[PF] Can Tier 1s and the like cheese out still?

[ranger557]

Hi all, for argument sake, I am only talking about the pathfinder books and no additional 3.5 books. To the point that I have been thinking, can the wizard, druid, cleric and maybe the sorcerer be cheesed out to break the game like they use to in the 3.5 realms? Since all the classes, spells, and options have been changed, can i still be an epic badass spellcaster or is it not possible with the options given in pathfinder? Thanks for in advanced :smallbiggrin:.

[Pilo]

Well, it is a bit harder but it is still possible to break the game with a full caster.

So you could be a badass.

[Swooper]

Someone made a list once of the broken core 3.5 spells that PF fixed and those that it didn't fix. I think it came to about a 40% ratio, if I'm remembering this right.

So yeah, PF still has 60% of the brokenness, full casters can still wreck games if they want to.

[Bhaakon]

You can be a badass, just not an epic badass. Pathfinder has no epic level support to speak of.

[sonofzeal]

Last I heard, the "Wish Economy" is still in full force; anyone who can access a single Wish (say, through a scroll or binding the right beasty or whatever) can still leverage that Wish into infinite Wishes.

Wish (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/wish) for a Candle of Invocation (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/c-d/candle-of-invocation) (a mere 8400 gp). Use it to Gate (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/g/gate) in something that has more Wishes - say, a Noble Djinn. A Candle of Invocation has CL 17, so it can afford to call three Noble Djinns at a time, and grant total control over all three. Each Djinn can grant you three wishes.

Your single Wish has now become nine, in addition to total control over three CR 8 monsters for 17 rounds.


And like I said, anyone who can get access to a single Wish can still do this.

[Ernir]

Hi all, for argument sake, I am only talking about the pathfinder books and no additional 3.5 books. To the point that I have been thinking, can the wizard, druid, cleric and maybe the sorcerer be cheesed out to break the game like they use to in the 3.5 realms?
Depends on your definition of cheese.

Some of the loops were closed, so there are fewer ways to crush down the whole campaign setting beneath your iron heel.

But they still outshadow the poor Fighter by a few weight classes.

Last I heard, the "Wish Economy" is still in full force; anyone who can access a single Wish (say, through a scroll or binding the right beasty or whatever) can still leverage that Wish into infinite Wishes.

PF Wish doesn't allow you to Wish for magic items, so the economy probably dodged that particular bullet.

That being said, Wish loops are still possible (just use your Wish to duplicate the completely unchanged Planar Binding or something), which has problems of its own.

[sonofzeal]

PF Wish doesn't allow you to Wish for magic items, so the economy probably dodged that particular bullet.

That being said, Wish loops are still possible (just use your Wish to duplicate the completely unchanged Planar Binding or something), which has problems of its own.
You're right of course. The loop does work slightly differently in PF. But "Wish Economy" refers, not to the creation of mundane valuables, but to the creation of a tier of beings for which the only meaningful resource is how many concurrent wishes you have at your disposal.

Anyone with 8400 gp to spare can access this tier in PF about as easily as they can in 3.5.

From what I heard, some of the initial resentment against PF in these parts was due to some high profile members attempting to draw Paizo's attention to this while PF was still in beta, and getting banned as a result. I've heard varying accounts of how this all went down, but the long and the short of it is that Paizo had every reason to be aware of Candle of Invocation's abusive potential and still left it in unchanged.

[Yuki Akuma]

Paizo did not actually fix even half of what was wrong in 3.5 Core (and banned people for telling them how to fix them), and then went ahead and said it was fully compatible with 3.5 sourcebooks anyway.

So yes. Tier 1 is still uberpowered.

Paizo actually have no idea what's wrong with 3.5, but shh.

[Helldog]

Paizo did not actually fix even half of what was wrong in 3.5 Core (and banned people for telling them how to fix them), and then went ahead and said it was fully compatible with 3.5 sourcebooks anyway.

So yes. Tier 1 is still uberpowered.

Paizo actually have no idea what's wrong with 3.5, but shh.
I heard that the playtesters where very rude and that's why they got banned.

[sonofzeal]

I heard that the playtesters where very rude and that's why they got banned.
The way I've pieced it together was that it kind of degenerated into flames, with Paizo being all "filthy powergaming twinks" and CharOp vets being all "ignorant narrowminded totalitarians", and then getting banned because hey, Paizo owned the board. Thus kinda proving their point, but whatever. Rudeness seems to have abounded on both sides.

Either way, the problem was brought to their attention well before the system went live, and never got fixed.

[Doc Roc]

Simply put, yes, it's still a problem.

Some of our best playtesters have been incredibly rude. You don't get always get good feedback and good manners in a paired package. I've edited exactly one comment.

[Person_Man]

From what I heard, some of the initial resentment against PF in these parts was due to some high profile members attempting to draw Paizo's attention to this while PF was still in beta, and getting banned as a result. I've heard varying accounts of how this all went down, but the long and the short of it is that Paizo had every reason to be aware of Candle of Invocation's abusive potential and still left it in unchanged.

This is true.

When the open Paizo rules came out I had an account under another name on their forum, and I did my best to point out every mechanical error or issue I could find. I did this out of an honest desire to see 3.X D&D fixed, and not as a "hater."

I was generally angrily denounced by other posters with various levels of hate and comments like "but a reasonable DM would just..." And I would respond that the point of fixing rules is to fix them, not to create a new and/or slightly different loopholes that DMs must navigate. This lead to angry arguments. I think a lot of people here know me and know that I'm generally not a rude person, and my tenor at their forum was similar. But I was still banned for "disrupting the community." And I was not the only person to have this experience.

Interestingly enough, I think Pathfinder is generally an improvement over 3.5 D&D, and I have a friend who works for them as a free lancer. But instead of fixing 3.X or creating a new rules system, they basically continue to publish it with a different set of idiosyncrasies.

[Blisstake]

Yeah, I have no idea what's going on with the Candle of Invocation staying the same. At the very least it should cost an extra 10,000g since you now need to pay that much to cast a gate spell (for summoning) in the first place :smallconfused:

I would probably be bitter toward them if I were banned for simply pointing out a design flaw, but I wasn't there, and I've heard varying accounts of how the whole process went down.

Anyway, yeah, you can still break the game, but it's a bit harder to pull off (a lot of tactics require some degree of DM leniency), but definitely doable.

Edit:
Paizo actually have no idea what's wrong with 3.5, but shh.

I don't think it's so much they didn't understand some of the issues, as they didn't want to fix them in the first place. I get the feeling that the system would actually be a fair bit less popular if it balanced the system from an optimizer's point of view. And they are a business first.

Also, they probably wanted to keep familiarity to the system above balance between, say, fighters and wizards, which would inevitably cause significant changes to both classes.

That works for some people, doesn't for others, I guess.

[charcoalninja]

Sure you can wish loop, but anyone with 8400gp can wish loop just as well, so its not a big deal and IMO can be handwaved away with some setting flavour or in game RP politics among wish granters.

The biggest difference is the stupidity that was divine metamagic, Celerity, Nerveskitter and the 10 million other silly prestiege class metamagic abuse you see everywhere doesn't exist. There's no craft contingent spell, contingency is limited by caster level rather than an open inclusion to 6th level spells. The Polymorph line was drasitcally revamped.

Sure some things still got through and tier 1s are still the most powerful, no amount of tweaking would really change that given how their mechanics work, but it is a much happier place.

Hell Melee can even break walls of force now. A big change from the former "not at all ever". Some monks can grapple a caster and they can't teleport away, Fighters can take a feat that makes teleporting provoke an AOO, (though that doesn't solve the problem of getting close enough to matter in the first place). So it is better, and I feel by a large margin, especially when you consider all the classes that can sunder spells. Barbarians can even smash through a prismatic sphere if I read the class abilities correctly.

[Novawurmson]

Look at any spell of third level or above (from Fly and Invisibility to Create Demiplane and Raise Dead). Can a Fighter (or indeed, any kind of spellcaster) ever, ever, ever do that? No. Casters, especially high level ones, are demigods in mortal flesh who have powers that no one except another high level caster will ever achieve.

I love Pathfinder dearly, but they did not fix the Linear Warrior/Quadratic Wizard problem. They did make a lot of 2/3 casting classes, though, which helps. You player wants to play a Wizard? Try steering them towards Alchemist or Magus.

[charcoalninja]

Look at any spell of third level or above (from Fly and Invisibility to Create Demiplane and Raise Dead). Can a Fighter (or indeed, any kind of spellcaster) ever, ever, ever do that? No. Casters, especially high level ones, are demigods in mortal flesh who have powers that no one except another high level caster will ever achieve.

I love Pathfinder dearly, but they did not fix the Linear Warrior/Quadratic Wizard problem. They did make a lot of 2/3 casting classes, though, which helps. You player wants to play a Wizard? Try steering them towards Alchemist or Magus.

Mundanes can do all of that via the feat Master Craftsman. It's WBL stuff sure, but they can have their own super extradimensional fortress too. Just takes more time to set up is all.

[Grendus]

Unfortunately, PF is still as imbalanced as 3.5e. The T1's are still gods, and while they aren't as overpowered as they were in 3.5, it's only a matter of time until they get enough splat support.

That said, PF is overall an improvement. Archtypes make it easier for newbies to customize their characters without multiclassing, while the removal of multiclassing penalties, the inclusion of some PrC's, and backwards compatibility with 3.5e allow those of us who liked that aspect of 3.5 to build our overcomplicated tricked out builds. The lower tier classes were mostly propped up, Paladins made the jump to T4 pretty easily and the Monks, Rogues, and Fighters improve drastically with a few archtypes. Most of the new classes are T4/T3, with the exception of the Witch, Oracle, and summoner, and all are a blast to play with unique but simple mechanics and great variety. Overall, if you like 3.5, you'll like PF.

[Novawurmson]

Mundanes can do all of that via the feat Master Craftsman. It's WBL stuff sure, but they can have their own super extradimensional fortress too. Just takes more time to set up is all.

True, true...but they don't get it as a class feature. Since tier 1-2s do, they can spend their money on even more extravagant things.

[Tyndmyr]

Hi all, for argument sake, I am only talking about the pathfinder books and no additional 3.5 books. To the point that I have been thinking, can the wizard, druid, cleric and maybe the sorcerer be cheesed out to break the game like they use to in the 3.5 realms? Since all the classes, spells, and options have been changed, can i still be an epic badass spellcaster or is it not possible with the options given in pathfinder? Thanks for in advanced :smallbiggrin:.

Infinite wish loops still exist. They didn't even bother to fix those.

Also, item familiars are now core, and specializing is MORE badass...sorcs can get a LOT more spells...

Yes. Every bit as much.


Simply put, yes, it's still a problem.

Some of our best playtesters have been incredibly rude. You don't get always get good feedback and good manners in a paired package. I've edited exactly one comment.

Well put. I would also agree that Person Man is not a particularly rude person, and has a quite decent amount of system mastery. He's someone I'd value feedback from.

In short, the general impression was that playtesting was done more from a desire for publicity than for actual testing.

[Blisstake]

Can a Fighter (or indeed, any kind of spellcaster) ever, ever, ever do that?

Yes. They can still take UMD.

Sure, it's not practical, but it is a possibility. (Yes, I'm being petty and semantic here.)

[Menteith]

Look at any spell of third level or above (from Fly and Invisibility to Create Demiplane and Raise Dead). Can a Fighter (or indeed, any kind of spellcaster) ever, ever, ever do that? No. Casters, especially high level ones, are demigods in mortal flesh who have powers that no one except another high level caster will ever achieve.

Technically, you can pull it off if you're friends with an Alchemist. Infusion more or lets anyone cast off the Alchemist's formulae list, so anyone can have Overland Flight, Delayed Consumption (Alchemist's Contingency), Contact Other Plane, and other decent stuff. Find an upper level Alchemist and befriend/enslave them and you can pretend you're a caster.

[Tyndmyr]

Technically, you can pull it off if you're friends with an Alchemist. Infusion more or lets anyone cast off the Alchemist's formulae list, so anyone can have Overland Flight, Delayed Consumption (Alchemist's Contingency), Contact Other Plane, and other decent stuff. Find an upper level Alchemist and befriend/enslave them and you can pretend you're a caster.

That's less "you can do it" and more "an alchemist can do it".

[Big Fau]

Pathfinder didn't change the definitions of the Tier system itself. Being Tier 1 means the same in Pathfinder as it did in 3.5. The only thing that happened is the range got altered a little and the Tiers got shaken up a tiny bit.

[Yuki Akuma]

Sure you can wish loop, but anyone with 8400gp can wish loop just as well, so its not a big deal and IMO can be handwaved away with some setting flavour or in game RP politics among wish granters.

"The DM can fix it, so therefore it is not broken" isn't much of an argument. Nor is "everyone else can do it, so it's not horrifically overpowered".

[Z3ro]

Nor is "everyone else can do it, so it's not horrifically overpowered".

Depending on what you're talking about, actually, it is. If you're looking to make two things even, you can increase one or decrease the other. If everyone's overpowered, no one is.

[sreservoir]

"The DM can fix it, so therefore it is not broken" isn't much of an argument. Nor is "everyone else can do it, so it's not horrifically overpowered".

"everyone else can do it, so it's not horrifically overpowered" isn't a terrible argument. mind, if the system isn't designed for it, it breaks things, but that's more because everyone else isn't assumed to have done it.

[Infernalbargain]

Yeah, the wish economy still exists because planar binding + simulacrum + djinn exists. Outside of core, really the only big cheese out there is create demiplane line. Also level 20 wizard cannot beat level 1000 monk.

[Kenneth]

Last I heard, the "Wish Economy" is still in full force; anyone who can access a single Wish (say, through a scroll or binding the right beasty or whatever) can still leverage that Wish into infinite Wishes.

Wish (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/wish) for a Candle of Invocation (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/c-d/candle-of-invocation) (a mere 8400 gp). Use it to Gate (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/g/gate) in something that has more Wishes - say, a Noble Djinn. A Candle of Invocation has CL 17, so it can afford to call three Noble Djinns at a time, and grant total control over all three. Each Djinn can grant you three wishes.

Your single Wish has now become nine, in addition to total control over three CR 8 monsters for 17 rounds.


And like I said, anyone who can get access to a single Wish can still do this.

considering that I had to use my planar allys pell at levle 11 to get an efreet who then granted me some wishes the last of which was planar ally againf or another efreet.. etc etc. I think I ended up with 21 wishes from just 1 casting of a 6th level spell. ( all the wishes were within the ' wish allows this with no bad stuffz' descritpion)

SPOILER:

I had to do this becuase we got fireballed by a wizard and even though none of us failed the reflex save.. he (the DM) said all of our gear was melted/bunrt/incinerated. So I had to wish for us to get our items back.

actually I am supried that 40% is teh number.. i really only noticed MAYBE 6 spells that had been 'nerfed' to be semi balanced. in my mind at aleast. all PF did was add in CMB and CMD to charatcers and monsters

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Here's an incomplete core analysis of mine. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199228) The short of it is a lot (but not all) of low level stuff got nerfed, and not a lot of high level stuff even got touched outside of the polymorph line. Notable exceptions are Mind Blank (nerf), Solid Fog (nerf), and spells which cost XP now cost 5*GP instead (arguably a buff). This includes stuff like Wish and Simulacrum. So I think 40% is either too low or too high, depending on what level you're looking at.

On one hand, I'd guess most play is seen at lower levels, so focusing on balancing lower levels is good. On the other hand, high levels are where the balance problems get out of hand, not low levels. And Planar Binding... Ugh. They did lower the HD limit of Gate, but not enough to fix it IMO.

[Gavinfoxx]

*snip*

Looks like the DM wanted to a.) lower your power level or b.) have you play an adventure without equipment, and you just rained on his parade. What did his face look like when you were doing all of this stuff?

[RndmNumGen]

I think the most important change PF did was making the game more accessible to new players. They balanced some things, yes, but doing things like changing how skill ranks work, adding archetypes, making favored classes add bonuses instead of removing penalties, consolidating trip/grapple/overrun checks into CMB/CMD, etc... made everything a lot easier for newer players to get a grip on.

[FMArthur]

Even if every extremely broken spellcasting trick were undone, tier 1s being what they are is a very fundamental part of the classes and the massive flexibility and growth potential of having their spellcasting. They would still be head-and-shoulders above the rest unless their spell selection got absolutely ravaged, to the point where they would not play the same at all. It's the versatility thing.

[Zeful]

Hi all, for argument sake, I am only talking about the pathfinder books and no additional 3.5 books. To the point that I have been thinking, can the wizard, druid, cleric and maybe the sorcerer be cheesed out to break the game like they use to in the 3.5 realms? Since all the classes, spells, and options have been changed, can i still be an epic badass spellcaster or is it not possible with the options given in pathfinder? Thanks for in advanced :smallbiggrin:.

{{scrubbed}}

[Kenneth]

Not rreally it was everybody but mines first time playing an RPG, so we had our fighter.. our magus/rouge/eldritch knight cleric and myself.. who was focsuing on blasting and blasting.. and when peeps got stujped. either the players or the DM i offered advice.

and our battles consited of us being in a city and literally fighting 50+ monster of our CR value

an example is this we were 9th level and at one point we fought 5 4-armed gargoyles and 7th levle minotaur cleric in a single encounter.

then there was the adult blue dragon along with 2 athachs (arthachs.. ?) we had to fight at lvl 10.

I think he had the whole DM VS player mentality that is bad for this type of game. idk how his face was.. I evntually quit the campaign becuase I got tired of him doing this very stuff to us over and over and over again..

[Shadowbane]

{{scrubbed}}

Stop having fun guys! You're doing it wrong!

[Blisstake]

{{scrubbed}}

I see it closer to Pathfinder extends the 3.5 line, which I'm rather grateful for. That's what I expected when I wanted to convert to the system, and, hey, that's what I got.

Legend has its own set of flaws as well, and honestly I feel like it's not even on the number scale between 3rd and 4th. It's a fine game, but it feels like another d20 roleplaying game rather than a continuation of the 3.5 ruleset.

[Coidzor]

Looks like the DM wanted to a.) lower your power level or b.) have you play an adventure without equipment, and you just rained on his parade. What did his face look like when you were doing all of this stuff?

More like the DM was being foolish and careless and/or trying to be a jerk.

[sonofzeal]

Stop having fun guys! You're doing it wrong!
That... uh, has nothing to do with the post you're quoting. In no way does he imply that people are wrong for playing PF and/or enjoying it. He's attacking the company, not the players, and that's entirely fair game.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

That... uh, has nothing to do with the post you're quoting. In no way does he imply that people are wrong for playing PF and/or enjoying it. He's attacking the company, not the players, and that's entirely fair game.Except, yknow, where he tells people to play Legend instead. Though I would also suggest trying Legend out.

[Curious]

That... uh, has nothing to do with the post you're quoting. In no way does he imply that people are wrong for playing PF and/or enjoying it. He's attacking the company, not the players, and that's entirely fair game.

While he did not directly attack the players, insinuating that Pathfinder is simply a scam or waste of money rather strongly implies that anyone who plays it is stupid for having wasted their time. Neither of which is true.

[Zeful]

I see it closer to Pathfinder extends the 3.5 line, which I'm rather grateful for. That's what I expected when I wanted to convert to the system, and, hey, that's what I got.

Legend has its own set of flaws as well, and honestly I feel like it's not even on the number scale between 3rd and 4th. It's a fine game, but it feels like another d20 roleplaying game rather than a continuation of the 3.5 ruleset.

After almost 7 years as a part of the D&D community, I no longer have any tolerance for bad game design. So a "continuation of the 3.5 ruleset" is not an admirable goal in my eyes. It's too broken, too filled with systemic issues to be worth saving, coupled with an... unhelpful community in regards to addressing not only what is wrong but how to fix it (the common "give the fighter more feats" and "melee can't do IRL, this is soooooo unrealistic" attitudes for example) make any major attempts to keep the 3.5 ruleset untenable.

[sonofzeal]

Except, yknow, where he tells people to play Legend instead. Though I would also suggest trying Legend out.
Eh, all he actually says about the players is that they "didn't like how 4e handled the problems of 3.5." He blames Paizo for deceiving people, not players for being deceived. I think that's an important distinction.

[Zeful]

Eh, all he actually says about the players is that they "didn't like how 4e handled the problems of 3.5." He blames Paizo for deceiving people, not players for being deceived. I think that's an important distinction.

Yes. I have no problems with the players of Pathfinder, if it's fun for one's group go ahead, I remember having fun playing 3.5 and 2e. I don't begrudge people that. But in discussions of game design, I have nothing nice to say about Pathfinder or Paizo.

[ranger557]

So what I notice from all your responses guys and thanks again for them. Is pathfinder hasn't changed that much of the power levels of the tier 1 type of classes. But when I was talking about cheese, I was talking about those DMM clerics, and crazy PrC class builds with all those splatbooks. I notice Pathfinder doesnt really have that many PrC classes to cheese from or feats. So most likely its better to stay full base class for the tier 1s because they have the same amount of power like their 3.5 counterparts, just that some of their spells got nerfed but not to a grievous level. Is this a true statement?

[sonofzeal]

So what I notice from all your responses guys and thanks again for them. Is pathfinder hasn't changed that much of the power levels of the tier 1 type of classes. But when I was talking about cheese, I was talking about those DMM clerics, and crazy PrC class builds with all those splatbooks. I notice Pathfinder doesnt really have that many PrC classes to cheese from or feats. So most likely its better to stay full base class for the tier 1s because they have the same amount of power like their 3.5 counterparts, just that some of their spells got nerfed but not to a grievous level. Is this a true statement?
Staying in base classes is explicitly and implicitly encouraged all through the PF system, and it tends to give you all the best goodies if you do. However, Sorcerers and Wizards get so many new goodies that they're arguably even better than they were before, even compared to the general power boost PF provides. So yes, they have every reason to stay in the base class now, but that's not really a good thing as far as system balance is concerned.

T1 is still T1, and in many ways even better at T1-ing.

[charcoalninja]

Staying in base classes is explicitly and implicitly encouraged all through the PF system, and it tends to give you all the best goodies if you do. However, Sorcerers and Wizards get so many new goodies that they're arguably even better than they were before, even compared to the general power boost PF provides. So yes, they have every reason to stay in the base class now, but that's not really a good thing as far as system balance is concerned.

T1 is still T1, and in many ways even better at T1-ing.

Pathfinder has nothing remotely close to as obnoxiously overpowered as Divine Metamagic. It does not have nearly as many ways of jacking up caster levels. Gate for example, unless you boost your CL by at least 2 doesn't even allow you to control a solar as it has 22HD.

There is nothing in PF that remotely touches on Arcane Thesis, Versatile Spellcaster, or Incantrix. The Ubercharger does not exist in PF as there is no leap attack + PA your BAB for crazy silly damage.

That darn gnome doesn't exist in PF, most of the metamagic reducers do not exist in PF dramatically bringing down the sheer divine might of the tier 1s.

In PF Tier 1s are certainly the most powerful, but they STILL would be even if you limited them to 6th level spells because their lists are just that broad and good. They have all the options and have multiple ways of solving any situation. That's not a problem, its a co-operative game and PF has given out a tremendous amount of melee love and goodies to make things more interesting for the mundies, especially monks.

I completely disagree with Zeful that PF is poorly designed. There are flaws in every system and him being so cavalier in his game design arrogence does not add to a thread. If the game was poorly designed it would not enjoy the success it has. There are elements to the game that he may not like, but claiming they're objectively bad is a hard sell.

And decrying Paizo and PF as a whole considering the massive amount of great products they've produced to bring the 3.5 system up to selling on par with D&D itself seem to me to be a little nerdragey. I'm sure you have your reasons Zeful and sorry if my post is coming down on you a bit harsh, but it just seems a little bit knee jerk to me. Or that the Paizo management ran over your dog in the company buick.

[Doc Roc]

I think this is where I bow out of this conversation. One remark though, the PF Lance still doubles damage. Even without a power attack worth using, it should be possible to hit 300+ per hit, by my guess.

[charcoalninja]

Oh I'd forgotten about the lance. Spirited charge still exists as well so you have the tripple damage coming out of a charge with a mounted pally or cavalier... so it's probably more than possible to toss out one shot worthy damage still in PF.

[Big Fau]

Oh I'd forgotten about the lance. Spirited charge still exists as well so you have the tripple damage coming out of a charge with a mounted pally or cavalier... so it's probably more than possible to toss out one shot worthy damage still in PF.

Just don't let Jason see this, because he'll do everything in his power to get it taken out of the system.

[DrDeth]

PF is much better designed than 3.5, but of course it has the benefit of hindsight. Yes, they could have done better, but I am do not care that much that Wizards still are more powerful at higher level than Fighters, in fact I think that part of the genre. In some ways, that’s one of the weaknesses of 4E, as it tries too hard to balance classes.

I have been playing since the original 3 Vol set, and PF is doing a pretty good job so far.

As Charcoalninja sez, PF does fix many of the worst abuses.

[Coidzor]

crazy PrC class builds with all those splatbooks.

You seem to not understand the concept of cheese then. Pathfinder is anti-multiclassing and anti-PrCing and there's talk around the boards that they're going to just stop making PrCs and instead produce archetypes.

So what'd you see instead, more likely, would be people combining archetypes that don't conflict. I have no idea how common this is if it would turn out to offend you.

[ranger557]

Hmmm true i have notice they focus on single classes and not many PrCs, and as well giving variants to the single classes to give them more options and flavor.

I should have stated this in my original post, so how can you "cheese out" or build a very powerful tier 1 in PF? Because since they have less splatbooks and some of the spells have changed, what options do they have to make them "godlike" as compared to the 3.5 paradigm? Thanks :smallsmile:

[Big Fau]

Scry and Teleport still exist, so plots can be ruined forever starting at 9th level.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Hmmm true i have notice they focus on single classes and not many PrCs, and as well giving variants to the single classes to give them more options and flavor.

I should have stated this in my original post, so how can you "cheese out" or build a very powerful tier 1 in PF? Because since they have less splatbooks and some of the spells have changed, what options do they have to make them "godlike" as compared to the 3.5 paradigm? Thanks :smallsmile:Mostly the same ways you would break the game as a 3.5 wizard, except where you would pay XP you now only pay GP. Note that the lack of game-breaking splatbook options in PF is (IMO) largely due to a relative lack of PF content, which isn't really a plus. And I'm not ignoring UM, UC, APG, etc. There's just a lot of 3.5 stuff out there. 3.P is fine and dandy, of course, but that means you're bringing in the same potentially broken stuff you would in a 3.5 game, except the polymorph line.

[Asaris]

Note that the lack of game-breaking splatbook options in PF is (IMO) largely due to a relative lack of PF content, which isn't really a plus.

This is actually what I like about Pathfinder. It seems like 3.5 just kept on producing more classes, more races, more feats, and so it just kept getting more broken. Pathfinder's focus on producing (quality) adventure paths fits my needs as a player and DM much better.

[sonofzeal]

I should have stated this in my original post, so how can you "cheese out" or build a very powerful tier 1 in PF? Because since they have less splatbooks and some of the spells have changed, what options do they have to make them "godlike" as compared to the 3.5 paradigm? Thanks :smallsmile:
It's a common misconception that splatbooks and PrCs are necessary to "cheese out". In point of fact, they generally just make it easier. The cheese, with very few exceptions (Genesis and metamagic reducers come swiftly to mind) is almost invariably from Core. I've played with characters that banned core content and had to rely exclusively on splatbooks, and they were invariably more balanced and often more interesting.

That Paizo did very little to remove broken Core content tells me a lot.



You keep asking this question in different ways, even after a dozen people answer it for you. You sound like you're hoping that if you phrase it right, people will start agreeing with you that PF is catagorically better with regards to "brokenness" than 3.5. Maybe it's time to bite the bullet - community consensus (right or wrong) is that it's got just about the same foibles as 3.5. If you want to play it anyway, go ahead, nobody here will judge you. I've played high-RP games of Talisman, which was worse-designed than PF is by a huge margin and was never intended as a vehicle for real roleplay!

But if you're asking people what they think of the system - well, count number of threads with PF or 3.P tags and those without, and you'll see roughly what percentage of this board uses PF. Alternatively, go back 10 pages in the "Q&A by RAW" threads, compare dates, and see which one of those is more active.

There are other communities with other mixes, but on this board that's what you're going to find.

[Psyren]

If "balance" is an overarching concern for you, PF won't fix that. What PF does have is very widely known rules, backwards compatibility and continued support. For those of us that enjoy it, those things are enough.

[Coidzor]

I've played high-RP games of Talisman, which was worse-designed than PF is by a huge margin and was never intended as a vehicle for real roleplay!

That board game with the three layers one goes around in a circular-ish motion and has dice and cards and counters? :smallconfused:

[sreservoir]

Here's an incomplete core analysis of mine. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199228) The short of it is a lot (but not all) of low level stuff got nerfed, and not a lot of high level stuff even got touched outside of the polymorph line. Notable exceptions are Mind Blank (nerf), Solid Fog (nerf), and spells which cost XP now cost 5*GP instead (arguably a buff). This includes stuff like Wish and Simulacrum. So I think 40% is either too low or too high, depending on what level you're looking at.

On one hand, I'd guess most play is seen at lower levels, so focusing on balancing lower levels is good. On the other hand, high levels are where the balance problems get out of hand, not low levels. And Planar Binding... Ugh. They did lower the HD limit of Gate, but not enough to fix it IMO.

costing gp seems something of a nerf. experience is a river; wealth isn't, really.

[Curious]

This is actually what I like about Pathfinder. It seems like 3.5 just kept on producing more classes, more races, more feats, and so it just kept getting more broken. Pathfinder's focus on producing (quality) adventure paths fits my needs as a player and DM much better.

As Sonofzeal so eloquently explained, this is simply untrue. Most splats are much better balanced than core, with some notable exceptions. In fact, splat books are rather essential if you want to balance the game, since they include just about every tier 3 class in the game.

[Big Fau]

costing gp seems something of a nerf. experience is a river; wealth isn't, really.

It's trivial to break the WBL in Core, even without abusing the Craft skill.

[Bhaakon]

It's trivial to break the WBL in Core, even without abusing the Craft skill.

It's trivial if your DM allows it, a provision that true of many rules loopholes, but, in my experience, particularly true of attempts to create unlimited wealth.

[sonofzeal]

It's trivial if your DM allows it, a provision that true of many rules loopholes, but, in my experience, particularly true of attempts to create unlimited wealth.
The question was whether the system was balanced. It isn't. Sufficient DM intervention can salvage anything (even if "sufficient" sometimes means rewriting a system from the ground up), but that's entirely beside the point (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy).

[Coidzor]

costing gp seems something of a nerf. experience is a river; wealth isn't, really.

Even if you wanted to convert a crappy +3 longsword into a delicious +1 longsword of X and Y, wouldn't you lose money in Pathfinder when in 3.5 it'd be the exact same cost for enchanting it without cost reducers as would be gained from liquidating the old sword?

[sonofzeal]

That board game with the three layers one goes around in a circular-ish motion and has dice and cards and counters? :smallconfused:
Yeeep. I had an early and almost unassailable lead, so the other characters started goofing off and RPing between their characters, and I started RPing back at them with my character as the BBEG,. and due to some fantastic rolling it all resulted in a climactic showdown in the last couple squares of the game that they almost won. Best. Game. EVER.

[Bhaakon]

The question was whether the system was balanced. It isn't. Sufficient DM intervention can salvage anything (even if "sufficient" sometimes means rewriting a system from the ground up), but that's entirely beside the point.

The system is designed to be managed by a DM, and must allow enough flexibility within the rules to allow DM to the run the style of game they prefer. If the rule set is so explicit and restrictive that it doesn't need a DM to manage it, then it's probably not flexible and diverse enough to appeal to a broad audience. There needs to be room for DM discretion built into the rule set; that's going to result in a lot of situation where "if your DM allows it" is a completely legitimate rule.

[Big Fau]

The system is designed to be managed by a DM, and must allow enough flexibility within the rules to allow DM to the run the style of game they prefer. If the rule set is so explicit and restrictive that it doesn't need a DM to manage it, then it's probably not flexible and diverse enough to appeal to a broad audience. There needs to be room for DM discretion built into the rule set; that's going to result in a lot of situation where "if your DM allows it" is a completely legitimate rule.

That works for rules-lite RPGs, but 3.5 is a very crunch-oriented system.

Furthermore, opinions on game balance vary drastically from person to person. Some people think that at will healing is balanced, while others abhor the very thought (Jason...). For this very reason, the Oberoni Fallacy exists. This game's rules are subjective by nature, and removing the subjective factor allows for a proper debate.


In other words, don't debate the rules of this system as though there were a DM. Doing so results in an argument that never ends.

[sonofzeal]

The system is designed to be managed by a DM, and must allow enough flexibility within the rules to allow DM to the run the style of game they prefer. If the rule set is so explicit and restrictive that it doesn't need a DM to manage it, then it's probably not flexible and diverse enough to appeal to a broad audience. There needs to be room for DM discretion built into the rule set; that's going to result in a lot of situation where "if your DM allows it" is a completely legitimate rule.
...but it has no place in a thread titled asking "can Tier 1s and the like cheese out still". The answer is yes.

More precisely: while DM flexibility is definitely a good thing, the system itself shouldn't require that intervention to function. For example, Candles of Invocation should not be available for 8400 and still be able to cast "Gate". The system shouldn't require DMs learning a laundry list of exploits and manipulations to guard against.

DM intervention should be for resolving unexpected situations ("can I search for a secret door while blind?"), or to make the campaign more awesome ("before you stands the dreaded frost goblin - shut up it's awesome - and it..."). It shouldn't be for patching holes the system left open.

[Psyren]

The question was whether the system was balanced. It isn't. Sufficient DM intervention can salvage anything (even if "sufficient" sometimes means rewriting a system from the ground up), but that's entirely beside the point (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy).

Wealth is different - it's entirely and explicitly up to DM discretion, especially when it comes to the players generating it themselves. Both WBL and Treasure entry guidelines are just that, guidelines. That is part of the system, not merely an external DM circumventing the system. The fallacy is a knee-jerk response but does not apply here.

[Bhaakon]

DM intervention should be for resolving unexpected situations ("can I search for a secret door while blind?"), or to make the campaign more awesome ("before you stands the dreaded frost goblin - shut up it's awesome - and it..."). It shouldn't be for patching holes the system left open.

I'll make one last comment on the subject, then drop it:

Leaving certain "holes in the system" open to DM discretion (such as WBL) is necessary to give the DM leeway to make his campaign awesome (or, at least, different from every single other campaign). There's a need to leave certain important mechanics either largely undefined or as simple suggestions, just as there's a need for certain others to be clear and unambiguous.

As has been said, it's certainly a subjective issue, but you can't analyze the rule system objectively without first acknowledging that it's meant to be run subjectively, and is purposely designed with certain built-in "holes" that will prevent it from surviving objective scrutiny.

[Coidzor]

Leaving certain "holes in the system" open to DM discretion (such as WBL) is necessary to give the DM leeway to make his campaign awesome (or, at least, different from every single other campaign). There's a need to leave certain important mechanics either largely undefined or as simple suggestions, just as there's a need for certain others to be clear and unambiguous.

No, there isn't. Giving the person running the game some leeway to alter the game in a fundamental way can just as easily be accomplished by having a baseline mechanic and offering suggestions for modifying it if the DM wanted to make an alteration. As well as a big, bright, and red warning label for the fundamental system assumptions.

As it is though, in 3.5, if the DM massively reduces wealth and usable treasure and doesn't allow crafting while simultaneously keeping the monsters the same, then many character classes are not going to be able to contribute as they're expected to without the DM having to alter them as well. As it stands, the DMG doesn't make this clear from what I recall, but it does assume that WBL is at least followed roughly in terms of the christmas tree effect.

[Novawurmson]

So what I notice from all your responses guys and thanks again for them. Is pathfinder hasn't changed that much of the power levels of the tier 1 type of classes. But when I was talking about cheese, I was talking about those DMM clerics, and crazy PrC class builds with all those splatbooks. I notice Pathfinder doesnt really have that many PrC classes to cheese from or feats. So most likely its better to stay full base class for the tier 1s because they have the same amount of power like their 3.5 counterparts, just that some of their spells got nerfed but not to a grievous level. Is this a true statement?

I think charcoalninja said it best, overall.

Also, Druid 20 was probably the most powerful and versatile build at all levels in core 3.5; no splats, no multiclassing. Just brokenness. Pathfinder didn't need to have Divine Metamagic to make Clerics broken; it just needed to give them the ability to grant miracles.

Have you ever played an online videogame like World of Warcraft? Pathfinder is like a patch for 3.5: Some things got buffed, some things got nerfed, but overall, the core of the game stayed the same. Some people like it better the way it was before, some people like the changes.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

costing gp seems something of a nerf. experience is a river; wealth isn't, really.IIRC, XP isn't a river in pathfinder.

Secondly, gold isn't necessarily a river - it's whatever the GM hands out. That said, suggested wealth is a friggin' avalanche. I'd rather be continuously behind on cash than continuously behind a level, especially when I can replicate most item effects with spell slots. Not only that, but many of the spells I'm talking about are permanent or semi-permanent.

Also, even without wealth abuse, one can use spells like Planar Binding to overcome challenges one couldn't before. More powerful challenges generally entail better rewards, especially if the challenge is an NPC.

[ranger557]

You keep asking this question in different ways, even after a dozen people answer it for you. You sound like you're hoping that if you phrase it right, people will start agreeing with you that PF is catagorically better with regards to "brokenness" than 3.5. Maybe it's time to bite the bullet - community consensus (right or wrong) is that it's got just about the same foibles as 3.5. If you want to play it anyway, go ahead, nobody here will judge you. I've played high-RP games of Talisman, which was worse-designed than PF is by a huge margin and was never intended as a vehicle for real roleplay!

But if you're asking people what they think of the system - well, count number of threads with PF or 3.P tags and those without, and you'll see roughly what percentage of this board uses PF. Alternatively, go back 10 pages in the "Q&A by RAW" threads, compare dates, and see which one of those is more active.

There are other communities with other mixes, but on this board that's what you're going to find.


True from what the answers I have received from the posts. I have notice that 3.5 and pathfinder are still very similar even with nerf and boosts to the system. However, I think I did phrase my question wrong, I wasn't trying to ask about the two systems "brokeness".

What I was trying to ask was how can I build a broken build for a tier 1 in PF? Because I want to build one in a PF game and become all badass lol :smallbiggrin:. However, from the previous posts describing the two system's structure on building powerful tier 1s. I notice majority of the posts describe that it is easy to break a game with simply going any of the three tier 1s (cleric, wizard, and druid), than doing PrCs and so forth feats because it just helps those classes achieve it faster. Correct?

All I wanted was what were good builds to use in PF for the tier 1s, but I phrased the question wrong, my apologies. Thanks again and happy gaming! :smallsmile:

[charcoalninja]

...but it has no place in a thread titled asking "can Tier 1s and the like cheese out still". The answer is yes.

More precisely: while DM flexibility is definitely a good thing, the system itself shouldn't require that intervention to function. For example, Candles of Invocation should not be available for 8400 and still be able to cast "Gate". The system shouldn't require DMs learning a laundry list of exploits and manipulations to guard against.

DM intervention should be for resolving unexpected situations ("can I search for a secret door while blind?"), or to make the campaign more awesome ("before you stands the dreaded frost goblin - shut up it's awesome - and it..."). It shouldn't be for patching holes the system left open.

Or rather Gate shouldn't grant automatic control of whatever you summon. The designers should have made Gate planar binding with gate's HD limit. A single use 9th level spell item is fine at 8400gp.

And also if we're dismissing DM control of the situation than the game IS balanced because all any class needs to do is jack their craftskill and take master craftmen and craft wonderous item. So 2 feats and a wise skill investment and now they can make all the _____ of invocation they want. So since economy abuse is open to everyone through many different means that means the produce from WBL shenanigens are open to all, meaning that barring a DM regulating things the game IS balanced because everyone can rule with world with Tippy style economic silliness. Whereas in 3.5 you had to be a caster in order to do so on your own power.

[Novawurmson]

All I wanted was what were good builds to use in PF for the tier 1s, but I phrased the question wrong, my apologies. Thanks again and happy gaming! :smallsmile:

You might want to start a new thread at this point. Specify whether you're looking for a Wizard, Druid, Cleric, or Witch build.

[charcoalninja]

True from what the answers I have received from the posts. I have notice that 3.5 and pathfinder are still very similar even with nerf and boosts to the system. However, I think I did phrase my question wrong, I wasn't trying to ask about the two systems "brokeness".

What I was trying to ask was how can I build a broken build for a tier 1 in PF? Because I want to build one in a PF game and become all badass lol :smallbiggrin:. However, from the previous posts describing the two system's structure on building powerful tier 1s. I notice majority of the posts describe that it is easy to break a game with simply going any of the three tier 1s (cleric, wizard, and druid), than doing PrCs and so forth feats because it just helps those classes achieve it faster. Correct?

All I wanted was what were good builds to use in PF for the tier 1s, but I phrased the question wrong, my apologies. Thanks again and happy gaming! :smallsmile:


Any build of tier 1 is awesome and badass. That's why they're tier 1 :smalltongue: Joking aside, I'll let others field this request as I've been much more focused on Paladin and Monks than the heavy hitters in my PF love.

Though Witch is awesome. And Summoner but he's kinda tier 2 for some reason.

[Infernalbargain]

No, there isn't. Giving the person running the game some leeway to alter the game in a fundamental way can just as easily be accomplished by having a baseline mechanic and offering suggestions for modifying it if the DM wanted to make an alteration. As well as a big, bright, and red warning label for the fundamental system assumptions.

Bluff disagrees.

[Coidzor]

Bluff disagrees.

Considering that hasn't hit meme status you're going to need to clarify.

[ranger557]

You might want to start a new thread at this point. Specify whether you're looking for a Wizard, Druid, Cleric, or Witch build.

Yeah i guess that makes sense, Ill do that. Start one about building one of the tier 1 with the most cheese :smallbiggrin:.