playing 3.5 the choice is 3.5 human or 3.5 half orc. And you ADMIT that human is so much better that half orc is stupid.

If playing PF the choice is PF human of PF half orc. And the human is better by even more.

By your "logic" if PF had added +1000 to every ability of the human and given +2 to one ability to the half orc that would have been good for the half orc. That logic is insane. You compare the alternatives or choices within the system.

DougL

Psyren

2011-12-08, 06:01 PM

We're comparing systems, remember? The topic is "should I get Pathfinder" not "what race is best for paladin in Pathfinder".

Half-orcs are objectively better at being certain classes (e.g. Paladins and Sorcerers) than they were in 3.5. Your "argument" that humans are also better is irrelevant. If I want to be a half-orc paladin, I'm no longer punished by the system for making that choice.

Your conclusion that "half-orc is a worse choice than in 3.5" makes zero sense.

sonofzeal

2011-12-08, 06:32 PM

Your conclusion that "half-orc is a worse choice than in 3.5" makes zero sense.
The value of any choice is always relative to the alternatives.

Situation A: You have a choice between +3 and +2.

Situation B: You have a choice between +10 and +4.

Choosing +4 against +10 is worse than choosing +2 over +3, even though +4 is better than +2.

Make sense?

Psyren

2011-12-08, 08:01 PM

The value of any choice is always relative to the alternatives.

Except this isn't a relative comparison, but an objective one. Divine Grace, for instance, is exactly the same in PF as in 3.5; assuming equal point-buy/rolls, PF half-orcs get more of it, even if they put their +2 in strength instead of Cha. Therefore they are objectively better off.

Zeal, I've understood what he's been trying to say with the human comparison since the beginning, but you're blinding yourselves to the forest by squinting at that individual tree.

By the way: the assumption that I don't agree simply because I don't understand is extremely condescending, so I'll thank you to resist the temptation to continue with that approach; I'll save you a lot of time now and tell you it really won't appeal to me at all.

sonofzeal

2011-12-08, 08:35 PM

Except this isn't a relative comparison, but an objective one. Divine Grace, for instance, is exactly the same in PF as in 3.5; assuming equal point-buy/rolls, PF half-orcs get more of it, even if they put their +2 in strength instead of Cha. Therefore they are objectively better off.

Zeal, I've understood what he's been trying to say with the human comparison since the beginning, but you're blinding yourselves to the forest by squinting at that individual tree.

By the way: the assumption that I don't agree simply because I don't understand is extremely condescending, so I'll thank you to resist the temptation to continue with that approach; I'll save you a lot of time now and tell you it really won't appeal to me at all.
But PF boost everything. I mean, every race is better off now. And pretty much every class is boosted in some way, too. I simply don't understand how that's a selling point, which by my reading appears to be your claim.

No offence was meant, but I simply do not understand the point of your argument at all, and took my best guess at where the breakdown in communication was.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-08, 08:49 PM

Psyren

2011-12-08, 08:51 PM

You mean there are 3.5 paladins that don't take Serenity? Well I guess in core-only...

I'm for it personally, but there are plenty of non-core games that don't allow Dragon magazine either.

But PF boost everything. I mean, every race is better off now. And pretty much every class is boosted in some way, too. I simply don't understand how that's a selling point, which by my reading appears to be your claim.

It's a selling point because the system doesn't punish you for trying certain combinations. Want to be a half-orc paladin? You don't have to try and finagle a 14 into Cha no matter your stat budget to make your abilities worth anything. Want to be a half-elf... anything? They get a bonus feat too, one that's required for plenty of PrCs out there so they end up much closer to humans now. (And can actually beat elves at something besides incarnum for a change!)

PF buffed every race, sure, but plenty of objective benchmarks were left right where they are. Positive stat mods still happen at 12 and up. The bonus spells table is exactly the same. Metamagic is easier to fit into your build. And so on.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-12-08, 08:52 PM

I'm for it personally, but there are plenty of non-core games that don't allow Dragon magazine either.

Dragon Magazine Compendium is official.

Edit: Although Realms Helps is calling it Dungeon Compendium. :smallconfused: Either way, it's official.

Yora

2011-12-08, 08:54 PM

Which it may be, but that doesn't make a difference if a GM decides not to allow it.

Psyren

2011-12-08, 08:59 PM

Dragon Magazine Compendium is official.

No, it's actually 3rd-party. Check the publisher. ("Official 3rd-party", but still.)

It is accepted in many threads here, and disallowed in many others.

sonofzeal

2011-12-08, 09:39 PM

It's a selling point because the system doesn't punish you for trying certain combinations. Want to be a half-orc paladin? You don't have to try and finagle a 14 into Cha no matter your stat budget to make your abilities worth anything. Want to be a half-elf... anything? They get a bonus feat too, one that's required for plenty of PrCs out there so they end up much closer to humans now. (And can actually beat elves at something besides incarnum for a change!)

PF buffed every race, sure, but plenty of objective benchmarks were left right where they are. Positive stat mods still happen at 12 and up. The bonus spells table is exactly the same. Metamagic is easier to fit into your build. And so on.
I still think the whole thing is largely illusionary. A 3.5 Half-Orc can still be a competent Paladin - he's got a penalty to Cha, sure, but Strength is just as important to most Pallies and he's got a boost there. The human bonus feat and skill points are more significant than the difference in ability scores.

In a low-op game, 3.5 Half-Orc Pally is entirely playable. In a mid/high-op game, Human is almost always a better choice. And in PF... neither of those facts has changed. The combination's still playable, and Human's still almost always a better choice.

I really don't see the point.

(And I disagree with your useage of "objective benchmarks". A benchmark is the standard result. If everyone had +8 to their most important stat, every caster would have more spells, and the benchmark for number of spells would be higher even if the table's the same, since the standard default number of spells is higher.)

MukkTB

2011-12-08, 09:46 PM

In 3.5 you go to the Half Orc if you want strength at all costs. In PF you go to the Half Orc for the fluff mostly. I didn't feel that changed much. I actually play at a low enough optimization level that I didn't feel the difference between Half Orc and Human changed very much when I went from 3.5 to 3.P. Human was the better choice.

The silly thing is that instead of giving all races +2 PF could've just suggested a higher point buy value. You can get the same effect in 3.5 with a higher point buy value. Its simply a blatant attempt to seduce people. And the monsters do have to be made more powerful if all the PCs are more powerful. +X to everything isn't particularly an improvement.

PF did succeed in giving classes a bunch of little things to reduce dead levels if you ignore the tier 1 classes. Every level getting a new shiny will keep you amused. If a shiny gets old then you get a new one on the next level. The worst thing was where certain classes were entirely frontloaded so they actually functioned as 1 or 2 level dips.

Psyren

2011-12-08, 09:48 PM

I still think the whole thing is largely illusionary. A 3.5 Half-Orc can still be a competent Paladin - he's got a penalty to Cha, sure, but Strength is just as important to most Pallies and he's got a boost there.

So does the PF one, if you want him to. And if you do, he still comes out ahead in Cha.

If race choices are so illusionary, why do handbooks put so much stock in them? Did you guys enjoy seeing half-orc/half-elf in red for almost every caster and plenty of melee?

If that's the case... then have fun with 3.5, I won't stop you.

And I disagree with your useage of "objective benchmarks".

You can disagree all you want; until you show me where PF has changed the bonus spell and modifier system from 3.5, the facts remain unassailable. More stats + same system = advantage.

@ Mukk: Not all DMs use point buy. Stat boosts matter as much for random rolls as they do for PB, unless you roll all high or all low.

sonofzeal

2011-12-08, 10:04 PM

So does the PF one, if you want him to. And if you do, he still comes out ahead in Cha.

If race choices are so illusionary, why do handbooks put so much stock in them? Did you guys like seeing half-orc/half-elf in red for almost every caster and plenty of melee?

If that's the case... then have fun with 3.5, I won't stop you.
Half-Orcs were terrible choices for Wizards, because Int was so central to them, and Strength was so unnecessary. But for a Paladin, Str and Cha are both quite benefitial, and trading one for the other isn't necessarily a bad thing. A race that gave -2 Str and +2 Cha would be a little awkward for Pally, but entirely playable - they could either dump Str entirely, or simply counterbalance with pointbuy or gear. Same with Half-Orcs - either dump Cha and do without, or counterbalance. And a +2/-2 isn't at all hard to counterbalance, when you're trading between two useful quantities.

Elves, meanwhile, sucked at it because Con is important for Pallies and Dex generally isn't. That makes it a seriously bad trade. And PF Elves are still bad choices for Pallies. That hasn't changed either.

You can disagree all you want; until you show me where PF has changed the bonus spell and modifier system from 3.5, the facts remain unassailable. More stats + same system = advantage.
"Advantage" implies you've improved while the opposition has remained the same or gotten weaker. But the things a Half-Orc Paladin will be fighting
have changed. Opponents are stronger too. I looked up Ogre just to verify - the PF version has (admittedly slightly) more AC and more HP. It also traded Weapon Focus for Iron Will, but that's neither here nor there.

Point is, Bestiary enemies are generally stronger, and NPC enemies are almost certainly stronger.

So no. "Advantage" is not a term I'd use here. PF races/classes don't compare to 3.5 races/classes in a void, they compare against alternatives available and against obstacles they're likely to face.

Reverent-One

2011-12-08, 10:20 PM

"Advantage" implies you've improved while the opposition has remained the same or gotten weaker. But the things a Half-Orc Paladin will be fighting
have changed. Opponents are stronger too. I looked up Ogre just to verify - the PF version has (admittedly slightly) more AC and more HP. It also traded Weapon Focus for Iron Will, but that's neither here nor there.

Point is, Bestiary enemies are generally stronger, and NPC enemies are almost certainly stronger.

So one monster has a single extra hit point and you can claim that Bestiary enemies are generally stronger? What about the Dire Wolf, which lost an entire HD in the conversion to PF while remaining the same CR? Or the Adult Black Dragon that lost 5 HD for 30 HP, admittedly gaining one point of AC, and also remained the same CR?

Psyren

2011-12-08, 10:29 PM

It's easy to tunnel-vision to examples that don't oppose your point of view.

Lets look at trolls - way easier in PF. First off, they're humanoid (giant) now, so you've got a lot more options for handling them magically right off the bat. Their size bonus to grapple got nicely smacked down. Darkvision range ate a 50% nerf too. Rend damage taken down. Then we get to the key trick; their regen. If all you have is a torch, in 3.5 killing that troll will take a loooooooong time. PF? Burn him for even 1 fire damage between swings and it's lights out in seconds.

I notice you didn't say a thing about the spell slots or modifiers - because you can't of course.

Speaking of spell slots, the PF Half-orc paladin gets more of them. That means, core-to-core, he has more ways to take care of that ogre you mentioned. And I haven't even touched on the buffs the class itself got.

EDIT: ohai, Reverent! :smallcool:

So no. "Advantage" is not a term I'd use here.

Whereas I still would. So I guess we're at an impasse then, aren't we?

Well, except for the good news - I can still keep playing and enjoying PF, and you lot can keep futilely trying to convince people not to in threads like this one.

sonofzeal

2011-12-08, 10:34 PM

So one monster has a single extra hit point and you can claim that Bestiary enemies are generally stronger? What about the Dire Wolf, which lost an entire HD in the conversion to PF while remaining the same CR? Or the Adult Black Dragon that lost 5 HD for 30 HP, admittedly gaining one point of AC, and also remained the same CR?
hmm.... *checks a few more*

...yep. Damage output especially seems generally lower.

So PCs are stronger and monsters are weaker. I should have expected that, actually - Paizo seems all about making people feel awesome and badass for switching. It also doesn't seem to resolve what we were discussing. Even granted that PF Half-Orc Pallies have an advantage, just about everyone in PF has an advantage. Congrats, the game just became easier across the board. I don't see how it leads to better gameplay though.

sonofzeal

2011-12-08, 10:36 PM

I notice you didn't say a thing about the spell slots or modifiers - because you can't of course.
Errr.... no, because I said it five posts ago (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12346795&postcount=224).

Psyren

2011-12-08, 10:41 PM

Well, you were just proven wrong about objective benchmarks being higher, and you're also wrong that PF half-orc paladins have no place in a mid/high-op game (since they don't get negatives to any of their important stats like they do in 3.5, they aren't hobbled out of the gate like they used to be.) If that's still "illusionary" to you then I have nothing else to say.

sonofzeal

2011-12-08, 10:53 PM

Well, you were just proven wrong about objective benchmarks being higher, and you're also wrong that PF half-orc paladins have no place in a mid/high-op game (since they don't get negatives to any of their important stats like they do in 3.5.) So I'd say the only illusion here is your argument, really.
When I defined the term "benchmark" in that post you conveniently skipped over, I clearly defined it in a way that's still relevant. We compare the result of choosing Half-Orc for Paladin against the result of other similar choices. Turns out, the standard in PF is higher! Most races make better Paladins than they do in 3.5. Thus, the benchmark is higher. It's as simple as that.

And 3.5 Half-Orc Paladins had just about a similar role. They had a negative to an important stat, but a positive to another one, and that's pretty much a wash in most cases. The reason they suffered in 3.5 was because they had no other relevant racial traits besides Darkvision as far as a Paladin was concerned, and that's still pretty much the case. I guess the +2 Intimidate is something...? :smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused:

So if you're in the sort of game that, in 3.5, would have precluded playing a Half-Orc Paladin... then in PF you're probably still in the same boat. Human skill bonus crushes the tiny Intimidate bonus, and a free bonus feat is still an awesome commodity. Both of those make Human more desirable than Half-Orc, if you're in a game where such differences matter.

And if you're not... hey, 3.5 Half-Orc Paladin is entirely decent too!

Psyren

2011-12-08, 10:55 PM

You're still wrong about the benchmark, because races aren't just compared to each other, they're compared to objective challenges as well.

Such as monsters, and having enough spells.
Which you got wrong.

And if you want to play a Half-Orc, just without being punished for it by stat penalties where it counts?

In 3.5, you wouldn't.
In PF, you would.
Improvement.

(I'm not even restricting it to Paladins; even Bards and Sorcerers count.)

sonofzeal

2011-12-08, 10:59 PM

And if you want to play a Half-Orc, just without being punished for it by stat penalties where it counts?

In 3.5, you wouldn't.
In PF, you would.
Improvement.
And my point, as I've said before, is that the "punishment" you're referring to is largely psychological. Half-Orc Paladin feels like a bad choice in 3.5, because you've got that terrifying negative number there. But the result of choosing it is fairly decent, and in practice that stat penalty can be easily compensated for. There's no "punishment" there, just a psychological disincentive.

(The "punishment" comes when you factor in skill points and free feat from being Human, which are still entirely relevant. PF Half-Orc Paladins are "punished" about as badly for not choosing Human, it's merely less obvious now.)

ericgrau

2011-12-08, 11:01 PM

What I'm asking here is whether or not there are enough differences between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder to make it worth getting PF, or any other reason why I should (or shouldn't) get PF.

IMO nope, there aren't. Stick with what you have. However, there are 2 sides to that coin. It also doesn't hurt to play PF instead of 3.5. I jumped right into a PF group and can't complain about much. So, basically play whatever your friends are playing so you can get a game going.

I actually skipped the core rulebook. I rely on the SRD or friends' books to level up and that's about all I need it for; and even then the class changes could fit in the margins of my character sheet. I did however buy the Advanced Player's Guide because that's one of the books with interesting new options. If you want to treat PF (except core) like new splatbooks and you like that sort of thing too then it could be worth a shot. Or even play 3.5 with PF material, though the minor differences might cause a little trouble.

sonofzeal

2011-12-08, 11:03 PM

You're still wrong about the benchmark, because races aren't just compared to each other, they're compared to objective challenges as well.

Such as monsters, and having enough spells.
Which you got wrong.
I got monsters wrong. I admitted it. Let's move on, unless you're going to strike some deep penetrating point about the awesomeness of PF based on PF PCs being stronger and monsters being weaker.

Psyren

2011-12-08, 11:04 PM

There's no "punishment" there, just a psychological disincentive.

That's not how point buy works. The difference between 14 and 16, or 16 and 18, is more than just "psychological disincentive" - it's a real cost that has real implications for your build.

Hell, even the difference between 10 and 12 can mean some of your class features working or not.

(The "punishment" comes when you factor in skill points and free feat from being Human, which are still entirely relevant. PF Half-Orc Paladins are "punished" about as badly for not choosing Human, it's merely less obvious now.)

This is where the psychology comes in, actually. If you want to be a half-orc, why look at humans at all?

And by the by, you CAN edit your posts you know...

sonofzeal

2011-12-08, 11:09 PM

That's not how point buy works. The difference between 14 and 16, or 16 and 18, is more than just "psychological disincentive" - it's a real cost that has real implications for your build.
This is relevant for a Sorcerer, who likely wants to drop Strength entirely. But if a Half-Orc Paladin is putting points into both Strength and Cha, it's more a matter of just rebalancing between them.

Psyren

2011-12-08, 11:10 PM

This is relevant for a Sorcerer, who likely wants to drop Strength entirely. But if a Half-Orc Paladin is putting points into both Strength and Cha, it's more a matter of just rebalancing between them.

Which the PF one can do much more easily, since his are separated by 2 points instead of 4, and no negatives.

sonofzeal

2011-12-08, 11:51 PM

Which the PF one can do much more easily, since his are separated by 2 points instead of 4, and no negatives.
In 3.5:

Human Paladin, 32 pb

16 str (10pts)
12 dex (4pts)
14 con (6pts)
8 int (0pts)
14 wis (6pts)
14 cha (6pts)

Half-Orc Paladin, 32 pb

16 str (6pts)
12 dex (4pts)
14 con (6pts)
6 int (0pts)
14 wis (6pts)
14 cha (10pts)

...or just use the same PB as Human and get 18 Str and 12 cha. Not a huge deal either way.

navar100

2011-12-09, 12:03 AM

I still think the whole thing is largely illusionary. A 3.5 Half-Orc can still be a competent Paladin - he's got a penalty to Cha, sure, but Strength is just as important to most Pallies and he's got a boost there. The human bonus feat and skill points are more significant than the difference in ability scores.

In a low-op game, 3.5 Half-Orc Pally is entirely playable. In a mid/high-op game, Human is almost always a better choice. And in PF... neither of those facts has changed. The combination's still playable, and Human's still almost always a better choice.

I really don't see the point.

(And I disagree with your useage of "objective benchmarks". A benchmark is the standard result. If everyone had +8 to their most important stat, every caster would have more spells, and the benchmark for number of spells would be higher even if the table's the same, since the standard default number of spells is higher.)

The point is it is irrelevant how awesome a human paladin in Pathfinder would be. Let it be so that a human paladin in Pathfinder is so Awesome, Huzzah, Hip Hip Hooray, Go! Go! Go!, Absolutely the best in everything everywhere for all time forever and ever. If despite all that oh so great grand poobah of awesomeness a player wants to play a half-orc paladin anyway the game mechanics of a Pathfinder half-orc paladin do not suck for him. His Righteous Do Goodism of Delicious Paladin POWER may not be as grand as could have been possible as a human, but the player doesn't care because his half-orc paladin is still juicy in its own rite. He doesn't have to be the Best Paladin EVAR! He just needs to be an effective one, which he can do as a half-orc in Paladin easier than he could as a half-orc in 3E.

sonofzeal

2011-12-09, 12:07 AM

Psyren

2011-12-09, 12:40 AM

Oh, he's certainly welcome to be a Half-Orc despite better options. But he was perfectly able to do that in 3.5 too. I'm still not seeing the point.

He was fighting uphill in 3.5.
He doesn't have to in PF.

I really can't state it any more clearly than that.

KnightDisciple

2011-12-09, 12:44 AM

He was fighting uphill in 3.5.
He doesn't have to in PF.

I really can't state it any more clearly than that.

This.

I'd add that I'm currently playing a Half-Orc fighter...who's a dedicated archer. And thanks to some good rolls, he's got a 12 in Charisma. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, the dynamic of giving all the half-races the floating +2 is a good one. It represents the general flexibility they possess. Meanwhile, each of them has some very good advantages (HO darkvision, HE immunities, etc.).

Humans still get a free feat, so it's not like they aren't "top dogs" still.

sonofzeal

2011-12-09, 12:45 AM

He was fighting uphill in 3.5.
He doesn't have to in PF.

I really can't state it any more clearly than that.
If only because PF as a whole is generally playing with kid gloves, given the buffs PCs got and (apparently) the nerfs monsters got. Everything got easier for everyone, so things are obviously easier for Mr Halforc Paladin too. Is that your sales-pitch for the system, that PCs are stronger and monsters are weaker?

KnightDisciple

2011-12-09, 12:57 AM

If only because PF as a whole is generally playing with kid gloves, given the buffs PCs got and (apparently) the nerfs monsters got. Everything got easier for everyone, so things are obviously easier for Mr Halforc Paladin too. Is that your sales-pitch for the system, that PCs are stronger and monsters are weaker?
Is that really such a bad thing, that Paladins got a buff, and the legions of monsters with abilities that instantly removed players from being able to contribute to the game (via save-or-die, save-or-suck, etc) got nerfed?

Is it really so bad that people can more easily play a wider range of options for character ideas now?

How is "everything got easier" a bad sales pitch?

Incidentally, it's not like Paladins, Fighters, or the rest of their ilk can still compete with Wizards and their ilk. So it's still pretty close to 3.5.

LordBlades

2011-12-09, 01:15 AM

The point is it is irrelevant how awesome a human paladin in Pathfinder would be. Let it be so that a human paladin in Pathfinder is so Awesome, Huzzah, Hip Hip Hooray, Go! Go! Go!, Absolutely the best in everything everywhere for all time forever and ever. If despite all that oh so great grand poobah of awesomeness a player wants to play a half-orc paladin anyway the game mechanics of a Pathfinder half-orc paladin do not suck for him. His Righteous Do Goodism of Delicious Paladin POWER may not be as grand as could have been possible as a human, but the player doesn't care because his half-orc paladin is still juicy in its own rite. He doesn't have to be the Best Paladin EVAR! He just needs to be an effective one, which he can do as a half-orc in Paladin easier than he could as a half-orc in 3E.

He's still going to be a worse paladin compared to the 'benchmark human PF paladin' than a 3.5 half orc paladin would be compared to his 'benchmark 3.5 human paladin' counterpart.

As for effectiveness, effective relative to what?

His other party members? That's as relative as ever. If the rest of your party is something like 3x optimized wizards you're going to be sidelined with equal ease in 3.5 as well in PF.

Effectiveness relative to monsters? Well, PF buffed pretty much all races while keeping the monsters largely the same (or nerfing them) Does this mean the half-orc paladin has an easier time? Yes, but then so does everybody else. In order to classify a half-orc paladin as 'effective' or not you'd need to answer the following question: does he have an easier/tougher time facing challenges compared to the 'average human paladin' in 3.5 than in PF?

Psyren

2011-12-09, 01:26 AM

Is that your sales-pitch for the system, that PCs are stronger and monsters are weaker?

"Easier to play?" Hell yeah, that's my sales pitch.

It's easy to make encounters more challenging. Use tougher monsters. Add more monsters. Add terrain disadvantages. Reduce visibility. Attack the party while they're asleep. Counter their strengths, play to their weaknesses.

"Kid gloves" as you put them - that's actually the hard part. Making something they're supposed to beat, yet keeping it from being a cakewalk.

Now I can throw a troll at them without thinking "crap, the wizard is out of spells, how do they kill it for good?" Or a vampire without saying "The Paladin has one smite left, what if he misses?" Or a mummy without saying "they have no cleric, who will remove the curse?"

Effectiveness relative to monsters? Well, PF buffed pretty much all races while keeping the monsters largely the same (or nerfing them) Does this mean the half-orc paladin has an easier time? Yes, but then so does everybody else.

Who cares? I'm not playing "everybody else." I'm playing my half-orc paladin.

Sillycomic

2011-12-09, 01:45 AM

As for effectiveness, effective relative to what?

He already answered that. The effectiveness is in relation to a 3.5 half-orc paladin. Pathfinder half orcs make more effective paladins than 3.5 half orcs.

This:

In order to classify a half-orc paladin as 'effective' or not you'd need to answer the following question: does he have an easier/tougher time facing challenges compared to the 'average human paladin' in 3.5 than in PF?

Is an entirely different question. One that no one argued (as far as I can see) If that is your definition, then the half orc paladin is by no means effective. If you wanted to play a paladin, the most effective way to do it would be human.

However, if you wanted to play a paladin and be a half orc... 3.5 would punish you and make you have to work very hard to overcome the obvious obstables in your way to make this an effective character.

Pathfinder would give you viable options as a half orc to play a paladin including:

1. No penalties to important stats.
2. +2 ability bonus to any stat you feel your Half orc paladin needs (maybe STR, or CHA, or CON... your choice!)
3. Paladin can be your favorite class, giving you bonus HP or skillpoints!
4. +2 to intimidate! With CHA important for a paladin, this could become one of your best skills in the game.
5. Orc Ferocity gives a half-orc a single more round of fighting after he hits negative hitpoints! This means if he goes below zero he can use a lay on hands on himself and still keep fighting without the aid of healers!
6. Already proficient with an exotic weapon (orc double axe) No wasted exotic proficiency feat if that's what you want your half orc paladin to wield.
7. There are a number of in game alternatives which add lots of bonuses to the half orc paladin including Gate Crasher (+2 to STR checks and sunder attemps to break objects) or Sacred Tattoo (+1 to all saves)