Pathfinder: Are Monks and Paladins still Subpar? [Archive]

Killer Angel

2012-01-26, 07:18 AM

Why are monks crap (Im not that invested to the game to the point Im talking about somekind of super reacharaound mixture thing).

You get to do allot of damage, and you get Bonuses to your ARM and get bonuses to your attack and you get some other bonuses. Whats not to like?

Monks in general or PF monks?

'coz in PF, monks gain some extra flexibility with bonus feats and they can use different abilities tnx to the ki pool.
Sadly, the basic problems of the class still remains; MAD, don't hit very hard, and still need to stand still to use their extra attacks.

Edit:
And pally? the class received almost only improvements.
Casting stat is now Cha, Lay on Hands, Aura of Courage and Smite Evil were buffed, and so it was the mount.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-01-26, 07:21 AM

Well..Why is the damage counted subpar?

Mystral

2012-01-26, 07:27 AM

Monks deal their damage in many hits (flurry of blows) which are low damage, and which have a rather low chance of hitting in the first place because of MAD and mid-bab. (And are gimped even further by anything having DR) The magic items that enhance their attacks are to pricey, and their unarmed attacks count as one-handed, so you can't properly use power attack, the main damage source for melee characters.

gkathellar

2012-01-26, 07:30 AM

You're 3-days late for monkday, guy. :smallbiggrin: Just to get started:
They're MAD. A monk needs at least 4 out of 6 stats, 5 if he wants to have a respectable skill point total.
They're expected to be primary close-in fighters, but they have medium BAB for some reason.
Few of their abilities synergize: for example, their primary offensive ability can only be used on a full attack, which precludes them from using their movement bonuses.
Their "good damage" is a lie. By the time a monk has graduated to d10s on his bare-handed attacks, the party fighter has been rolling 2d6+1.5xStrength modifier+2xPower Attack for eight levels, or maybe 2d4 with Reach, a Trip bonus and a Disarm bonus. And hey, his weapon is actually magical, as opposed to the monk who has to depend on far more expensive, body-slot consuming amulets of mighty fists.
Very few of their other abilities are any good. Dimension Door 1/day as a standard action. A 1/week Save-or-Die at 15th level. The ability to speak with woodland creatures starting at 17th. But hey, at 20th level at least Slow Fall gets to be almost as good as a 1st-level spell.

That's why.

Killer Angel

2012-01-26, 07:34 AM

Well..Why is the damage counted subpar?

OK, let's elaborate a little.

Monks are probably designed to be hit-and-run skirmishers. Sadly, their abilities got no synergy... with fast move you cannot flurry (which, BTW, being stuck to a low bab and further penalized, brings to a flurry of misses).
They basically are a melee class, with mid-low hp, bad AC, mediocre BaB, and they do less damage than a melee class, and they need a lot of good stats (MAD!).

Akisa

2012-01-26, 07:41 AM

Killer Angel

2012-01-26, 07:49 AM

Of course, you can optimize monks, if you need it.
Here's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3871542&postcount=1) a very practical handbook on the matter. :smallbiggrin:

gkathellar

2012-01-26, 07:57 AM

Actually...

A monk using flurry treats his BAB from monk levels as equal to his monk level. He still adds BAB from other sources (such as other classes or racial Hit Dice) normally to this total.

Yes, in Pathfinder monks are slightly improved and this is one of the ways. I was referring specifically to the 3.5 monk, but if you really want to get into it I can pull up the PFSRD and outline all the ways that monks are still bad.

Suffice to say, a +3 to attack bonus and a ki pool that does almost nothing of utility do not make a significant modification. (Note that some of the PF Monk's ACFs "Archetypes" do skyrocket it into Tier 4, though.)

Ravens_cry

2012-01-26, 08:00 AM

Monks have gotten to the point that I want to play one, and Paladins, paladins I have had a lot of fun with.
To me, that is enough.

Akisa

2012-01-26, 08:02 AM

But this is about pathfinder monks.

Aotrs Commander

2012-01-26, 08:17 AM

I just made the monk full BAB myself, and ramped up their SUs a bit (making Abundant Step a Move and then a Swift eventually, plus a couple more times per day, Quivering Palm a 1/day ability and so on), as well as allowing them to get their extra flurry attacks as part of a standard or full round attack (a bit like ToB's Snap Kick feat does).

That fixed a fair amount of the problems. Possibly not enough with the SUs - argueably I could afford to be more generous with them, but on the other hand, full BAB plus multiple attacks even if you move, makes them pretty dangerous in an environment where most enemies are enemy characters.

Gullintanni

2012-01-26, 08:20 AM

Of course, you can optimize monks, if you need it.
Here's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3871542&postcount=1) a very practical handbook on the matter. :smallbiggrin:

Monks are also much easier to optimize in Pathfinder, and if properly built, can play all the way up to 20.

Check out the Hungry Ghost and Qinggong archetypes on the Pfsrd and grab Guided weapons. This allows you to be an anime-style-blasting Ki vampire who attacks with Wisdom to hit and damage. In addition, your Flurry of Blows is actually more effective at level 20 than your regular attacks.

If you add the Dimension Agility/Dimensional Assault and Dimensional Dervish feats, you can use your Abundant Step as a swift action then full attack. Between this, your Guided weapons and your Flurry...you're passable in combat, and you're really only Wis+Con dependent. The Dimensional line comes in pretty late though, given that it's three feats and you can't take any of them until level 12.

Saph

2012-01-26, 08:21 AM

Note that PF monks have gotten a lot of love in the later books, mostly by way of archetypes. I've heard that some of the archetypes are much better than playing a vanilla monk, but I haven't properly looked through them.

sonofzeal

2012-01-26, 08:25 AM

Monks are also much easier to optimize in Pathfinder, and if properly built, can play all the way up to 20.

Check out the Hungry Ghost and Qingong archetypes on the Pfsrd and grab Guided weapons. This allows you to be an anime-style-blasting Ki vampire who attacks with Wisdom to hit and damage. In addition, your Flurry of Blows is actually more effective at level 20 than your regular attacks.
They're pretty easy to optimize in 3.5 too. Take Wild Monk, or go Tashalatora.

Gullintanni

2012-01-26, 08:26 AM

They're pretty easy to optimize in 3.5 too. Take Wild Monk, or go Tashalatora. Or stack unarmed damage boosters like INA, SUS, the belt, actual size increases, etc. They start out mediocre, but you get exponential returns eventually. I was once swinging 8d8 or something a hit at lvl 12, which got me some nice numbers.

For sure, although in the case of Tashalatora, you're not really a monk. PsyWar is doing the heavy lifting.

sonofzeal

2012-01-26, 08:32 AM

For sure, although in the case of Tashalatora, you're not really a monk. PsyWar is doing the heavy lifting.
To some extent. When I played Tashalatora, I felt like a monk and I looked like a monk and I was using general monkness. But a fully augmented Inertial Armor at dawn meant that my unarmored AC was good, and Lion's Charge meant I could leverage Flurry effectively, and Grip of Iron meant I could out-wrestle Fighters. Still, what I was doing was swinging a lot and doing decent damage with my fists and grappling, and all of that I got from my Monk side. I'd still consider a Tashalatora to be a "monk build".

Gullintanni

2012-01-26, 08:44 AM

To some extent. When I played Tashalatora, I felt like a monk and I looked like a monk and I was using general monkness. But a fully augmented Inertial Armor at dawn meant that my unarmored AC was good, and Lion's Charge meant I could leverage Flurry effectively, and Grip of Iron meant I could out-wrestle Fighters. Still, what I was doing was swinging a lot and doing decent damage with my fists and grappling, and all of that I got from my Monk side. I'd still consider a Tashalatora to be a "monk build".

I don't know...your survivability relies on a Psionic power. Your ability to deal damage relies on a Psionic power. Your grappling relied on a Psionic power. You could probably do just as well or better at all of those jobs without any Monk in your build. That being said, the fluff is certainly marriageable, and really...IMHO, Monk should have had some built in Psionic abilities anyway...whether or not you call them "Psionic" or "Ki" abilities is incidental.

Mechanically speaking, like I said, PsyWar's probably doing the heavy lifting. But from a fluff perspective, had the Monk had a built in Psionic pool (or an expanded with Ki pool with the ability to select powers off the PsyWar's list) it would've been the perfect Monk. Tashalatora is the Monk that the Monk should've been. If that makes sense.

Ravens_cry

2012-01-26, 08:47 AM

But this is about pathfinder monks.
That's what I mean, I actually want to play a Pathfinder Monk, especially some of the Archetypes, particularly Tetori (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/tetori), grappling the ungrappleable.

The Glyphstone

2012-01-26, 08:49 AM

Psyren

2012-01-26, 09:02 AM

Archetypes elevate both classes above 3.5 by a decent margin. Better still, you can easily port in many of the specific feats, items, sub levels and even ACFs that you liked from 3.5.

Combining those two approaches, you can come up with something very workable in both cases without forcing both classes into dip status.

Lans

2012-01-26, 09:12 AM

They're expected to be primary close-in fighters, but they have medium BAB for some reason.
That's why.
People always bring this up, but I don't think its as big of issue as people make it out to be. Totemists, incarnates, and psywarriors, and druids for example. The issue is that they don't have a way to effectively make up for the difference.

Gullintanni

2012-01-26, 09:17 AM

Yeah - in PF, it's Hungry Ghost or go home for the most part, but it makes for an incredibly self-sufficient Tier 4 that can put out respectable, if not Shock Trooping Leap Attacker, levels of damage.

I hear that Zen Archery can work too...but I assume archery is still generally sub-par, as per 3.x.

gkathellar

2012-01-26, 09:29 AM

People always bring this up, but I don't think its as big of issue as people make it out to be. Totemists, incarnates, and psywarriors, and druids for example. The issue is that they don't have a way to effectively make up for the difference.

Emphasis mine. Yeah. Exactly. It's a case of adding insult to injury.

Also, all the classes you brought up are spellcasters. So uh ... yeah.

Killer Angel

2012-01-26, 09:31 AM

Monks are also much easier to optimize in Pathfinder, and if properly built, can play all the way up to 20.

Yep, in my first post I specified that monk improved in PF.
But it also seems that the OP needs explanation on the matter also for the "basic" monk (3.x version), at least judging from the opening post (which poses a question a little different from the thread's title)

Psyren

2012-01-26, 09:41 AM

I hear that Zen Archery can work too...but I assume archery is still generally sub-par, as per 3.x.

Not exactly - Pathfinder added power attack for archers (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/deadly-aim-combat), which does help despite being based off of PF's weaker Power Attack.

Also, all the classes you brought up are spellcasters. So uh ... yeah.

Totemists are spellcasters? Since when? :smallconfused:
And there's other useful medium BAB melee that don't cast spells either, like Binders and Swordsages, yet still do quite well.

The Glyphstone

2012-01-26, 09:43 AM

I hear that Zen Archery can work too...but I assume archery is still generally sub-par, as per 3.x.

True, now that I think of it. A Zen Archer monk with a Guided bow and the Deadly Aim feat can be a respectable archer too.

Eshi

2012-01-26, 10:40 AM

Paladins got major buffs in Pathfinder and they're a lot better/more fun to use than in 3.5. I always liked the Paladin so seeing that made me super happy.

Core PF monks are no better than 3.5 monks. They got a lot of little improvements coupled with a few huge nerfs. Ultimate combat, however, gives them tons of archetype and feat support that makes them much more powerful and versatile than ever. Which is why I bought a copy :D

NinjaStylerobot

2012-01-26, 11:10 AM

Gullintanni

2012-01-26, 11:11 AM

But it also seems that the OP needs explanation on the matter also for the "basic" monk (3.x version), at least judging from the opening post (which poses a question a little different from the thread's title)

I know, I know...but when the PFsrd includes all the options...why would you confine yourself?

To answer the OP question directly, yes, the Monk played straight for 20 levels is still pretty awful, although Flurry of Blows works much, much better now...and you can still be serviceable with a pair of Guided monk weapons.

Not exactly - Pathfinder added power attack for archers (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/deadly-aim-combat), which does help despite being based off of PF's weaker Power Attack.

True, now that I think of it. A Zen Archer monk with a Guided bow and the Deadly Aim feat can be a respectable archer too.

...Well there you have it. Pathfinder's fixed Archery. Add in Clustered Shots (I think that's what the feat's called) and the DR issues aren't a problem anymore either. Learning! Yay!

Ravens_cry

2012-01-26, 11:31 AM

Or Play a Pathfinder Paladin Archer. On your smites, DR is non-existent and your adding your level to damage and your charisma bonus to hit.
Mix with Vow of Vengeance to exchange two your lay of hands for a smite to smite that much more often.
Hell, even Pathfinder Ranger Archer doesn't do too bad.
@NinjaStylerobot:
MAD stands for Multiple Ability Dependency, it's when your character needs above average scores in most statistics to function in their chosen role.

Chained Birds

2012-01-26, 11:37 AM

I WAS talking about Pathfinder monks though.

Whats MAD? And whats wrong with the standard monk?

They have a kill effect per day (Well that is lower then what the rouge gets),

get spell resistance (On the higher side at that),

DR,

have Higher BAB when using Flurry of blows (its still not 20, but two 18ns is fine),
get bonus feats,
get attacks that bypass DR for free,
can teleport around not just once per day,
get more powerful blows,
or can just use magic weapons (I mean whats stopping you from using the crapton of monk weapons? You can still use flurry of blows with them)

MAD refers to a class that needs multiple high ability scores in order to be good.
Ex: Monk needs high Strength for damage, High Wisdom for monk abilities and AC, Good Constitution due to D8 hit die and primarily being a melee character, Decent Dex due to lack of armor.

SAD refers to a class that needs only 1 or 2 high ability scores in order to be good.
Ex: Wizard only really needs a high Intelligence for spells and other abilities and all other ability scores can be taken for pretty much fluff factors; like adding points into Strength to improve touch attacks or Dexterity to improve ranged touch attacks.

Monks may get a bunch of stuff, but most of it comes too late.

DR of like 5 or something, doesn't really matter much if your fighting the big guys or spellcasters.
SR is nice against low level spellcasters, but the BBEG (Big bad evil guy) Spellcaster at the end will break it like a ceramic poodle or just use one of the many, many spells that aren't effected by SR. Though a Spellcaster around your CR will do similar actions.
Going through DR is nice, but your damage output is still pretty poor unless you can get close to the enemy and Flurry. Just remember, the enemy can full attack you back on his turn and with your HP, you might not get a chance to Flurry back as you will be teleporting the heck away from that guy.
Death Attack? What's the DC on this? 10 + 1/2 your lvl + your Wisdom Modifier? So like max of 20 + Wis? And the enemies you'd be fighting when it gets this high have at least +20 on their saving throws or are completely immune to death effects... Do you see the problem.

I like monks (PF ones, not 3.5), but they do have glaring problems if you don't focus specifically on certain aspects to it. But monks try to do everything and that's where they fail the most.
Though archetypes actually make them really interesting and I've made several monk builds that either remain full monk or around 1/2 monk. My favorite so far being a lvl 8 monk with a DC 30 stunning fist (Okay, DC 26 if not allowed a 3.5 MIC item called Ki Straps and a 3rd party Barbarian Archetype that boosts Wisdom and Dexterity instead of Strength and Constitution).

Gullintanni

2012-01-26, 11:39 AM

NinjaStylerobot

2012-01-26, 11:45 AM

DrDeth

2012-01-26, 11:50 AM

The PF Pally is now almost perfectly balanced, being a fine Tier 3 character, right there with the old 3.5 BoNS warrior types. Mind you, it’s still a bit MAD, but it gets back more than if gives up. Particularly nice at the lower levels is the ability to use LayOnHands on yourself as a Swift action, meaning you can heal yourself as needed without stopping the damage output. Smite Evil is also better. Since our current campaign forbids CHA dumping, this makes the Pally quite nice. (of course this makes the poor monk even worse, no one will play one).

Still, the various full spellcasters hog tier 1, as before. Sure, Druid is now at the bottom of tier 1, maybe even “just “ a strong tier 2. Cleric can’t go all “CoDZilla” as much as it used to, but also doesn’t have to waste a bunch of spells on healing.

Mind you this just means that the Pally is nicely balanced, whilst the full spellcasters are over powered.

Coidzor

2012-01-26, 11:51 AM

Fighting something with DR 5. Monk has 5 attacks, average damage of 8. We'll assume a rhino-like creature, 1 attack, average damage of 30. If Monk hits with all attacks, he's really only done 15 damage on average when his average potential was 40. Whereas the Rhino-like creature has done 25 damage on average with a single hit.

What I really love is something that I learned while browsing the pfsrd for 1 pound items that I could buy broken and use mending on in order to save a bit of money. Apparently there were a couple of weapons that were printed to let a monk use the increased base damage from the unarmed strike progression and have the weapon be enchanted normally so that the monk could actually benefit from weapon properties...

And then Jason Buhlman managed to crunch the numbers in such a way as to find that this made monks too powerful, and made a stink about it being against the rules despite not having made it into the errata.

Monks having access to the same level of gimped status as TWFers... was too powerful. :smallamused: I can't tell if he's a troll or just doesn't get it.

Im just seeing allot of complaints that can be leveled against all classes really.

But I do think one thing needs to be fixed: The ridiculous ability scores of high level monsters.

Oh SURE I totally believe that the giant clockwork golem has Dexterity 20.

I hope they make magic weapons a optional bonus (And have the book Stress that) rather than a must have thing.

That would require a massive system re-write.

You're better off making your own homebrew system out of the skeleton of d20 than hoping that they'd do that for you when they're already going whole hog for the christmas tree effect.

There's a couple of homebrew system patches that give characters stat progressions and such so that they can have the expected bonuses without needing magical swag if you search around, I suppose, but, really, you'd probably be better off shopping around for a different system.

gkathellar

2012-01-26, 12:02 PM

And then Jason Buhlman managed to crunch the numbers in such a way as to find that this made monks too powerful, and made a stink about it being against the rules despite not having made it into the errata.

Monks having access to the same level of gimped status as TWFers... was too powerful. :smallamused: I can't tell if he's a troll or just doesn't get it.

You should have seen the rage that sprung up on the Paizo-boards back when Sean K. Reynolds (I think it was him) clarified that you couldn't use Improved Natural Attack on monk unarmed strikes and gave literally no justification for it beyond "we didn't intend monks to have damage dice that large." It wasn't overpowered, it seemed like a perfectly valid use of the feat, and yet apparently doing more than 1d8 damage with your firsts at level 4 is completely out of the question.

The same story for the travesty that is PF's Vow of Poverty, (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/monk-vows/vow-of-poverty) which is apparently justified because you should take insurmountable mechanical penalties for roleplaying certain types of character.

They did a great job of beginning to patch things up in Ultimate Combat, but making incredibly short-sighted, arbitrary rulings about the monk has historically been par for the course in Paizo's design department.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-01-26, 12:08 PM

The same story for the travesty that is PF's Vow of Poverty, (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/monk-vows/vow-of-poverty) which is apparently justified because you should take insurmountable mechanical penalties for roleplaying certain types of character.

To be honest. I get that. Its really heavy penalties but again. If your playing a character who has only one limb you are playing a character with only one limb. Don't demand him to get Pyrochenisis. Just play a character with arms. :smallbiggrin:

Coidzor

2012-01-26, 12:09 PM

^: You're rather missing the point, then.
You should have seen the rage that sprung up on the Paizo-boards back when Sean K. Reynolds (I think it was him) clarified that you couldn't use Improved Natural Attack on monk unarmed strikes and gave literally no justification for it beyond "we didn't intend monks to have damage dice that large." It wasn't overpowered, it seemed like a perfectly valid use of the feat, and yet apparently doing more than 1d8 damage with your firsts at level 4 is completely out of the question.

I'd heard a bit about it, but I didn't make out whether they had mass bannings like when they ignored the beta testers in favor of the Oberoni crowd.

I even encountered that line from Reynolds on the pfsrd.

The same story for the travesty that is PF's Vow of Poverty, (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/monk-vows/vow-of-poverty) which is apparently justified because you should take insurmountable mechanical penalties for roleplaying certain types of character.

Huh. I must admit, I hadn't actually bothered to look at the monk write-up because I'd heard they still sucked even if you pulled out all the stops with them

They did a great job of beginning to patch things up in Ultimate Combat, but making incredibly short-sighted, arbitrary rulings about the monk has historically been par for the course in Paizo's design department.

Those style feats you mean? Where they've got pointless hurdles for people who could actually make use of them but monks can get in slightly easier?

Doesn't really seem like much of a patch, I'll admit, but some of them at least seemed interesting.

Chained Birds

2012-01-26, 12:10 PM

Im just seeing allot of complaints that can be leveled against all classes really.

But I do think one thing needs to be fixed: The ridiculous ability scores of high level monsters.

Oh SURE I totally believe that the giant clockwork golem has Dexterity 20.

I hope they make magic weapons a optional bonus (And have the book Stress that) rather than a must have thing.

Don't look at the stats, look at the abilities. Clockwork Golem self destructs when it is around 1/4th health for some pretty decent area damage and a real surprise for anyone who didn't know that.

Cleric: "Monk, you need some healz?"
Monk: "Give me a second to deal with this guy, then I get some healing after combat."
Monk proceeds to deal enough damage to golem.
Golem: "1/4TH REMAINING HIT POINTS HAS BEEN REACHED! SELFDESTRUCT SEQUENCE INITIALIZED!"
Monk/Cleric: "Oh F-"
*Explosion*

Tvtyrant

2012-01-26, 12:48 PM

Arbane

2012-01-26, 01:01 PM

I have always wondered if you could fix monk by adding a psuedo-skirmish ability. The Monks unarmed damage would increase a size cat for every 10 ft. it moves, getting about 9 size increases at high levels without items.

There have been SO many suggested fixes for Monks that if you combined them all...

...you'd still have a Monk, really. :smallfrown:

Tvtyrant

2012-01-26, 01:05 PM

There have been SO many suggested fixes for Monks that if you combined them all...

...you'd still have a Monk, really. :smallfrown:

Well, if you did this and cap the increase at the monk level, then you get more than 24d6 damage on a charge with only haste on top of it. Probably a lot more, but their chart for size increases is kinda hard to use. Makes it good at skirmishing, replaces the flurry of misses. It just doesn't make its other class features useful.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-01-26, 01:22 PM

To be honest. I get that. Its really heavy penalties but again. If your playing a character who has only one limb you are playing a character with only one limb. Don't demand him to get Pyrochenisis. Just play a character with arms. :smallbiggrin:

The problem? The archetypical fiction/fantasy warrior isn't a walking Christmas tree. Why do I get penalized for wanting to be a warrior who doesn't rely on magic?

The archetypical fiction/fantasy warrior also has all his limbs. And no, Monty Python characters aren't archetypes. Even if it is only a flesh wound.

As or the problems with the monk...
1) MAD - I need strength for attack and damage, oh, and con to make up for my hit die. Standard warrior stuff. OH! But I also need wisdom for AC and special abilities, and dex for AC, skills, and initiative! That's four stats, all of which should be at least 14, and there's no way I can survive if they're ALL 14! Compared to a regular warrior's two, maybe three stats.
2) Synergy. Why can't I use multiple attacks and my fast speed together again?
3) Attack bonus. With flurry, I get full BAB and the TWF penalties, except I don't get magical bonuses like other TWFers! What's that? Monk weapons? They all suck or require EWP. And in 3.5, they just all suck, and I get a much worse attack bob us!

Hungry Ghost, Quinggong, Zen Archer, or Master of Many Styles can make you tier 4. Can, not will.

The Glyphstone

2012-01-26, 01:22 PM

As expected, the Monk is getting all the attention here, but what Paladin archetypes are worth considering to bump it up a bit in power?

Polarity Shift

2012-01-26, 01:24 PM

Yes they are.

Rapidghoul

2012-01-26, 01:29 PM

Ascetic Rogue seems to have been made to give Monk a healthy, much needed boost, and then the team decided to forget about that completely. By the chart, it lets you stack Monk and Rogue levels to determine Sneak Attack damage. This means you could take a one level dip of Rogue and then get surprisingly decent damage (especially on the Pathfinder Monk with full BAB flurry). However, the text of the feat later in the same chapter says nothing about Sneak Attack dice, making it worthless.

As far as MAD goes, yeah, not much getting around this. There are feats to help quite a bit, like Zen Archery (Wis to ranged attacks), Intuitive Attack (Wis to simple weapon attacks), Yollanda's Sense (Wis to initiative), etc. Feats are taxing, but if your DM allows flaws and understands the problems with Monk, you can just take the flaw "I'm playing a Monk" a couple times to grab these feats.

gkathellar

2012-01-26, 01:33 PM

To be honest. I get that. Its really heavy penalties but again. If your playing a character who has only one limb you are playing a character with only one limb. Don't demand him to get Pyrochenisis. Just play a character with arms. :smallbiggrin:

You're missing the point. If you're not going to support a character archetype because it doesn't fit your game, fine, don't support it — there's a reason we don't have laser guns functional currency systems in D&D. If the PF guys think all PF characters should have magic items, fine, that's a decision they get to make.

But what is unacceptable is pretending to support an archetype by offering a deliberately subpar option and then justifying it with "roleplaying." It's insulting to mechanically skilled players, and deliberately or otherwise it's spiteful to mechanically unskilled players who have an idea, see the mechanics for it, and then only later find out that the mechanics they chose are bad on purpose and that they're being punished for taking an idea presented by the designers and running with it.

Greenish

2012-01-26, 01:38 PM

You're missing the point. If you're not going to support a character archetype because it doesn't fit your game, fine, don't support it — there's a reason we don't have laser guns in D&D.Laser guns are in DMG. :smalltongue:

gkathellar

2012-01-26, 01:43 PM

Laser guns are in DMG. :smalltongue:

Thank, you, Greenish, you have shed light on the most important aspect of my post. Edited to something more factually correct. :smallwink:

Hiro Protagonest

2012-01-26, 01:50 PM

As expected, the Monk is getting all the attention here, but what Paladin archetypes are worth considering to bump it up a bit in power?

I dunno, I'm a monk expert!

Okay not really. It's just that monk is still subpar while paladin is a good tier 4, so I've been looking more at stuff to boost monk.

Empyreal Knight is terrible. Celestial Heart and the better Mount is okay, I guess, but you trade Divine Grace for the ability to speak French, and trade away Lay on Hands and Channel Positive Energy to use Summon Monster I... at 4th level. At least the Summon Monster scales, but it always remains behind.

Divine Defender is okay, I guess, if you like to stand right next to your allies.

Divine Hunter is the archer paladin. Except the auras still go out to a range of 10 feet, so you've either got to be in the thick of melee or you've gotta have archer allies (Aura of Care is the worst. It basically assumes you're using a ranged weapon on enemies within 15 feet of you, that at least one archer in your party doesn't have Precise Shot, and that there's an ally standing in front of the enemy providing cover to the enemy). And being a mounted archer is harder, with no Paladin mount (the Divine Bond forces you to choose a ranged weapon).

Holy Tactician looks pretty good. Weal's Champion is like Smite Evil, but worse damage and the ability to give allies a bonus on attack rolls equal to 1/2 your charisma modifier against the opponents you strike, as well as +1 +1/five levels on damage rolls, for one round., and it may apply to multiple creatures at once Weal's Champion itself, however, only lasts for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your paladin level, rather than until you rest.

Also, there are laser guns in D&D. It's called warlock. :smallbiggrin:

Ravens_cry

2012-01-26, 02:00 PM

In my opinion, you can make a fine Archer using just vanilla Paladin and the right feats and equipment. The specialized Archer paladin doesn't work nearly as well in my opinion.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-01-26, 02:57 PM

But what is unacceptable is pretending to support an archetype by offering a deliberately subpar option and then justifying it with "roleplaying." It's insulting to mechanically skilled players, and deliberately or otherwise it's spiteful to mechanically unskilled players who have an idea, see the mechanics for it, and then only later find out that the mechanics they chose are bad on purpose and that they're being punished for taking an idea presented by the designers and running with it.

I don't agree On that. What I do agree on is that it should never have been made in the first place.

gkathellar

2012-01-26, 04:34 PM

I don't agree On that. What I do agree on is that it should never have been made in the first place.

Which is basically what I'm saying. Either offer a decent option, or don't offer an option at all. Traps are bad, and when you develop them on purpose, you're being openly spiteful to the players.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-01-26, 04:39 PM

Which is basically what I'm saying. Either offer a decent option, or don't offer an option at all. Traps are bad, and when you develop them on purpose, you're being openly spiteful to the players.

Oh Ok. Im glad we came to an agreement. I just said that some things should not be made at all, but not everything should be super balanced.

The Glyphstone

2012-01-26, 05:12 PM

Oh Ok. Im glad we came to an agreement. I just said that some things should not be made at all, but not everything should be super balanced.

It's okay to have one option give you less power than another option. What's not okay is paying a cost to become weaker - that's just bad design.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-01-26, 05:19 PM

It's okay to have one option give you less power than another option. What's not okay is paying a cost to become weaker - that's just bad design.

Oh totally. I still like the monk though. Simply Flavorful.

DrDeth

2012-01-26, 05:28 PM

The Glyphstone

2012-01-26, 05:30 PM

Hey VoP works well in those low magic games that seemingly half the DM’s wanna run, ;-) so it’s not so bad, considering. We’re in a no-magic-shoppe game (sorta like a low magic game, except that there’s some cool magic loot- but you can’t but anything but expendables) now, and if it wasn’t for the fact that CHA can’t be dumped in this campaign the VoP monk might actually work.

You do realize we're talking about the Pathfinder Vow of Self-Castration Without AnastheticPoverty (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/monk-vows/vow-of-poverty), right? 3.5's VoP was 'like having magic items, but weaker'. This is 'No magic items for you, ever, at all, and you get jack squat for it except a few extra Ki.'

Chained Birds

2012-01-26, 06:24 PM

Paladins are solid in PF. So solid that it's Archetypes are sometimes detrimental to any Pally build.

But I also enjoy the Antipaladin, even though it must be evil. Technically, an Antipaladin is better than a Paladin in a 1 vs 1 fight, and I only say this because the Anti is able to completely negate one of the Paladin's signature abilities (It's immunity to fear :smalltongue:). I think it also has better offensive spells as any normal evil guy would have, and might weaken or negate some of the Pally's effects.
Actually, I would very much like to see a 1 vs 1 high optimization match between these two.

I agree that the Divine Hunter Archetype really isn't all that great, but most of them kind of suck in my opinion. Unless you are in a heavy undead centered game where the undead slayer archetype would be a little better.

Psyren

2012-01-26, 06:56 PM

You do realize we're talking about the Pathfinder Vow of Self-Castration Without AnastheticPoverty (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/monk-vows/vow-of-poverty), right? 3.5's VoP was 'like having magic items, but weaker'. This is 'No magic items for you, ever, at all, and you get jack squat for it except a few extra Ki.'

Not exactly... you do get one.

And you can use consumables, so there's that.

DrDeth

2012-01-26, 07:24 PM

The Glyphstone

2012-01-26, 07:35 PM

Not exactly... you do get one.

And you can use consumables, so there's that.

Huh, missed the consumables bit. So you can beg for handouts from your allies so you're not even more useless than normal.

Beowulf DW

2012-01-26, 07:57 PM

But I also enjoy the Antipaladin, even though it must be evil. Technically, an Antipaladin is better than a Paladin in a 1 vs 1 fight, and I only say this because the Anti is able to completely negate one of the Paladin's signature abilities (It's immunity to fear :smalltongue:). I think it also has better offensive spells as any normal evil guy would have, and might weaken or negate some of the Pally's effects.
Actually, I would very much like to see a 1 vs 1 high optimization match between these two.

Saw that in a campaign. They seemed evenly matched at first, but the Anti lost. And he lost badly. There wasn't even a corpse. The characters were breathing AntiPaladin for a while there.

Coidzor

2012-01-26, 07:58 PM

The Glyphstone

2012-01-26, 08:12 PM

I think you might be confusing "slightly better than the alternative" and "works well" here. :smallconfused:

Indeed. If you're going to have your legs chainsawed off whether you want it or not, getting a skateboard to push yourself around on is better than nothing. But you're still far worse off than if you hadn't gotten chainsawed.

Psyren

2012-01-26, 08:33 PM

Huh, missed the consumables bit. So you can beg for handouts from your allies so you're not even more useless than normal.

What's oddly amusing is that you can use any magic item that becomes valueless after one activation.

Yet another source of optimization via partially-charged wands :smallbiggrin:

Big Fau

2012-01-26, 09:14 PM

Well..Why is the damage counted subpar?

Take a look at the 1st level Monk's unarmed damage. It's 1d6 per attack, right? Considering how MAD the Monk class is, it isn't uncommon for the total damage a Monk deals to be 2d6+4. Do note, that assumes both attacks hit, no AoOs, and bare minimum possible damage.

You can get the same damage from a Str 16 Fighter wielding a Greatsword, and only need to make one attack roll. Now let's take into account optimization: The Fighter likely has a Strength score between 16 and 22, and the Monk's is probably capping out at 14 due to needing to focus on Dex, Con, and Wis in addition to Str. A single AoO means the Fighter outstrips the Monk in damage output.

Now take into account the attack bonuses each class has. The Monk, at this level, likely has a +0 due to Flurry and a 14 Str. The Fighter has anywhere between a +4 to a +7 or more. This means the Fighter's single attack has a higher chance of hitting than the Monk's two.

Now let's move into the higher levels: The Fighter is built to do damage, and can easily achieve a damage output of 200/Round (or nearly 800/round if 3.5 material is allowed). This can be achieved as early as level 10, provided you are doing 3.P and not pure PF.

The Monk's damage output can hit around 100/attack, but only with incredible amounts of multiclassing, spell effects, feats, and several other options, which doesn't fall into place until nearly 20th level. And, to make matters worse, this output requires 3.P material; the options required either do not exist or have been nerfed in pure PF.

It is also possible for a 3.P Fighter to replicate every single ability the Monk has using his feats.

Chained Birds

2012-01-26, 10:17 PM

Saw that in a campaign. They seemed evenly matched at first, but the Anti lost. And he lost badly. There wasn't even a corpse. The characters were breathing AntiPaladin for a while there.

Were they evenly matched? Same CR and stuff?

I was mainly referring to two PCs playing pure Paladin and Anti (No multiclassing or prestiging) with Archetype use if they wanted, "Fighting Like Men!" But I can still see the Anti losing though.

Killer Angel

2012-01-27, 03:02 AM

Yet another source of optimization via partially-charged wands :smallbiggrin:

I'm not sure i want even remember that can of worms... :smalltongue:

Coidzor

2012-01-27, 03:12 AM

What's oddly amusing is that you can use any magic item that becomes valueless after one activation.

Yet another source of optimization via partially-charged wands :smallbiggrin:

Well, considering that a trait can get UMD as a class skill and the PF skill system being such that non-class skill ranks cost the same as class skill ranks and there being no skill rank cap, well, if the only tool available is a wand, all of their problems are going to look like low level spells can fix it.

Greenish

2012-01-27, 05:39 AM

Well, considering that a trait can get UMD as a class skill and the PF skill system being such that non-class skill ranks cost the same as class skill ranks and there being no skill rank cap, well, if the only tool available is a wand, all of their problems are going to look like low level spells can fix it.Wait, what? No skill rank cap? :smallconfused:

Ravens_cry

2012-01-27, 06:16 AM

Wait, what? No skill rank cap? :smallconfused:
I think, or at least I hope, they mean that non-class skills can have as many ranks as class skills, not that you can place as many ranks in a skill as you like at any level.

Gullintanni

2012-01-27, 08:26 AM

As expected, the Monk is getting all the attention here, but what Paladin archetypes are worth considering to bump it up a bit in power?

Grab the Sacred Servant archetype. This kicks your Paladin more or less up to a very high Tier 3 or a low Tier 2 (maybe higher than that, I'm being conservative). You get a version of the Planar Ally line of spells, except that your ally must match your alignment (iirc), the creature hangs out for a week, and you don't have to pay them for their service.

At level 16, this grants a Paladin the ability to have a Planetar hanging out literally 24/7 as long as he refreshes the ability every week. Worth noting is that at level 16, the Paladin's summoned Planetar is significantly more powerful than the Paladin.

Paladin's pretty solid out of the box though now. You don't need to worry too much over Archetypes.

Polarity Shift

2012-01-27, 09:20 AM

Oh totally. I still like the monk though. Simply Flavorful.

Slightly spicy with just a hint of salt.

DrDeth

2012-01-27, 12:19 PM

Indeed. If you're going to have your legs chainsawed off whether you want it or not, getting a skateboard to push yourself around on is better than nothing. But you're still far worse off than if you hadn't gotten chainsawed.

Actually there’s some cool loot (like we’re at 6th level, but we have a six person flying carpet we can use when we need it), but without all the buying & selling at the Magic Shoppes. This makes it rather fun, to be honest. And there’s been several “legacy” items handed out, which makes allowing one magic item OK.

I kinda like it. I don’t like “low magic campaigns” but I admit I get tired of the whole “OK, let us sell everything off and then buy the best mix/maxed loot we can” stuff. One of the reasons I like 2nd ED, since “Magic Shoppes” are not a built-in assumption, and thus more rare.

The Glyphstone

2012-01-27, 02:12 PM

Actually there’s some cool loot (like we’re at 6th level, but we have a six person flying carpet we can use when we need it), but without all the buying & selling at the Magic Shoppes. This makes it rather fun, to be honest. And there’s been several “legacy” items handed out, which makes allowing one magic item OK.

I kinda like it. I don’t like “low magic campaigns” but I admit I get tired of the whole “OK, let us sell everything off and then buy the best mix/maxed loot we can” stuff. One of the reasons I like 2nd ED, since “Magic Shoppes” are not a built-in assumption, and thus more rare.

2E also doesn't have Christmas Tree effect, where the math falls apart fighting monsters if you do not have the appropriate enchanted weapons, armor, and save boosters for your level. It was designed for rare-and-powerful magic items from the start.

3.5, and Pathfinder, do. If you don't have your +X sword, you will miss more than you should, which gives the monster more chances to hit you at an increased rate because you lack your +Y armor, or higher-than-expected odds of death from failing a save that thinks you'll possess a +Z to saves. There is a middle ground between 'No magic items' and 'Infinite Magic Mart', and it involves having appropriate gear...it may not be the perfect gear, but it's good enough. 3.5's Vow of Poverty was chainsawing your legs off and giving you a motorized wheelchair...still inferior to the people with legs, but you could at least stay in shouting distance. Pathfinder's VoP is just insulting, giving you a skateboard with rusty wheels and expecting your friends to (literally and metaphorically) carry you to get anywhere on time.

Big Fau

2012-01-27, 02:29 PM

2E also doesn't have Christmas Tree effect, where the math falls apart fighting monsters if you do not have the appropriate enchanted weapons, armor, and save boosters for your level. It was designed for rare-and-powerful magic items from the start.

And then the premade modules throw that out the window. I remember a post a while back that said something about two high level characters dueling by throwing their magic items at each other because they had so many of them.

Polarity Shift

2012-01-27, 02:44 PM

2E also doesn't have Christmas Tree effect, where the math falls apart fighting monsters if you do not have the appropriate enchanted weapons, armor, and save boosters for your level. It was designed for rare-and-powerful magic items from the start.

Instead, it flat out tells you that you will never, ever beat certain enemies without at least x bonus. It's more honest, but it's not any less required.

Starbuck_II

2012-01-27, 04:24 PM

And then the premade modules throw that out the window. I remember a post a while back that said something about two high level characters dueling by throwing their magic items at each other because they had so many of them.

Don't forget the multitude of +1 swords that you can't sell and no one makes (really since it is the same 10% con damage and time to create +1 flaming sword than a +1 sword, who in 2E willingly made a weaker one?).

Coidzor

2012-01-27, 04:28 PM

I think, or at least I hope, they mean that non-class skills can have as many ranks as class skills, not that you can place as many ranks in a skill as you like at any level.

Yes, I meant that there does not appear to be any "cross-class skill rank cap."

Also, I am not a "they" I am a "Coidzor," :smalltongue:

It's trivially easy for any class to have max ranks in UMD and have it as a class skill in pathfinder, at least, by my understanding of the system having 2 traits as baseline assumption rather than variant rules.

The Glyphstone

2012-01-27, 04:28 PM

Instead, it flat out tells you that you will never, ever beat certain enemies without at least x bonus. It's more honest, but it's not any less required.

My 2E experience is entirely founded on Baldur's Gate I/II, but from what I learned there, monsters who were Immune to [Not X] or Immune to [Less than +x bonus] tended to be in the minority.

Doug Lampert

2012-01-27, 05:37 PM

Which is basically what I'm saying. Either offer a decent option, or don't offer an option at all. Traps are bad, and when you develop them on purpose, you're being openly spiteful to the players.

I'll note that it can be fine to have vastly weaker options. As long as they are clearly labled as such.

I've seen people having a blast running grogs in Ars Magica. Note that the magus character is GLOBALLY superior in every way to a grog build out of the box. If I want to I can use a magus to trivially beat a grog at his own game, the magus gains more XP per adventure and learns faster in downtime. Plus, you know, magic.

The system is deliberately unballanced, but it TELLS you that. It tells you that a grog is a minion to the magi, and will NEVER come close to matching them in power. You play a grog when you WANT to play a bit part follower, and that works fine. Your magus would RATHER be spending his time at home doing research anyway, so grogs have a logical role and reason for going on missions. Yes "standing in front of people 101" is the start and end of their really useful combat training (and a magus who wants to fight front line will chop them to peices without noticing the obstacle), but its still a legitimate role.

And because the system is deliberately unballanced you have multiple characters and get the choice each session of whether to run a magus, companion, or grog. Whichever is appropriate, and the power gamers will NEVER choose wizard if there is any choice, because an "optimized" wizard is one with gobs of time for lab-work uninterupted by pesky adventures.

The problem comes when a D&D fighter or monk isn't really that much better off than a grog, and you're told by the game fluff and various mechanics (like the XP rules and suggestion that loot be divided "fairly") that he should be a match for the wizard or cleric or druid.

If I deliberately want to play Aquaman while everyone else is playing Superman or the Martian Manhunter or the Flash that's fine. Aquaman has a niche and he can be interesting in the right story. But please don't tell me that these are ballanced options. Angel Summoner and the BMX bandit could get along fine if the BMX bandit realizes from the beginning that the only crime fighting tool he needs is a radio to call in help from Angel Summoner and that the game he's playing is "inconspicous and expendable scout", not "equal partner".

Polarity Shift

2012-01-27, 06:06 PM

My 2E experience is entirely founded on Baldur's Gate I/II, but from what I learned there, monsters who were Immune to [Not X] or Immune to [Less than +x bonus] tended to be in the minority.

Video games are a poor thing to base your D&D experience on. All of the strong enemies have "only hit by +x weapons or better". Sometimes that's only +1, sometimes its higher. Outer planes, such as the places you will most likely fight them weaken magic items so you actually need higher than that.

Basing your D&D experience on video games will tell you things like an AC in the 30s at level 20 is considered good. Even the harder ones will give you the wrong impression as despite their reputation for being vicious and being based on older edition rules playing a game in the Wizardry series at low levels is easier than trying to play level 1 3.5 D&D characters and not dying.

Bhaakon

2012-01-27, 06:42 PM

Even the harder ones will give you the wrong impression as despite their reputation for being vicious and being based on older edition rules playing a game in the Wizardry series at low levels is easier than trying to play level 1 3.5 D&D characters and not dying.

Oh, I don't know. Who didn't die the first time they came across Tarnesh (the bounty-hunting mage waiting for you at the friendly arm inn)? That was a pretty good example of low-level squishiness.

Granted, newer games, in my experience, tend to be more forgiving.

DrDeth

2012-01-27, 06:52 PM

Don't forget the multitude of +1 swords that you can't sell and no one makes (really since it is the same 10% con damage and time to create +1 flaming sword than a +1 sword, who in 2E willingly made a weaker one?).

There’s some info in 2E sourcebooks that tend to indicate the clerics of certain deities and master dwarven smiths could make low level magic items without any CON cost.

turkishproverb

2012-01-27, 06:57 PM

Infernalbargain

2012-01-27, 07:09 PM

Eh, I have found that I dip monks a bit for martials in PF. A two level dip into master of many styles can get you an entire style tree.

The big problem with monks is that while they can be competent in PF, other classes still do their job better. Zen Archer? Try Luring Cavalier. Melee DPS? Try Barbarian. Tanky? Try Kensai magus. The one area where the monk shines is when he gets dimensional dervish... at level 17. Monks are a touch less MAD in PF with the Agile weapon ability if they go a dex build.

Polarity Shift

2012-01-30, 08:21 AM

Oh, I don't know. Who didn't die the first time they came across Tarnesh (the bounty-hunting mage waiting for you at the friendly arm inn)? That was a pretty good example of low-level squishiness.

Granted, newer games, in my experience, tend to be more forgiving.

Even an occasional hard fight is not the same as every fight will likely kill at least one person.

The main difference is that low level D&D enemies two hit KO people. Even in the harder video games only the harder enemies do this, if at all and it's easier to beat their init and cast Sleep on them which makes them quite safe. This is also despite the fact most of them have dead = 0 HP instead of -10.

Benly

2012-01-30, 08:54 AM

Incidentally, I've been screwing around a bit with the tetori and its damage is actually pretty startling, assuming that (a) the target isn't too huge to pin and (b) it's subject to nonlethal damage. Greater Grapple, Rapid Grappler, and Pinning Knockout make for a surprisingly beefy damage output, and Chokehold basically cripples any chance at spellcasting.

The main problem I have with it is that it gets some of its feats and abilities at way too late a level, but for a campaign focusing on humanoids with class levels as enemies rather than increasingly gigantic monsters it could be highly effective. Mainly it looks like it comes into its own at about the time most melee classes are becoming irrelevant, and since it's basically designed in a way that can screw over spellcasters pretty badly it seems like the tetori might be well-suited to surviving that phase of the game.

This is only really surprising because I'm used to thinking of PF monk kits that ditch FoB as being useless due to turfed accuracy, but grapple checks are unaffected so that's not as big a deal as I was expecting. So, yeah, possibly worth looking at in more detail. I'm planning to play one in an upcoming game, but advantageous homebrew races are involved so my experience is unlikely to be representative.

Ravens_cry

2012-01-30, 09:35 AM

Not sure, could have missed this, but another reason monks are weak in Pathfinder? The ridiculous expense of enchanting a monk as opposed to a weapon.

Not being disarm able ain't worth that by a long-shot. Anyone who thinks it is is lying to himself or herself.

Then there's the fact they nerfed several Monk helps that actually worked in 3.5
The brass knuckles (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedGear.html#brass-knuckles) may be of use to you. A monk can deal their unarmed damage with them and since they are a weapon, they can be enchanted as a weapon. Apparently, (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/brass-knuckles) there is some unofficial errata, but it's just that, unofficial.
@Infernalbargain:
A Zen Archer with a guided weapon gets wisdom to everything but hit points fortitude saves and combat manoeuvres. How's that for monostat?

Metahuman1

2012-01-30, 10:10 AM

The brass knuckles (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedGear.html#brass-knuckles) may be of use to you. A monk can deal their unarmed damage with them and since they are a weapon, they can be enchanted as a weapon. Apparently, (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/brass-knuckles) there is some unofficial errata, but it's just that, unofficial.
@Infernalbargain:
A Zen Archer with a guided weapon gets wisdom to everything but hit points fortitude saves and combat manoeuvres. How's that for monostat?

I'm fairly certain there's a trick to get Wis to For-saves and Hit Points, but I can't recall what it was.

Ravens_cry

2012-01-30, 10:46 AM

I'm fairly certain there's a trick to get Wis to For-saves and Hit Points, but I can't recall what it was.
Even better!

Metahuman1

2012-01-30, 12:12 PM

Even better!

Come to think of it, I think it was a 3.5 trick, so not sure how Viable that would be in a Pathfinder game.

Psyren

2012-01-30, 12:16 PM

Wis-based psionics effectively let you gain Wis to HP and saves, e.g. Vigor and Defensive Precognition. This forms a part of the Sir Wisdom the SAD build.

Metahuman1

2012-01-30, 12:26 PM

That was on Person Man's X Stat to Y Bounse Thread wasn't it? I Knew I'd heard of it somewhere.

Novawurmson

2012-01-30, 12:27 PM

Though Monk are debatable (I think that post APG, UM, and UC, they're finally about tier 4 if you build them right), note that no one is saying that Pathfinder didn't help Paladins. Paladins do what they say on the box in Pathfinder: They heal, they buff, they do damage, and they take hits.

True, you losing Battle Blessing + Sword of the Arcane Order, but that was basically like having a little Wizard following you around :P

Hiro Protagonest

2012-01-30, 12:32 PM

Though Monk are debatable (I think that post APG, UM, and UC, they're finally about tier 4 if you build them right), note that no one is saying that Pathfinder didn't help Paladins. Paladins do what they say on the box in Pathfinder: They heal, they buff, they do damage, and they take hits.

Monks were tier 4 as soon as the APG came out. UC and UM gave more ways to be tier 4. APG + UC gives them a way to be tier 3. Hungry Ghost + Quingong.

Psyren

2012-01-30, 12:54 PM

True, you losing Battle Blessing + Sword of the Arcane Order, but that was basically like having a little Wizard following you around :P

That stuff is all compatible anyway, unless (a) you're playing PFS, or (b) your DM is disregarding one of PF's design goals.

Coidzor

2012-01-30, 03:32 PM

(b) your DM is disregarding one of PF's design goals.

Rather popular thing to do though.

The Glyphstone

2012-01-30, 03:39 PM

Rather popular thing to do though.

Depressingly so, actually. There's at least four other PF GMs in my local area who run games besides me, and I'm the only one who even considers allowing 3.5 material.

Metahuman1

2012-01-30, 03:48 PM

Karoht

2012-01-30, 04:15 PM

A VoP monk in 3.5 was somewhat respectable, at the cost of some serious loss of power due to loss of wealth by level.
A Pathfinder monk I would argue is already par with, if not better than, a 3.5 VoP monk, if we take WBL off the table. Depends on which archetypes are taken by the pathfinder monk VS feat selection of the VoP monk.

A Monk with Paladin spells and Smite gets to be respectable. But that's like saying that with buffs a Blah is par with an unbuffed Bleh.

Did Pathfinder make Monk more fun to play and more user friendly to adjust and optimize than 3.5? There I would argue yes.

Also, I found a Cleric spell in the Pathfinder book that our Lawful Good Monk wants me to cast on him. It's called Blood Crows, I think it is in Ultimate Magic. Essentially, it would allow him to Flurry of Blows but generate a ranged attack as a result, as well as boost his damage with any attacks in melee. Adds Fire and Negative Energy. It does have the Evil descriptor in the spell, so my Neutral Good Oracle probably shouldn't cast it, and neither should he have it cast upon him. I can't for the life of me find a 'good' equivilant spell though, is my problem. Any suggestions?

Hiro Protagonest

2012-01-30, 04:42 PM

All the more reason to add in a bit more of a Psionic's up date and a Pathfinder Equivalent to Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, Magic Item Compendium and a couple of setting and creature books. That way we can just use that and say "See, book, Pathfinder, says so on the cover."

Do you know how Pathfinder managed to get clarance to use 3.5 material? They used the OGL. Everything you listed except psionics (which already has a third-party book with an official PF stamp) is not OGL.

Coidzor

2012-01-30, 05:53 PM

All the more reason to add in a bit more of a Psionic's up date and a Pathfinder Equivalent to Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, Magic Item Compendium and a couple of setting and creature books. That way we can just use that and say "See, book, Pathfinder, says so on the cover."

Problem being, Jason Buhlman acts like he hates fun, and the entirety of the Paizo seems to have taken it as a requirement to work there to hate all of those books, or at least Psionics and ToB.

They probably object to compendiums like the spell compendium and magic item compendium on general principle too. :smallyuk:

DrDeth

2012-01-30, 06:05 PM

Depressingly so, actually. There's at least four other PF GMs in my local area who run games besides me, and I'm the only one who even considers allowing 3.5 material.

Being that 3.5 is so very very broken, I don’t blame them. IMHO, there’s no longer any need at all for any 3.5 material in PF, other than generalized campaign and roleplaying stuff, should you want your game in Greyhawk instead of Golarion.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-01-30, 06:08 PM

Being that 3.5 is so very very broken, I don’t blame them.

You say that like Pathfinder made everything tier 3 or 4. Or even tier 2 to 4.

Psyren

2012-01-30, 06:35 PM

I'd love for there to be PF Incarnum, ToB, etc too. But WotC didn't add any of that to the OGL, so here we are.

DrDeth

2012-01-30, 06:41 PM

You say that like Pathfinder made everything tier 3 or 4. Or even tier 2 to 4.

Umm, no. PF only somewhat improved class balance, but not everyone wants class balance (in fact that’s one of the things they are supposedly “fixing” in 5th ED). But there’s no way to get PunPun or unlimited wish strings or many other super broken things in PF. You can have a wide imbalance between classes and not be “broken”.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-01-30, 06:56 PM

Umm, no. PF only somewhat improved class balance, but not everyone wants class balance (in fact that’s one of the things they are supposedly “fixing” in 5th ED). But there’s no way to get PunPun or unlimited wish strings or many other super broken things in PF. You can have a wide imbalance between classes and not be “broken”.

Nobody plays Pun-Pun! Or d2 crusader! Or Idiot Crusader using WRT! Or any other infinite loops! But Planar Binding and Planar Ally and Gate still exist! The spells they nerfed were actually the more party friendly ones, the ones that let the fighter get hit less often (Ray of Enfeeblement on a brute enemy) and prevented the enemies from otherwise acting at full effectiveness (various BFC spells).

As for that class balance, not everyone wants classes that all follow the same template. Beguiler, psychic warrior, and warblade are all tier 3, but they all play very differently. Same with healer, fighter, and expert. Or adept, warmage, rogue, and barbarian. But in 4e, everything except psionics follows the same path. I'm not one of those people that thinks all 4e classes are the same, but I can see their argument (although I think it's flawed and that they likely haven't played 4e more than once, if they've played it at all and didn't just read the PHB).

tyckspoon

2012-01-30, 06:57 PM

Umm, no. PF only somewhat improved class balance, but not everyone wants class balance (in fact that’s one of the things they are supposedly “fixing” in 5th ED). But there’s no way to get PunPun or unlimited wish strings or many other super broken things in PF. You can have a wide imbalance between classes and not be “broken”.

Pun-Pun is a direct result of the Sarrukh. Unless/until they decide to print a similar manipulator/creator power, that won't exist in raw Pathfinder. But Wish strings? Man, if you don't think those are still there you've been soaking in the propaganda. The Candle of Invocation, Gate spell, Planar Binding spell, and wish-granting Efreeti are still all there. In fact, Wish-looping is one of those things that was specifically pointed out to them as still being just as broken in PF as it was in 3.5, and they decided to leave it alone completely. The Pathfinder guys demonstrably don't care about the game's overall actual balance, they just changed things that conflicted with their own personal views of how the game should/should not be.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-01-30, 06:58 PM

Maybe Im wierd but....I like having an imbalance. Sure, Il let the wizard summon 50 angels. Then Im realistically allowed for my villain to have an ARMY of demons.

Realy it mostly depends on Gming for the REALY brocken stuff (But yes, we need more specialists)

Bhaakon

2012-01-30, 06:58 PM

tyckspoon

2012-01-30, 07:24 PM

Was there ever a real way to get Punpun? By strict RAW, sure, but strict RAW also give the DM unlimited power to modify the rules, and no DM would allow it. IMO, the more subtle and systematic imbalances are a lot more problematic than a handful of blatant loophole exploits like Punpun.

It's a bit disingenuous to say that a process that indisputably works isn't a 'real way' to do something- the only part of Pun-Pun that is under any question at all is, IIRC, whether or not you can just make stuff up with Manipulate Form or if you have to stick to existing printed abilities.

It is something of a hallmark of a theoretical optimization project that most actual DMs would ban or nerf them, and most actual players have more respect for their DM and fellow players than to try and implement them at a table.. but then actual DMs have been known to nerf Monks too. You can't go from that practice to 'so that means it doesn't really exist in the game.'

Bhaakon

2012-01-30, 07:38 PM

You can't go from that practice to 'so that means it doesn't really exist in the game.'

Sure you can, because it doesn't. There are a lot of DMs out there who do things like nerf monks and mystic theurges, that doesn't mean they'd ever let in Punpun happen into their game. If anything, they'd be less inclined to do so.

That's the problem with using theoretical optimization as a tool to analyze game design in a game that uses DM to referee the rules. While Punpun and its ilk are technically examples of flaws in the rules, they're ones that never crop up, because RAW is explicitly not the final arbiter of what happens in the game. From a practical perspective, the biggest problem is subtle or systematic imbalances that either fly under most DMs radar or too deeply ingrained in the rules set for the DM to easily fiat away (and, BTW, the "trick" superficial awesomeness of classes like monks and theurges is one of these issues).

Does that mean that having Punpuns in your system is OK and game designers shouldn't bother trying to eliminate that kind of exploit? No, of course not. Just that their existence, given how the vast majority of people actually play the game in real life, is more of a symptom of a problem (lazy design) than an actual issue in and of itself.

The Glyphstone

2012-01-30, 07:59 PM

Talentless

2012-01-30, 08:27 PM

If I deliberately want to play Aquaman while everyone else is playing Superman or the Martian Manhunter or the Flash that's fine. Aquaman has a niche and he can be interesting in the right story.

I'm sorry, but you pushed my Nerd Button.

A combination of Required Secondary Powers (he can swim like a fish and punch people while under 500+ atmospheres of pressure, which is Superman level asskickery) and Fridge Horror (he commands everything that lives in the ocean; guess where Godzilla, Cthulhu, and the Leviathan live?) make Aquaman one of the most powerful DC heroes ever conceived.

Then consider that he is King of Atlantis, which has a bunch of people with similar physiques, as well as Tech superior to pretty much everything else on Earth.

Then finally, consider just how MANY creatures actually live in a single square mile of the ocean at any one time...

Oh, and the fact that his creature control is Telepathy, and that *technically* all life evolved out of oceanic lifeforms to begin with... and you see where this is going.

Admittedly, a large portion of his power comes from the Writers portraying him properly.

But still... don't mess with Aquaman.

NNescio

2012-01-30, 08:31 PM

I'm sorry, but you pushed my Nerd Button.

A combination of Required Secondary Powers (he can swim like a fish and punch people while under 500+ atmospheres of pressure, which is Superman level asskickery) and Fridge Horror (he commands everything that lives in the ocean; guess where Godzilla, Cthulhu, and the Leviathan live?) make Aquaman one of the most powerful DC heroes ever conceived.

Then consider that he is King of Atlantis, which has a bunch of people with similar physiques, as well as Tech superior to pretty much everything else on Earth.

Then finally, consider just how MANY creatures actually live in a single square mile of the ocean at any one time...

Oh, and the fact that his creature control is Telepathy, and that *technically* all life evolved out of oceanic lifeforms to begin with... and you see where this is going.

Admittedly, a large portion of his power comes from the Writers portraying him properly.

But still... don't mess with Aquaman.

http://ompldr.org/vY2ptZg/Aquaman-Cthulhu.jpg

Coidzor

2012-01-30, 08:35 PM

That's the problem with using theoretical optimization as a tool to analyze game design in a game that uses DM to referee the rules.

Laying aside the bit where a DM who is wise and savvy won't allow such largesse to see play in the first place (excepting fun times) and anyone who isn't wouldn't after the first time they tried it...

The fact that they exist shows that A. the designers didn't care that they had made a bad system or B. they were too inept or rushed to notice. The more of them exist, the more they point to the severity of the cause. The more severe either of those things, the more flaws there are in the system that aren't so big one could fit Gygax and Arneson through 'em at the same time.

Why do they deserve to be banned beyond tarnished by association?

Especially when the main reasons to play PF are A. because one enjoyed 3.X to a certain extent, even in light of the warts, or B. getting recruited by a group that had enjoyed 3.X and then switched over to PF due to the bit where it has some level of active support.

Bhaakon

2012-01-31, 05:26 AM

Laying aside the bit where a DM who is wise and savvy won't allow such largesse to see play in the first place (excepting fun times) and anyone who isn't wouldn't after the first time they tried it...

The fact that they exist shows that A. the designers didn't care that they had made a bad system or B. they were too inept or rushed to notice. The more of them exist, the more they point to the severity of the cause. The more severe either of those things, the more flaws there are in the system that aren't so big one could fit Gygax and Arneson through 'em at the same time.

Isn't that basically what I wrote a paragraph later?

Besides, in a corpus of rules as large as 3.5, and with as many fans dedicated to finding new and creative ways to stretch the rules, loopholes are more or less inevitable. No design team on a printing deadline is going to have the combined system mastery and sheer number of man-hours as a tens of thousands of rabid fans. Their lack of post-printing elimination through errata is more shameful than their initial existence.

Coidzor

2012-01-31, 05:34 AM

Isn't that basically what I wrote a paragraph later?

Not how I read it, no.

DrDeth

2012-01-31, 09:06 AM

Pun-Pun is a direct result of the Sarrukh. Unless/until they decide to print a similar manipulator/creator power, that won't exist in raw Pathfinder. But Wish strings? Man, if you don't think those are still there you've been soaking in the propaganda. The Candle of Invocation, Gate spell, Planar Binding spell, and wish-granting Efreeti are still all there.

In PF you can't use a wish to get you more magic items like that.

sonofzeal

2012-01-31, 09:13 AM

In PF you can't use a wish to get you more magic items like that.
Can you wish to replicate Planar Binding for an Efreeti that then gives you three more wishes, the third of which is another Planar Binding for another Efreeti with three wishes?

Curious

2012-01-31, 09:28 AM

Can you wish to replicate Planar Binding for an Efreeti that then gives you three more wishes, the third of which is another Planar Binding for another Efreeti with three wishes?

Yes, you can.

Benly

2012-01-31, 10:28 AM

Just a thing about backward compatibility: just because it was a design goal of PF to enable backward compatibility doesn't mean you're Doing It Wrong if you choose not to use it. There are a lot of people who seem to not be entirely clear on what backward compatibility means in this context. All it means is that if you choose to use any given 3.5 material, only a minimal amount of monkeying around will be required to make it mechanically compatible. I don't think there's anyone who would argue that every DM is morally obliged to use every piece of mechanically-compatible third-party material in his campaign, and making 3.5 material into mechanically-compatible third-party material is exactly what PF's backward compatibility is about. Nothing more, nothing less.

Personally, I don't blame any DM who chooses to use PF-only material, for two main reasons. The first is ease of use: Paizo makes all its mechanical content OGL, so you can get it all in one place on PFSRD. If I run a PF-only game, my players don't need to hunt through all the old 3.5 books (or borrow all my books to hunt through) to make their characters. The second is balance. Balance is not a purely binary matter, and saying that PF is not more balanced than 3.5 because not every class was made T3 is either naive or disingenuous.

Remember how only the "big three" spell lists mattered in 3.5, guys? Remember how even a class with strictly superior mechanics to the wizard and a spell list as long as the PHB wiz/sorc list would still be inferior to a wizard? Do you remember why that was? That's right, it's because of sourcebook bloat, because the big three spell lists were the ones that got infinitely extended to the point where, with enough sourcebooks, any Big Three caster could functionally do anything. If you declare all 3.5 material present in your PF game, I hope it's because you were missing omnipotent clerics just that much. All the spell nerfs in PF become irrelevant, too - I've heard people argue with a straight face that "PF's nerfs to polymorph are irrelevant, because you can just prep Draconic Polymorph instead and it's not amended in PF! PF FAILS AT BALANCE."

Same goes for prestige classes: welcome back, Incantatrix and Planar Shepherd! Same goes for feats: welcome back, Divine Metamagic! At least in a PF-only game, if you want to houserule things into a semblance functioning you only have to take a bat to the core material they failed to fix on their first pass-through. If you have unrestricted 3.5 access because of some imaginary mandate that backward compatibility must be used at all costs, you're left mucking out the Augean stables once again, with whatever progress towards balance PF managed functionally undone.

This doesn't mean there's anything wrong with houseruling in 3.5 material on a case-by-case basis. If my players want a Survival Pouch or something, sure, why the heck not. The backward compatibility is there if you want to use it in your campaign, but it's not any kind of mandate or general rule that must be applied.

The Glyphstone

2012-01-31, 11:17 AM

\
This doesn't mean there's anything wrong with houseruling in 3.5 material on a case-by-case basis. If my players want a Survival Pouch or something, sure, why the heck not. The backward compatibility is there if you want to use it in your campaign, but it's not any kind of mandate or general rule that must be applied.

Which is really how it should be. Blanket-permitting 3.5's entire bloated, ponderous, horrifically unwieldy list of material means you're not playing PF anymore, you're playing 3.5 with a houseruled system for special combat maneuvers, some tweaks to skills, and a bunch of homebrew classes. The sheer mass of the 'backported' content overwhelms the new stuff.

But at the same time, a blanket ban on 3.5 material because "lol 3.5 iz teh br0kenzors' is just irrational. We're discussing a system that produced the Core Monk, the Incantatrix, the Warblade, and the Truenamer in the same ruleset, each existing on indescribably different places of the balance spectrum. The only way to allow it is on a case-by-case basis, but that should be the default unless there's a rational reason (such as material-based, i.e. only wanting to use things available in OGL) to solely draw from PF sources.

Ravens_cry

2012-01-31, 11:20 AM

Benly

2012-01-31, 11:34 AM

Which is really how it should be. Blanket-permitting 3.5's entire bloated, ponderous, horrifically unwieldy list of material means you're not playing PF anymore, you're playing 3.5 with a houseruled system for special combat maneuvers, some tweaks to skills, and a bunch of homebrew classes. The sheer mass of the 'backported' content overwhelms the new stuff.

But at the same time, a blanket ban on 3.5 material because "lol 3.5 iz teh br0kenzors' is just irrational. We're discussing a system that produced the Core Monk, the Incantatrix, the Warblade, and the Truenamer in the same ruleset, each existing on indescribably different places of the balance spectrum. The only way to allow it is on a case-by-case basis, but that should be the default unless there's a rational reason (such as material-based, i.e. only wanting to use things available in OGL) to solely draw from PF sources.

Sure, I'm basically just getting really tired of people whipping out "BUT BUT BUT BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY" when someone says that such-and-such feat or ACF or item isn't in their game because they're running PF, and trying to imply that You're Doing It Wrong if you don't let people play a Lion Totem Pouncing Barbarian or what the hell ever.

edit: or, in this case, Battle Blessing to auto-quicken all your paladin's spells + SotAO to let him prepare wizard spells, can't imagine why a GM wouldn't allow that.

Polarity Shift

2012-01-31, 12:11 PM

I'd just like to point out there is absolutely nothing that prevents the infinite Wish trick from working just as well in PF, and I don't even think the dynamics of it have changed in even a slightly meaningful way.

If you want infinite wealth and power you can have it, and the only solution is to ban Planar Binding. Which 3.x system am I discussing? Any.

Metahuman1

2012-01-31, 01:09 PM

True, though on Principle I tend to think certain things are very much worth allowing.

Items off the top of my head.

ToM Binders and any splat material for them. (Maybe this make's them T-2 but hey, if your already gonna have Wizards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerer's and Psion's in the game one more T-2 class isn't gonna kill it anymore then anything on that list, and that assumes the player has mastered Binder to a level were he can make that work.)

MoI and any splat support for it. (It's cool, and most of it is actually good enough to work effectively with out totally stealing the show most of the time.)

ToB and any splat support for it. (Do I really need to explain this?)

And probably select material form Dungeon Scape, Magic Item Compendium, Complete Champion, Dragon Magic, and a couple of others depending on overall build and character concept.

Gullintanni

2012-01-31, 01:15 PM

I would use 3.5 on a case by case basis, like homebrew. For example, a mundane character who doesn't want to be a Cavalier, yet who wants a somewhat beefier mount I would allow to take the Wild Cohort feat (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a).
But multiple Nightsticks and Divine Metamagic? No and no.

Divine Metamagic isn't actually that bad, absent Persist + Nightsticks. Ban the latter two, and (if your Cleric absolutely demands DMM) let the rest fly. On the other hand, if you're squishing metamagic reducers in general then in context, even non-Persist DMM can be pretty powerful so I guess YMMV.

I've just never had issues outside of DMM: Persist.

I'm a big fan of DMM: Extend, Quicken and Fell Drain for example.

Beowulf DW

2012-01-31, 01:30 PM

Were they evenly matched? Same CR and stuff?

I was mainly referring to two PCs playing pure Paladin and Anti (No multiclassing or prestiging) with Archetype use if they wanted, "Fighting Like Men!" But I can still see the Anti losing though.

Sorry for taking so long to respond.

The DM was playing the Anti. That particular encounter was meant almost as a mirror match half-way through the campaign. My "two-handed critical" fighter was going at it with a Duelist, and our Magus was up against an Eldritch Knight. The Anti was actually a slightly higher level, at first. Then some "Divine Intervention" occurred on the part of the dice gods. Our Paladin crit-failed, and the Anti took the Paladin's sword away from him. The sword was a divine relic, and the Anti suffered a level drain as soon as he touched it. This was not the first time that a crit-fail on the part of the Pally contributed to our victory.

Back on topic, though, I've seen some people claiming that some of the Paladin archetypes actually make it weaker. Are there any that make the Paladin stronger? And is there any Paladin archetype that focuses on casting, like a few of the Ranger archetypes do?

Gullintanni

2012-01-31, 02:02 PM

Back on topic, though, I've seen some people claiming that some of the Paladin archetypes actually make it weaker. Are there any that make the Paladin stronger? And is there any Paladin archetype that focuses on casting, like a few of the Ranger archetypes do?

Not sure about casting Paladin archetypes, but the Sacred Servant archetype is exceptional, as I said before.

It gives you access to the Planar Ally line of spells, except that the duration is a week or so long, and you don't pay the typical gp cost to have your Planar Ally do things for you. At level 16, you can call a Planetar with 17HD and level 8 Cleric spells.

The archetype also allows you to choose and cast spells up to level 4 out of a Domain of your choice.

Beowulf DW

2012-01-31, 02:15 PM

Not sure about casting Paladin archetypes, but the Sacred Servant archetype is exceptional, as I said before.

It gives you access to the Planar Ally line of spells, except that the duration is a week or so long, and you don't pay the typical gp cost to have your Planar Ally do things for you. At level 16, you can call a Planetar with 17HD and level 8 Cleric spells.

The archetype also allows you to choose and cast spells up to level 4 out of a Domain of your choice.

Ah, very nice. I've never actually played a paladin before (even though I keep saying I will) so I should probably try vanilla Paladin before I mess around with the archetypes.

kardar233

2012-01-31, 02:44 PM

Sure, I'm basically just getting really tired of people whipping out "BUT BUT BUT BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY" when someone says that such-and-such feat or ACF or item isn't in their game because they're running PF, and trying to imply that You're Doing It Wrong if you don't let people play a Lion Totem Pouncing Barbarian or what the hell ever.

edit: or, in this case, Battle Blessing to auto-quicken all your paladin's spells + SotAO to let him prepare wizard spells, can't imagine why a GM wouldn't allow that.

BB+SotAO doesn't work. They may be Paladin slots but they are still Wizard spells, so Battle Blessing doesn't Quicken them.

Remember how only the "big three" spell lists mattered in 3.5, guys? Remember how even a class with strictly superior mechanics to the wizard and a spell list as long as the PHB wiz/sorc list would still be inferior to a wizard? Do you remember why that was? That's right, it's because of sourcebook bloat, because the big three spell lists were the ones that got infinitely extended to the point where, with enough sourcebooks, any Big Three caster could functionally do anything. If you declare all 3.5 material present in your PF game, I hope it's because you were missing omnipotent clerics just that much. All the spell nerfs in PF become irrelevant, too - I've heard people argue with a straight face that "PF's nerfs to polymorph are irrelevant, because you can just prep Draconic Polymorph instead and it's not amended in PF! PF FAILS AT BALANCE."

There's a lot wrong with this. Let's break it down:

1. Wizard is by far the best caster because the Sorc/Wiz list is gigantic with all splat access.

Wrong. The most broken spells in the game are in the PHB. The few exceptions are the Celerity tree and Shivering Touch. Even if you give, say, a Cleric full splatbook access, his spell list is still greatly inferior to a Wizard's. A Wizard gets one game breaker a level, easy.
1. Colour Spray/Sleep/Grease
2. Web/Glitterdust/Alter Self/Invisibility
3. Explosive Runes/Fly
4. Black Tentacles/Solid Fog/Polymorph
5. Lesser Planar Binding/Overland Flight/Contact Other Plane/Cloudkill
6. Planar Binding/Contingency
7. Forcecage/Simulacrum/Limited Wish
8. Greater Planar Binding/Polymorph Any Object
9. Disjunction/Gate/Wish/Foresight/Astral Projection/Shapechange/Time Stop

And that's all PHB spells.

2. Adding 3.5 stuff breaks Pathfinder because Pathfinder hasn't nerfed it.
Taking your example (Draconic Polymorph is broken because PF didn't nerf it), that's why they say minimal porting required rather than no porting required. I mean, if you're only applying PF's Polymorph nerfs to Polymorph spells that come from PF, you're not really playing PF+(3.5 splats) are you? You're playing a hodgepodge of PF and 3.5.

Coidzor

2012-01-31, 03:59 PM

DrDeth

2012-01-31, 04:34 PM

Metahuman1

2012-01-31, 04:38 PM

I'll probably stop asking for that backwards compatibility when I get my Martial Maneuvers. Everything else would be nice but I can live with out.

And I know, Copy-write/problems with the new design team.

I kinda think it would be neat to win a super big lottery just to BUY Pazio and the rights to tome of Battle to get a pathfinder version published.

Metahuman1

2012-01-31, 04:39 PM

Edit: Hit a Glitch. Please ignore double post, was not intentional.

tyckspoon

2012-01-31, 04:45 PM

Same thing with 3.0/3.5. For a while, 3.5 needed backwards compatibility with 3.0 . But after the full range of splatbooks had been released, those demanding that the Deepwoods Sniper be allowed as is were more than a little reaching.

Poor choice of examples, 3.5 never actually got any good options for archery PrCs. I don't see a problem with asking to port something back/forwards if the material you're working with as your preferred source still has a gap there.

Metahuman1

2012-01-31, 04:49 PM

Poor choice of examples, 3.5 never actually got any good options for archery PrCs. I don't see a problem with asking to port something back/forwards if the material you're working with as your preferred source still has a gap there.

My point exactly.

Benly

2012-01-31, 06:40 PM

I more find it's an annoyed to resentful reaction against a face that mostly just appears to be needlessly hostile or dismissive of even considering the thought of using 3.5 content, as DrDeth demonstrated the latter viewpoint rather archetypically in this thread and some of the former as well.

On the other hand, before that you had Psyren saying that anyone who didn't allow Battle Blessing and SotAO into PF was "disregarding PF's design goals" in a thread explicitly for discussing the balance of certain classes in Pathfinder. Annoying evangelism isn't restricted to one side of this argument or the other. :smallwink:

jmelesky

2012-01-31, 06:44 PM

Annoying evangelism isn't restricted to one side of this argument or the other.

I think it's pretty clear that there are still strong feelings on 3.5/PF. For evidence, i point you to the ratio of PF threads to PF threads that turn into debates about PF and 3.5 material...

Curious

2012-01-31, 08:02 PM

Well, you have a point, and as long as PF consisted only of Core, there was a need for backwards compatibility. But now with four large sourcebooks and a large number of splatbooks, plus various outside sources, there’s no longer any need for it. And, almost always when I see it dragged in, it’s to suggest some broken combo.

Same thing with 3.0/3.5. For a while, 3.5 needed backwards compatibility with 3.0 . But after the full range of splatbooks had been released, those demanding that the Deepwoods Sniper be allowed as is were more than a little reaching.

You're kidding, right? There are a ton of feats, spells, and classes in 3.5 that have no analog in PF. For example; Binder, Warlock, Dragonfire Adept, Battlemage, Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, Factotum, Warblade, Crusader, Swordsage, Totemist, Incarnate. That's only the tier 3 classes that I would want to have access to, at a minimum.

There also feats like Battle Blessing, ACFs like the Wildshape Ranger, and dozens of other spells and abilities that are not represented in Pathfinder, and do nothing to harm and everything to help game balance.

DrDeth

2012-01-31, 10:01 PM

You're kidding, right? There are a ton of feats, spells, and classes in 3.5 that have no analog in PF. For example; Binder, Warlock, Dragonfire Adept, Battlemage, Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, Factotum, Warblade, Crusader, Swordsage, Totemist, Incarnate. That's only the tier 3 classes that I would want to have access to, at a minimum.

There also feats like Battle Blessing, ACFs like the Wildshape Ranger, and dozens of other spells and abilities that are not represented in Pathfinder, and do nothing to harm and everything to help game balance.

Sue there are. But are they needed? No. Note that a PF Pally can heal himself as a swift action without any feat. You can build a decent Beguiler from Bard Archetypes, I have been told.

Altho it's true that most of the most broken stuff is in Core, each source adds more and more until it's out of control. I don't know any DM who simply allowed EVERYTHING.

Now, am I saying that some DM is crazy for allowing some 3.5 material into PF- hardly. But simply saying that all of 3.5 is fair game would be insane.

Curious

2012-01-31, 10:30 PM

Sue there are. But are they needed? No. Note that a PF Pally can heal himself as a swift action without any feat. You can build a decent Beguiler from Bard Archetypes, I have been told.

Altho it's true that most of the most broken stuff is in Core, each source adds more and more until it's out of control. I don't know any DM who simply allowed EVERYTHING.

Now, am I saying that some DM is crazy for allowing some 3.5 material into PF- hardly. But simply saying that all of 3.5 is fair game would be insane.

They are needed if you want to run a game where not everyone needs to be a caster to be tier 3. Or if you want to have a tier 3 paladin or ranger. The bard can substitute, but his role in the party is sufficiently different than the Beguiler that it is still reasonable to introduce the class.

And here's where you're wrong. I allow all 3.5 material in my games, blanket access. I only ban things on a case-by-case basis. I mean, why wouldn't I let people have more options? That's the entire reason I love 3.P; you can do anything.

Crasical

2012-02-01, 04:54 AM

Can you wish to replicate Planar Binding for an Efreeti that then gives you three more wishes, the third of which is another Planar Binding for another Efreeti with three wishes?

Yes, you can.

I'd just like to point out there is absolutely nothing that prevents the infinite Wish trick from working just as well in PF, and I don't even think the dynamics of it have changed in even a slightly meaningful way.

If you want infinite wealth and power you can have it, and the only solution is to ban Planar Binding. Which 3.x system am I discussing? Any.

Ahem (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12610953&postcount=53).

Gullintanni

2012-02-01, 07:55 AM

They are needed if you want to run a game where not everyone needs to be a caster to be tier 3. Or if you want to have a tier 3 paladin or ranger. The bard can substitute, but his role in the party is sufficiently different than the Beguiler that it is still reasonable to introduce the class.

And here's where you're wrong. I allow all 3.5 material in my games, blanket access. I only ban things on a case-by-case basis. I mean, why wouldn't I let people have more options? That's the entire reason I love 3.P; you can do anything.

Eh... a Tier 2-3 Paladin is possible using Sacred Servant[PF only content]. Doesn't really diminish your point any, just a minor nitpick.

Specifically, all that means is that there's really no need for SotAO or Battle Blessing.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-02-01, 11:21 AM

Ahem (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12610953&postcount=53).

Well, that's obviously why the first three wishes you get all go to Planar Binding.

And then you leave any captured beings there for a couple weeks.

Helldog

2012-02-01, 11:58 AM

I don't know any DM who simply allowed EVERYTHING.
I do. I do it like Curious. I ban on a case-by-case basis.

Metahuman1

2012-02-01, 01:02 PM

Eh... a Tier 2-3 Paladin is possible using Sacred Servant[PF only content]. Doesn't really diminish your point any, just a minor nitpick.

Specifically, all that means is that there's really no need for SotAO or Battle Blessing.

And what happens when you decided to be different and use a different approach then "take Sacred Servant + whatever." ?

I know, it was a minor nitpick, but I still feel it's worth while to point out.

Curious

2012-02-01, 01:10 PM

Eh... a Tier 2-3 Paladin is possible using Sacred Servant[PF only content]. Doesn't really diminish your point any, just a minor nitpick.

Specifically, all that means is that there's really no need for SotAO or Battle Blessing.

I think the tier 3-2ishness of that particular arcehtype is up for debate. A single summoned creature at the cost of your spells and mount? I'm really not certain that even counts as tier 3.

LibrarianHuntar

2012-02-01, 01:14 PM

3.5 does have some good monk builds, but most of them don't have full monk levels, usually just enough to qualify for a prestige class.

Gullintanni

2012-02-01, 01:19 PM

I think the tier 3-2ishness of that particular arcehtype is up for debate. A single summoned creature at the cost of your spells and mount? I'm really not certain that even counts as tier 3.

A Sacred Servant doesn't lose their spells.

"Spells: At 4th level, when a sacred servant gains the ability to cast spells, she also chooses one domain associated with her deity. Her effective cleric level for this domain is equal to her paladin level –3. In addition, she also gains one domain spell slot for each level of paladin spells she can cast. Every day she must prepare the domain spell from her chosen domain in that spell slot."

And it's definitely Tier 3. Some people have asserted Tier 2, but that I have more trouble believing. The reason it's Tier 3 is because some of the things you can summon have great SLAs, and the summons hang around literally for a week at a time. And at level 16, your summon has 16th level Cleric casting. So you're basically summoning a Tier 1 NPC as back up. It's a pretty serious power boost.

The only reason I take issue with calling it Tier 2 is because until you can summon a Planetar, it's just a strong option instead of gamebreaking, and because your summon will never be able to cast 9ths.

Curious

2012-02-01, 06:14 PM

A Sacred Servant doesn't lose their spells.

"Spells: At 4th level, when a sacred servant gains the ability to cast spells, she also chooses one domain associated with her deity. Her effective cleric level for this domain is equal to her paladin level –3. In addition, she also gains one domain spell slot for each level of paladin spells she can cast. Every day she must prepare the domain spell from her chosen domain in that spell slot."

And it's definitely Tier 3. Some people have asserted Tier 2, but that I have more trouble believing. The reason it's Tier 3 is because some of the things you can summon have great SLAs, and the summons hang around literally for a week at a time. And at level 16, your summoned has 16th level Cleric casting. So you're basically summoning a Tier 1 NPC as back up. It's a pretty serious power boost.

The only reason I take issue with calling it Tier 2 is because until you can summon a Planetar, it's just a strong option instead of gamebreaking, and because your summon will never be able to cast 9ths.

Huh, that doesn't sound bad. Maybe it is tier 3 then.

Crasical

2012-02-01, 10:09 PM

Well, that's obviously why the first three wishes you get all go to Planar Binding.

And then you leave any captured beings there for a couple weeks.

Each planar binding only has a 50% chance of snagging a Noble Djinn, and they can plane shift at will. And then you leave them there for a few weeks, giving them a chance to escape each day they are bound?

Also, you would have to either Wish for Magic Circle spells, or provide them yourself.

tyckspoon

2012-02-01, 10:24 PM

Each planar binding only has a 50% chance of snagging a Noble Djinn, and they can plane shift at will. And then you leave them there for a few weeks, giving them a chance to escape each day they are bound?

Also, you would have to either Wish for Magic Circle spells, or provide them yourself.

A Noble Djinn is a recognizably different type of creature, and you should be able to call for one specifically when you cast your Planar Binding- no randomness involved. Not that you necessarily need to get a Noble Djinn; the standard Efreet does, in fact, retain its Wish-granting power (it's just listed in the spell-like abilities of its statblock instead of getting a callout in the descriptive text.) Still preferable to get a Djinn when possible, tho, since it's most likely easier to negotiate with the CG Djinn than the LE Efreet.

Crasical

2012-02-01, 10:35 PM

A Noble Djinn is a recognizably different type of creature, and you should be able to call for one specifically when you cast your Planar Binding- no randomness involved. Not that you necessarily need to get a Noble Djinn; the standard Efreet does, in fact, retain its Wish-granting power (it's just listed in the spell-like abilities of its statblock instead of getting a callout in the descriptive text.) Still preferable to get a Djinn when possible, tho, since it's most likely easier to negotiate with the CG Djinn than the LE Efreet.

No, I mean specifically that a Noble Djinn casting Planar Binding via wish has a spell DC of 10 + 9 (Spell level) +3 (cha, I assume djinn casting is Charisma-based) for 22. Noble Djinn have +11 to will saves.

Therefore a noble Djinn needs only an 11 or better to save, a 50-50 chance on a d20.

Curious

2012-02-01, 10:39 PM

No, I mean specifically that a Noble Djinn casting Planar Binding via wish has a spell DC of 10 + 9 (Spell level) +3 (cha, I assume djinn casting is Charisma-based) for 22. Noble Djinn have +11 to will saves.

Therefore a noble Djinn needs only an 11 or better to save, a 50-50 chance on a d20.

I'm fairly certain there is a spell somewhere that punishes summoned creatures to force obedience, but I can't find it. Give me a minute, I'm gonna check the SRD.

EDIT: Well, if there is, I can't find it. Soooo, you may be right.

tyckspoon

2012-02-01, 10:55 PM

No, I mean specifically that a Noble Djinn casting Planar Binding via wish has a spell DC of 10 + 9 (Spell level) +3 (cha, I assume djinn casting is Charisma-based) for 22. Noble Djinn have +11 to will saves.

Therefore a noble Djinn needs only an 11 or better to save, a 50-50 chance on a d20.

Derp. Forgot it offered a save. Yeah, that's the only part of the process that's got any major failure chance (I assume before you start on this you've taken the time to set up some Anchored Magic Circles as needed.) Not a huge deal when you're hardcasting your own Bindings from slots, you can just try again tomorrow if you had really bad luck, but potentially a problem when you're using some other creatures resources.

Crasical

2012-02-01, 10:56 PM

Crasical

2012-02-01, 11:01 PM

Derp. Forgot it offered a save. Yeah, that's the only part of the process that's got any major failure chance (I assume before you start on this you've taken the time to set up some Anchored Magic Circles as needed.) Not a huge deal when you're hardcasting your own Bindings from slots, you can just try again tomorrow if you had really bad luck, but potentially a problem when you're using some other creatures resources.

You're still playing with fire in that case. Even if the Djinn can't escape your trap (It probably can't, that Charisma check is hard), if you make it an offer and roll a natural 1, It breaks free and can Plane Shift away to go round up a posse to squish you for your impudence.

sonofzeal

2012-02-02, 12:43 AM

I'd like to also point out that you need a Magic Circle as part of this trap. So you come across a candle of invocation, you use it to gate in a Noble Djinn and it grants you three wishes. So, if you can't cast magic....

Wish 1: Magic Circle against Good, w/ Diagram!

Wish 2: Dimensional Anchor on the Magic Circle!

Wish 3: Planar binding on a Noble Djinn!

And so you've used ALL THREE of your wishes to -maybe- bind another genie safely for a maximum of 12 days.
You imply that the cycle never goes anywhere, but the Magic Circle lasts 90 minutes, or 900 rounds. Even Dimensional Anchor lasts 90 rounds. Once you're properly set, you should be able to get the loop going for infinite wishes.

Crasical

2012-02-02, 01:34 AM

You imply that the cycle never goes anywhere, but the Magic Circle lasts 90 minutes, or 900 rounds. Even Dimensional Anchor lasts 90 rounds. Once you're properly set, you should be able to get the loop going for infinite wishes.

Elaborate, please? I don't understand what you're saying.

EDIT: When used to trap a creature, Dimensional Anchor+Magic Circle lasts days X caster level. If you use your Wishes on them, that's 12 days, not 90 minutes. If you're suggesting you summon multiple Djinn into the circle, I'd be iffy on allowing that, since the rules state that "provided that you cast the spell that calls the creature within 1 round of casting the magic circle", you might not get any benefit from summoning the creature into the bindings after that point. The maximum you could summon into the circle would be 4 djinn, with all the attendant risks of trying to negotiate them into granting you wishes and the danger they'll escape, which is now magnified since they can Aid Another on the charisma check to break free of the circle.

Infernalbargain

2012-02-02, 03:22 AM

Suppose we allow people to do this infinite efreeti wish loop. What can they ask for that is completely independent of GM discretion in PF? They are cured of all permanent afflictions. They revive anyone who has died within the past 110 years. They can teleport where ever. Reroll everything within the last round. They can also duplicate any number of spells (following the level provisions).

(http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/wish)

The only campaign damaging thing in there is reviving everyone within the past 110 years. The spell replicating is just more of something they could already do. For everything else, there's mastercard; err the explicit GM fiat clause because doing something dangerous infinitely many times does not seem... wise.

This is leaves us only with the problem of having an army of efreeti around. This can be readily solved with just having some high level guy just mow them down.

Coidzor

2012-02-02, 05:17 AM

This is leaves us only with the problem of having an army of efreeti around. This can be readily solved with just having some high level guy just mow them down.

"Just" gets a lot more problematic the higher level the PCs get. :smalltongue:

MightyIgoo

2012-02-02, 05:55 PM

Hm. I got to this thread LATE, didn't I...

I like playing monks, and it's definitely for the flavor. Yeah, there are problems with the class. Yes, it is not a Tier 1 or Tier 2. The monk may not even be Tier 3. Other classes have a higher and more reliable damage-output-per-round or some other acronym. But I personally enjoy being a Jackie Chan surrounded by Schwartzeneggers, Stallones, and Sir Ian McKellans. I'm not the baddest dude around, but I am the dude whose belief in himself is so strong that I walk into battle with just what I was born with, and come out. I CHALLENGE myself in the crucible of battle. I don't play the game to maximize my damage output. I play the game to have fun.

Pathfinder did a lot of things right with the monk, I think. The class isn't FIXED, it's still not Tier 1 or 2 or whatever, but it's better off. I enjoy the archetypes, too. And I found Treantmonk's treatise on Pathfinder monks really helpful. Bam. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/treatmonks-lab/treantmonk-s-guide-to-monks)

I hope this helps, Ninjastylerobot.

Beowulf DW

2012-02-02, 09:30 PM

Coidzor

2012-02-02, 11:51 PM

The monk may not even be Tier 3.

:smallconfused: May?

But I personally enjoy being a Jackie Chan surrounded by Schwartzeneggers, Stallones, and Sir Ian McKellans.

Despite Swordsage doing that just fine, while Monk doesn't even manage Jackie Chan? :smallconfused:

I don't play the game to maximize my damage output. I play the game to have fun.

Now you're just grossly mischaracterizing others by implying that people who care about mechanics can't have fun or don't want to. :smallannoyed

Hiro Protagonest

2012-02-02, 11:58 PM

Despite Swordsage doing that just fine, while Monk doesn't even manage Jackie Chan? :smallconfused:

Actually, monk does manage Jackie Chan.

The problem is, the only guys Jackie Chan faces are other monks. Not a real good test of power.

Coidzor

2012-02-03, 12:00 AM

Actually, monk does manage Jackie Chan.

The problem is, the only guys Jackie Chan faces are other monks. Not a real good test of power.

Really? My mistake then, sorry. :smallredface:

nightwyrm

2012-02-03, 01:23 AM

Actually, monk does manage Jackie Chan.

The problem is, the only guys Jackie Chan faces are other monks. Not a real good test of power.

But Jackie Chan has weapon proficiency (improvised weapon), monk doesn't even have that. :smallbiggrin:

Helldog

2012-02-03, 02:10 AM

Now you're just grossly mischaracterizing others by implying that people who care about mechanics can't have fun or don't want to.
Eh... Don't be that way, please. He didn't say that. :smallsigh: I'm sure you can make an argument without trying to make the other guy seem like an insensitive ass. :smallannoyed:

Manateee

2012-02-03, 03:23 AM

Coidzor

2012-02-03, 03:36 AM

I see you have not met Coidzor.

Well, to be fair, only Mountainking has.
Wait a minute...

Durmegil Guldur

2012-02-03, 05:28 AM

I think what they tried to do in Pathfinder was to make Monks the masters of CMB warfare. With the right feat choices, the monk can get in close and run interference on the enemy, and they do it well. This gives the other classes the chance to do what it is they do best.

Benly

2012-02-03, 06:16 AM

Eh... Don't be that way, please. He didn't say that. :smallsigh: I'm sure you can make an argument without trying to make the other guy seem like an insensitive ass. :smallannoyed:

Except that he pretty much explicitly said that people who don't like monks only dislike it because they only like T1/T2 classes.

Helldog

2012-02-03, 06:42 AM

Except that he pretty much explicitly said that people who don't like monks only dislike it because they only like T1/T2 classes.
I don't think so.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-03, 06:51 AM

He just said he didn't care about power gaming. Just the ideas and fluff.

Killer Angel

2012-02-03, 07:11 AM

I like playing monks, and it's definitely for the flavor. Yeah, there are problems with the class. Yes, it is not a Tier 1 or Tier 2. The monk may not even be Tier 3. Other classes have a higher and more reliable damage-output-per-round or some other acronym. But I personally enjoy being a Jackie Chan surrounded by Schwartzeneggers, Stallones, and Sir Ian McKellans. I'm not the baddest dude around, but I am the dude whose belief in himself is so strong that I walk into battle with just what I was born with, and come out. I CHALLENGE myself in the crucible of battle. I don't play the game to maximize my damage output. I play the game to have fun.

:smallsigh: again this?
See, I'm happy that you can have fun anyway, but the point is another (and is not related to maximizing the damage output, btw).
The fun is to face a challenge and win, and fight for the victory, that shouldn't come easy. T1 can and should be challenged by the DM.
But the monk is challenged by its own mechanics... the class is poorly written.
When what is a serious challenge for the monk is a mere annoyance for the other characters, and what is impossible for the monk is the challenge for the other characters, the fun lasts little.
You can personally have fun, but a single personal taste doesn't change the cold facts.

If you are aware of the class' problems (and you are), you should also know that, sometime, to "like the flavour" is not sufficient for also "having fun".

sonofzeal

2012-02-03, 07:20 AM

Let's look at the quote again.

I don't play the game to maximize my damage output. I play the game to have fun.

Now, he isn't outright saying the two are at odds. However, he's setting the two up against each other. It's certainly not explicit, but the rhetorical format he's using implies, and is intended to draw attention to, a contrast in the two ideas he's presenting.

Coidzor's interpretation of that takes it a step further, presuming that contrast implied an inherent opposition. That's certainly a belief that might have prompted MightyIgoo to say what he did, but it's not one that's deducible from that statement alone.

So... yay ambiguous english language?

Gullintanni

2012-02-03, 07:30 AM

But the monk is challenged by its own mechanics... the class is poorly written.

While your post is generally all true, I want to focus on this specifically. Since we've been down the Monk road earlier in the thread. While the Monk chassis is, itself, poorly designed owing primarily to severe MAD issues (Wis>Con>Str>Dex) it's easy to patch this up in PF with Guided weapons. That reduces you to Wis>Con>Dex MAD. And really, the Dex isn't that important.

Worth noting is that there are weapons (brass knuckles I believe) that allow a Monk to retain unarmed damage with enchanted weapons.

Archetypes like Hungry Ghost/Qinggong/Zen Archer/Sensei (this grants Bardic Music too) all focus on WIS and increase monk viability pretty substantially.

So while Monks are generally poor out of the box, they at least got a lot of very easy to use, very solid support in PF splats.

And their Flurry has Good BAB progression as opposed to their typical Average BAB progression, so that's a plus.

Killer Angel

2012-02-03, 07:36 AM

So while Monks are generally poor out of the box, they at least got a lot of very easy to use, very solid support in PF splats.

And their Flurry has Good BAB progression as opposed to their typical Average BAB progression, so that's a plus.

I'm not yet into PF splats, so I can easily concede the point. :smallwink:

mikau013

2012-02-03, 07:52 AM

While your post is generally all true, I want to focus on this specifically. Since we've been down the Monk road earlier in the thread. While the Monk chassis is, itself, poorly designed owing primarily to severe MAD issues (Wis>Con>Str>Dex) it's easy to patch this up in PF with Guided weapons. That reduces you to Wis>Con>Dex MAD. And really, the Dex isn't that important.

Worth noting is that there are weapons (brass knuckles I believe) that allow a Monk to retain unarmed damage with enchanted weapons.

Archetypes like Hungry Ghost/Qinggong/Zen Archer/Sensei (this grants Bardic Music too) all focus on WIS and increase monk viability pretty substantially.

So while Monks are generally poor out of the box, they at least got a lot of very easy to use, very solid support in PF splats.

And their Flurry has Good BAB progression as opposed to their typical Average BAB progression, so that's a plus.

Guided is not a pathfinder property though, it was written for 3.5.
And the developers already stated that bracc knuckles doesn't allow a monk to retain their unarmed damage but they haven't released the errata yet, so ymmv.

But most of all, the problem with the monk for me isn't that she is mad, though that doesn't help, but mostly that the class features are non-synergistic and well just not good enough. But that also depends on where your personal balance points lies.

Gullintanni

2012-02-03, 08:25 AM

Guided is not a pathfinder property though, it was written for 3.5.
And the developers already stated that bracc knuckles doesn't allow a monk to retain their unarmed damage but they haven't released the errata yet, so ymmv.

But most of all, the problem with the monk for me isn't that she is mad, though that doesn't help, but mostly that the class features are non-synergistic and well just not good enough. But that also depends on where your personal balance points lies.

Guided (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-weapons/magic-weapons-non-core/weapon-property---guided) is indeed a Pathfinder property. It's just not Core.

On that note, I've never seen Guided printed in a 3.5 splatbook and it's not on SRD...so...source?

Until errata is released then the PRD says this:

"Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."

At the time that errata is released, I will promptly houserule it out of existence.

Benly

2012-02-03, 08:35 AM

Guided (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-weapons/magic-weapons-non-core/weapon-property---guided) is indeed a Pathfinder property. It's just not Core.

On that note, I've never seen Guided printed in a 3.5 splatbook and it's not on SRD...so...source?

Until errata is released then the PRD says this:

"Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."

At the time that errata is released, I will promptly houserule it out of existence.

I believe someone pointed out earlier in the thread that the module in which Guided appeared was a 3.5 module published under the Pathfinder imprint, but before the Pathfinder RPG was published - before they published PFRPG, Paizo used "Pathfinder" as the name for their module series. On a glance, the PFSRD site says copyright 2008 for the book that Guided came from, while PFRPG was published in August 2009, so I'm inclined to accept that Guided is not, technically, PFRPG material unless someone can post a citation for an updated PFRPG version of it.

Gullintanni

2012-02-03, 08:44 AM

I believe someone pointed out earlier in the thread that the module in which Guided appeared was a 3.5 module published under the Pathfinder imprint, but before the Pathfinder RPG was published - before they published PFRPG, Paizo used "Pathfinder" as the name for their module series. On a glance, the PFSRD site says copyright 2008 for the book that Guided came from, while PFRPG was published in August 2009, so I'm inclined to accept that Guided is not, technically, PFRPG material unless someone can post a citation for an updated PFRPG version of it.

I believe it's PFRPG material strictly by virtue of its inclusion in the PFSRD. I mean, it's published under PFRPG OGL isn't it? Or does the Pathfinder module make full use of the 3.5 rules? I believe the module in question occurs in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting so either way, regardless of publication date, it seems like it's been retconned into the Pathfinder system.

Benly

2012-02-03, 08:49 AM

I believe it's PFRPG material strictly by virtue of its inclusion in the PFSRD.

d20pfsrd.com is a fan site and includes a large amount of third-party material, conversions from earlier Paizo material, and similar. If you click on the citation at the bottom of "Guided" you'll see that it's in the "fan conversions" section, and the actual Paizo-published PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/) does not have Guided in the magic item index.

Gullintanni

2012-02-03, 09:06 AM

d20pfsrd.com is a fan site and includes a large amount of third-party material, conversions from earlier Paizo material, and similar. If you click on the citation at the bottom of "Guided" you'll see that it's in the "fan conversions" section, and the actual Paizo-published PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/) does not have Guided in the magic item index.

Hm. True enough. That doesn't negate the fact that the sourcebook for Guided is part of the Pathfinder Adventure Path series which, if I'm not mistaken, is PFRPG sanctioned material. Either way, it's registered under the Pathfinder trademark, as is PFRPG.

This as opposed to Paizo products which they bill specifically as Dungeons and Dragons material such as the Dragon Compendium.

Take from that what you will I suppose.

EDIT: According to the Pathfinder Wikia all Pathfinder Adventure Paths content has been retconned as of August 2009 into the PFRPG system, so the point is moot anyway.

Benly

2012-02-03, 09:42 AM

According to the Pathfinder Wikia all Pathfinder Adventure Paths content has been retconned as of August 2009 into the PFRPG system, so the point is moot anyway.

Well, not exactly - they've been converted and rereleased as PFRPG modules, so the real question is whether the Guided property appears in the PFRPG conversion of that module. I'm not in a position to check because the module it appears in is part of Curse Of The Crimson Throne and I'm going to be playing in CotCT in the near future, but it seems to me that what would really settle the question is to check the PFRPG rerelease. If Guided is in it, there's no problem, but if it's not then they explicitly removed Guided from PFRPG.

Helldog

2012-02-03, 10:38 AM

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/fan-conversions/paizo-adventure-paths/pf-10-a-history-of-ashes

Benly

2012-02-03, 10:55 AM

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/fan-conversions/paizo-adventure-paths/pf-10-a-history-of-ashes

I'm pretty sure that's a fan conversion and not the converted reissue. Hence the "fan conversions" in the URL.

mikau013

2012-02-03, 10:57 AM

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/fan-conversions/paizo-adventure-paths/pf-10-a-history-of-ashes

Does that link mean that because it is a fan conversion, the guided property is equal to using homebrew*? Or am I misunderstanding the point of your link?

*Note: I'm not in anyway saying that using homebrew is bad, using some good houserules and homebrew easily makes the game better than just playing pathfinder RAW

- Edit: freaking purple ninja's

Helldog

2012-02-03, 11:14 AM

I'm pretty sure that's a fan conversion and not the converted reissue. Hence the "fan conversions" in the URL.
What if Paizo is selling it? (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/adventurePath/curseOfTheCrimsonThrone/v5748btpy82u9)

Gullintanni

2012-02-03, 11:18 AM

What if Paizo is selling it?

I'm not sure if the adventure paths they're selling on-line use the 3.5 ruleset or the PFRPG ruleset; however, I did find this in the official PFRPG FAQ:

"Which of your products were developed specifically for the Pathfinder RPG?

As of August 2009, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion, and Pathfinder Society Scenarios have transitioned to the Pathfinder RPG rules. And of course, our Pathfinder RPG line will continue to elaborate on and expand the system. You can find a listing of our compatible products here."

So this leads me to think that they re-published their Adventure paths with PFRPG rules. Even if they didn't it seems clear that their official position is that the Adventure Paths are official PFRPG content.

Of course if the versions they're selling are PFRPG based, then the answer's unambiguous.

Helldog

2012-02-03, 11:35 AM

I added a link.

Gullintanni

2012-02-03, 11:53 AM

I added a link.

Saw that. It doesn't state categorically anywhere that the documents they're selling use PFRPG rules. Just that they're OGL and 100% compatible with Dungeons & Dragons.

Unless I'm missing something, which is very possible :smallsmile:

...Still, even if OGL = 3.5, the FAQ states Paizo's official position. It's all PFRPG content.

Paul H

2012-02-03, 12:10 PM

Hi

I'm looking at a Human Zen Acher for PFS campaign. Looked at a Dwarven version, but Synthesist (Summoner Archetype) is too tempting to ignore.

I'll be:
Str 13 (16) Dex 13 (14) Con 12 (13) Int 10 Wis 18 Cha 12
(Stuff in brackets Eidolon stats, including 2 points increasing Dex to 14)

I'll get +2 Nat AC, Darkvision plus Mage Armour as a spell. (Can also use wands of Shield, PFE, etc).
Taking Point Blank Shot and Dodge as feats.

I'll be using Comp Longbow +3 Str for extra damage. With the Zen Archer abilities (flurry with bows, threaten adjacent squares, combat reflexes with bows, etc), I should be OK.

Thanks
Paul H

Helldog

2012-02-03, 12:10 PM

Well, it says Pathfinder on the cover and stuff.

Paul H

2012-02-03, 12:16 PM

Hi

And for completeness there is the Sorc 1/Pal 4/Dragon Disciiple build too.

Thanks
Paul H

Coidzor

2012-02-03, 12:34 PM

[At the time that errata is released, I will promptly houserule it out of existence.

Indeed, I can't really see anything but a perhaps too powerful drive to play solely by Paizo's writ to want to go with such errata. The stated reasons for wanting to change it are pretty bad, or at least, whoever "crunched the numbers" is pretty bad at math to have seen that Monks were too good with the ability to have their unarmed strike damage and straight-forward access to magic weapon properties at the same time.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-03, 01:06 PM

When I think of the above this pops into my head:

A paizo designer is typing on his computer.

He sees a question along the lines of "Can the monk use gauntlets for this?"

He then flashes back to him playing 2e DD as a kid and going up against a Monk.

The monk proceeds to kill him.

It then shows a clip of the DM going "Your character is DEAD"

And then some intense wide angle lens evil laughing from all of his group.

"MHA-HA HA HA"

Then we flash back to the present. The designer types: "No".

Gullintanni

2012-02-03, 01:09 PM

Indeed, I can't really see anything but a perhaps too powerful drive to play solely by Paizo's writ to want to go with such errata. The stated reasons for wanting to change it are pretty bad, or at least, whoever "crunched the numbers" is pretty bad at math to have seen that Monks were too good with the ability to have their unarmed strike damage and straight-forward access to magic weapon properties at the same time.

You know, I can actually see where the mistake might crop up, if all our Paizo friend is doing is comparing Monk unarmed damage to longsword damage. But once you get into Power Attack + Buffs + Size Increases...hell you probably know this argument better than I do.

Bottom line is, anything that seeks to weaken Monks on the premise that they were initially too good requires no further analysis. Any such memos, errata, rules or other documentation, official or otherwise, require prompt introduction to a waste basket and judicious quantities napalm. The latter more for stylistic flair than anything else, of course. :smallamused:

mikau013

2012-02-03, 01:23 PM

Well we have to keep in mind what James Jacobs said:

"Not everything can be handed to the monk for free"

Gullintanni

2012-02-03, 01:52 PM

Well we have to keep in mind what James Jacobs said:

"Not everything can be handed to the monk for free"

Well...in this case, Guided is a +1 Weapon Property, so he's gotta pay 8,000 gold for it. :smallamused:

Plus that line of logic only really works if you apply it universally. When comparing Monks and Wizards, it's pretty clear that Monks are bankrupt vs. Wizards who obviously hit the lottery.

jmelesky

2012-02-03, 02:05 PM

As of August 2009, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion, and Pathfinder Society Scenarios have transitioned to the Pathfinder RPG rules.

August, 2009 is the publish date of the first module of Council of Thieves, which is the first Adventure Path written for PFRPG rather than 3.5ed.

It's also the first printing of the PFRPG Core.

Basically, things published by Paizo after August, 2009 are PFRPG. Things published prior are 3.5ed (unless given errata or conversion since August, 2009).

They're revising Rise of the Runelords (the first Adventure Path published outside of Dungeon Magazine) for PFRPG, and releasing it as a single hardback this coming summer. The other 3.5ed Adventure Paths (Second Darkness, Legacy of Fire, and, most relevant to this conversation, Curse of the Crimson Throne) have not been converted, though they continue to sell the 3.5ed versions.

Until the guided weapon property appears in a post-2009-09 Paizo publication, or public FAQ entry, it's not PFRPG material. It's 3.5ed material.

And, like all 3.5ed material, you can convert it if you want. But it's a conversion, not part of the published PFRPG rules.

Helldog

2012-02-03, 02:08 PM

Curse of the Crimson Throne is being sold by Paizo with big "Pathfinder" on the top of the cover.

jmelesky

2012-02-03, 02:39 PM

Curse of the Crimson Throne is being sold by Paizo with big "Pathfinder" on the top of the cover.

Right, because "Pathfinder" was the name of the periodical they started for 3.5ed Adventure Paths when they lost control of Dungeon Magazine.

Then, a couple years later, they released an RPG, and they called that "Pathfinder", too.

mikau013

2012-02-03, 02:44 PM

Plus that line of logic only really works if you apply it universally. When comparing Monks and Wizards, it's pretty clear that Monks are bankrupt vs. Wizards who obviously hit the lottery.

Only if you want them balanced and I believe pathfinder was created to make wizards a bit stronger at higher levels because they wield magic and should thus be better than mundanes. Though it is not a viewpoint I agree with.

Helldog

2012-02-03, 03:22 PM

Right, because "Pathfinder" was the name of the periodical they started for 3.5ed Adventure Paths when they lost control of Dungeon Magazine.

Then, a couple years later, they released an RPG, and they called that "Pathfinder", too.
That's Pathfinder enough for me.

Only if you want them balanced
Balance would be nice, yes.

and I believe pathfinder was created to make wizards a bit stronger at higher levels because they wield magic and should thus be better than mundanes
No, not really. Paizo just didn't care about class balance. Or they cared, but failed, which would be worse.

jmelesky

2012-02-03, 03:39 PM

That's Pathfinder enough for me.

Which is fine, and you're welcome to houserule that weapon quality into your home game, or to lobby for it with your GM.

But it's as much PFRPG as, say, using a ToB class.

Helldog

2012-02-03, 03:45 PM

Your loss then.

jmelesky

2012-02-03, 03:53 PM

Your loss then.

Except it isn't. I've lost nothing. I'm fine with the weapon quality. I'd happily use it in my home game.

I'm just amazed at how, after 8 pages of explanation in this thread alone, there's still confusion on this issue.

The establishment of fact based on common reality is never a loss.

Coidzor

2012-02-03, 04:04 PM

No, not really. Paizo just didn't care about class balance. Or they cared, but failed, which would be worse.

If they cared, then not only did they fail, but they also decided to lash out at the people who were actually providing feedback on that during the Beta, rather than the people going so whole hog for the Oberoni fallacy that they actively object to people wanting balance in the system itself. During the Beta.

But it's as much PFRPG as, say, using a ToB class.

How much of the body of play does Pathfinder Society encompass anyway?

jmelesky

2012-02-03, 05:42 PM

How much of the body of play does Pathfinder Society encompass anyway?

Pathfinder Society makes its own rulings on what's legal. For example, wordspells (a new magic system from Ultimate Magic) aren't allowed in PFS. So i wouldn't use it as a definitive "what is and isn't PFRPG".

That said, it's hard to say. There is a lot of Society activity, though (i'm GMing at a four-table PFS event tonight, for example). They come out with new PFS modules too quickly for me to keep up. At cons, you mostly see PFS games, except when someone wants to run a high-level adventure (since PFS cuts off at the still-relatively-balanced 12th level). You can look here (http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/events) for open events (though you can also run closed events which won't show up there.

On the flip side, though, Adventure Paths are still selling really well, and there's interest enough in them that they've started porting the old 3.5ed ones to PF (and will likely end up compiling the PF ones into hardbacks eventually, too). So it looks like non-Society play is quite healthy, too (assuming it's not all 3.5 groups backporting the APs from PF). Not to mention all the new campaigns run on existing APs, non-AP modules, and custom campaigns.

So, at a guess, PFS is still the far minority of PF play, but it does seem more popular than Living Greyhawk was.

The Glyphstone

2012-02-03, 05:59 PM

Our best strategy is to very quietly say nothing and hope Paizo doesn't notice that Guided makes monks effective when they reprint CotCT. If they figure it out, they'll nerf it or not reprint it.

Metahuman1

2012-02-03, 08:44 PM

Which only makes me like the idea of buying Paizo even more so that someone can tell the authors "Melee will get nice things or I will get new game designers till it does. Savvy?" even more.

Gullintanni

2012-02-04, 12:35 AM

Our best strategy is to very quietly say nothing and hope Paizo doesn't notice that Guided makes monks effective when they reprint CotCT. If they figure it out, they'll nerf it or not reprint it.

Well...they didn't really notice Candles of Invocation, despite being pointed out vociferously by the beta testers, so there's hope. :smalltongue:

sonofzeal

2012-02-04, 12:37 AM

Well...they didn't really notice Candles of Invocation, despite being pointed out vociferously by the beta testers, so there's hope. :smalltongue:
The key difference there is we didn't WANT CoI, it doesn't make the game better. PF only tends to take the hatchet to things that help low-tier classes....

Gullintanni

2012-02-04, 12:52 AM

The key difference there is we didn't WANT CoI, it doesn't make the game better. PF only tends to take the hatchet to things that help low-tier classes....

Unfortunate, but true.

turkishproverb

2012-02-04, 02:29 AM

The key difference there is we didn't WANT CoI, it doesn't make the game better. PF only tends to take the hatchet to things that help low-tier classes....

Bingo. :smallyuk::smallyuk:

There's a reason I won't touch pathfinder products these days.

Coidzor

2012-02-04, 02:34 AM

So, at a guess, PFS is still the far minority of PF play, but it does seem more popular than Living Greyhawk was.

In that case, it hardly matters what's official Pathfinder Pathfinder content or just official Pathfinder content then. :smalltongue:

Polarity Shift

2012-02-04, 09:04 AM

Bingo. :smallyuk::smallyuk:

There's a reason I won't touch pathfinder products these days.

Me and everyone I know, and everyone we know have banned all Paizo material from our games for the reasons you and sonofzeal describe. It's just a boring, overcentralized mess. I want no part of it.

sonofzeal

2012-02-04, 09:12 AM

Me and everyone I know, and everyone we know have banned all Paizo material from our games for the reasons you and sonofzeal describe. It's just a boring, overcentralized mess. I want no part of it.
Well, let's not go too far. I like their skill system, and I recently helped a local DM who wanted a houserule upgrade to Paladins - and we cribbed pretty heavily off the PF one for that.

I also think they did some good things with monsters and spells, but it sort of falls in the no-man's-land. If they'd just changed a couple key points that'd be easy to port over, and if they'd really done a massively better job it'd be work replacing 3.5's stuff outright. Instead, almost everything's changed, but only tends to be a moderate improvement, not really worth the Return on Investment for me with my Spell Compendium and various searchable databases that run off 3.5 content.

And yeah, beyond that the Devs seem to hate melee. At least they seem to hate all melee pretty equally, including melee Clerics and melee Druids last I heard. I suppose that's something.

Polarity Shift

2012-02-04, 09:28 AM

Well, let's not go too far. I like their skill system, and I recently helped a local DM who wanted a houserule upgrade to Paladins - and we cribbed pretty heavily off the PF one for that.

They managed to make skills even less useful than they already are. The only way they could have done worse here is to make Monks worse... oh wait... Paladins got beaten senseless with the nerf bat as well.

And yeah, beyond that the Devs seem to hate melee. At least they seem to hate all melee pretty equally, including melee Clerics and melee Druids last I heard. I suppose that's something.

That's part of what I mean by overcentralizing. They've never been good, sure. But they were playable before.

Ravens_cry

2012-02-04, 11:54 AM

They managed to make skills even less useful than they already are. The only way they could have done worse here is to make Monks worse... oh wait... Paladins got beaten senseless with the nerf bat as well.

How in Hells Bells and Bodkins were Pathfinder Paladin nerfed compared to 3.5 Paladin? 3.5 was MADder, it's smite mechanic less effective and less versatile, and it couldn't remove afflictions or self heal anywhere like the Pathfinder version. And while Core Pathfinder Monk only got moderate improvements, the different archetypes have given it a tremendous boost, at least enough that I actually might want to play one.
As for skills, I honestly don't see what you are saying there either. If you are referring to the fact that taking non-class skill isn't a waste of skill points any more, I would call that an improvement frankly. But I don't see exactly how they made them less useful.

Helldog

2012-02-04, 12:19 PM

As for skills, I honestly don't see what you are saying there either. If you are referring to the fact that taking non-class skill isn't a waste of skill points any more, I would call that an improvement frankly. But I don't see exactly how they made them less useful.
Maybe they upped some of the DCs? I didn't check, but IIRC that was the argument last time this discussion was going on.

Starbuck_II

2012-02-04, 01:06 PM

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-04, 01:08 PM

Thats just fluff. This is purely dependent on the GM. Unless their a Robot or an idiot your going to be fine. And if they are a robot or an idiot then you wouln't be fine either way.

The Glyphstone

2012-02-04, 01:10 PM

Wait, we're using a one-word change in the minutae of the paladin's code to argue that it was nerfed compared to its 3.5 version?:smallconfused:

turkishproverb

2012-02-04, 01:24 PM

In all fairness, though I'm not saying that the paladin was nerfed, that one word can make a BIG difference when done according to RAW.

Ravens_cry

2012-02-04, 01:45 PM

Maybe they upped some of the DCs? I didn't check, but IIRC that was the argument last time this discussion was going on.
Even if they did, it might still be an improvement.To WoTC, a DC 20 check is 'difficult" while for someone who has it as a class skill, a rank, a mundane skill boosting item and a good ability score modifier, that's a better than 50/50 chance at level 1. With some more focus on that skill, it becomes almost certain at level 1, and dead certain in a few levels.
As for the paladin code word change, yes, it makes the code stricter, but it also removes some ambiguity from it as it didn't say in any shape or form what counts as "grossly" violating the code. I'd call that anywhere from a wash to a small net win.

Polarity Shift

2012-02-04, 02:10 PM

How in Hells Bells and Bodkins were Pathfinder Paladin nerfed compared to 3.5 Paladin? 3.5 was MADder, it's smite mechanic less effective and less versatile, and it couldn't remove afflictions or self heal anywhere like the Pathfinder version. And while Core Pathfinder Monk only got moderate improvements, the different archetypes have given it a tremendous boost, at least enough that I actually might want to play one.
As for skills, I honestly don't see what you are saying there either. If you are referring to the fact that taking non-class skill isn't a waste of skill points any more, I would call that an improvement frankly. But I don't see exactly how they made them less useful.

3.5 Paladins ran around with Battle Blessing and charging and such. It wasn't great, but it was potentially workable.

Pathfinder nerfs all melee and all MAD characters. Being as all melee characters are MAD, and Paladins especially so this translates into them being entirely ineffective. The smite and self healing is irrelevant either way.

Monks got hit with a number of nerfs as well along the same lines as well as removing their ability to up their damage dice so that they can actually hurt things when they do roll a 20 and hit.

Lastly, all skills were subject to one or more of the following:

Removing some/all of the things you could do with them that gave them a little use before.
Raising the DCs to unobtainable levels, or at least much higher which is functionally the same as removing them.
Reducing your ability to raise those skills without ruining your character by sacrificing something important (anything else).

Maybe they upped some of the DCs? I didn't check, but IIRC that was the argument last time this discussion was going on.

Take Tumble for example.

3.5: Base DC is 15. Moving at full speed instead of half raises it by 5, moving through enemy spaces raises it by 10. This is actually obtainable at the levels it matters, so characters with the ability to Tumble get some benefit from it.

PF: The base DC is much, much higher, quickly hitting high 30s at level 10 and only going up even faster from there. You don't even bother trying, because it won't work anyways and there was no point in burning the resources on that. Besides, you're a Rogue in PF, which means even the 1st edition thief got a better deal than you.

Wait, we're using a one-word change in the minutae of the paladin's code to argue that it was nerfed compared to its 3.5 version?:smallconfused:

Perhaps they are but I am not. Besides, sneaky one word changes is their underlying theme.

Still though, as for skills it is only an improvement if you consider all skills and all skill users to be entirely worthless instead of mostly worthless to be a good thing. And since the only way you could think that is to support the extreme overcentralization inherent to PF, that means even if you do think that you'll have a hard time convincing anyone else to go along with it.

Ravens_cry

2012-02-04, 02:21 PM

I think your making too little of some major improvements and too much of some changes. Smite working until the target is dead, able to bypass ALL damage reduction, a bonus to AC, working by default for both melee and ranged, as well as what it could do before is not insignificant. Being able to self heal both HP and selected afflictions as well as on others much more often is not insignificant. Having either your mount improve like a druids animal companion or getting free, variable magic weapons that stack with existing magic is not insignificant.
Nerf?
What nerf?
And that's just the Vanilla Pathfinder Paladin.
I really don't understand what you mean by "over-centralization"

Coidzor

2012-02-04, 02:24 PM

I really don't understand what you mean by "over-centralization"

Too many people who either all agree or don't want to rock the boat, so there's no interplay of ideas or evolution of them like happened in 3.5? :smallconfused: I'm still not quite sure if that's what's meant myself.

Polarity Shift

2012-02-04, 02:33 PM

Too many people who either all agree or don't want to rock the boat, so there's no interplay of ideas or evolution of them like happened in 3.5? :smallconfused: I'm still not quite sure if that's what's meant myself.

No.

Centralization = the game focuses upon one thing or a group of things.

Overcentralization = the game focuses overly much upon a small subset of itself, such that there are only a tiny handful of viable strategies, making play repetitive and bland as everything else is terrible.

I think your making too little of some major improvements and too much of some changes. Smite working until the target is dead, able to bypass ALL damage reduction, a bonus to AC, working by default for both melee and ranged, as well as what it could do before is not insignificant. Being able to self heal both HP and selected afflictions as well as on others much more often is not insignificant. Having either your mount improve like a druids animal companion or getting free, variable magic weapons that stack with existing magic is not insignificant.
Nerf?
What nerf?
And that's just the Vanilla Pathfinder Paladin.
I really don't understand what you mean by "over-centralization"

They still can't hurt anything. DR, as I mentioned before is a gear check, checking your ability to not care about DR and not your ability to bypass it. You will still be automatically hit. You will still not care about healing a tiny fraction of the damage you just took or will soon take. Lastly, melee and MAD nerfs. They deserve repeating.

Paladins went from potentially playable under a very narrow set of circumstances to being fodder. And since they are usually PCs, even that small benefit - getting easy XP from them is out, because it's the monsters that are killing them.

ScionoftheVoid

2012-02-04, 02:39 PM

Polarity Shift, you haven't specified, within this thread at least, how Pathfinder nerfed MAD and melee characters. Do you mind clarifying?

Hiro Protagonest

2012-02-04, 03:06 PM

Polarity Shift, you haven't specified, within this thread at least, how Pathfinder nerfed MAD and melee characters. Do you mind clarifying?

Well, for one, he thinks you have access to SpC (for the paladin and ranger spells), and Battle Blessing, and perhaps SotAO and Serenity. And Wild Shape and Mystic Ranger ACFs. I don't blame him on SpC, and possibly Battle Blessing, but Pathfinder paladin is less MAD without spending a feat, and SotAO and Bttle Blessing don't work together.

I also never got the Improved Natural Attack thing either. It's 1-2 points of damage. TWF on top of FoB is also something I never got, since the penalty is already big. In PF, certain monk archetypes make the straight monk tier 4, with one combination making it tier 3, while in 3.5, you never went beyond six levels of monk in a monk build.

ScionoftheVoid

2012-02-04, 03:13 PM

Well, for one, he thinks you have access to SpC (for the paladin and ranger spells), and Battle Blessing, and perhaps SotAO and Serenity. And Wild Shape and Mystic Ranger ACFs. I don't blame him on SpC, and possibly Battle Blessing, but Pathfinder paladin is less MAD without spending a feat, and SotAO and Bttle Blessing don't work together.

Okay, that's a start, I suppose. But it's not a "melee" nerf so much as it is a "possible Paladin and Ranger nerf". Nor does it cover nerfs to MAD characters (who I'd have thought do slightly to greatly better with Pathfinder races). Perhaps he's talking about the nerfs to Power Attack and (I have no idea if this is at all accurate, I know only that it's different, not how powerful it is by comparison) special combat actions (such as Trip)?

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-04, 03:16 PM

Im kinda not sure how Power attack PF is worse.

You can get a +10 bonus with only a -5 penalty, or even a +15 bonus with a two handed weapon VS -20 penalty with a +20 bonus.

What am I missing?

Benly

2012-02-04, 03:19 PM

Im kinda not sure how Power attack PF is worse.

You can get a +10 bonus with only a -5 penalty, or even a +15 bonus with a two handed weapon VS -20 penalty with a +20 bonus.

What am I missing?

Leap Attacking Combat Brute/Shock Trooper with a one-level lion totem barbarian dip.

Again, a lot of the "nerfs" are just the result of not having all your billion sourcebooks from 3.5.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-04, 03:30 PM

Leap Attacking Combat Brute/Shock Trooper with a one-level lion totem barbarian dip.

What......

And isn't PF compatible with 3e?

Ravens_cry

2012-02-04, 03:32 PM

How can they "not hurt anything", Polarity Shift?
In any game where HP matters at all, a COre Pathfinder Paladin can give a mighty good smack down I have found, for the features listed and better than before, and far better than a Core 3.5 Paladin.
Not a nerf.

"DR, as I mentioned before is a gear check, checking your ability to not care about DR and not your ability to bypass it. "
And what is that supposed to mean? How is it a nerf? How is "Oh darn, I forgot my Cold Iron Good sword, I only have my Silver Good sword. " is better than "Oh look, I forgot my Cold Iron Good Sword, I only got my sword I can make paste with this baddie regardless with"?
And if your out of smites, there's always Make-Your-Own-Magic-Weapon class ability.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-02-04, 03:33 PM

What......
Shock Trooper transfers the Power Attack penalty to your armor class, Leap Attack improves your PA multiplier on a charge.

And isn't PF compatible with 3e?

We automatically assume pure PF. If the title or the OP explicitly calls for 3.P, then we allow 3.5 material.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-04, 03:37 PM

Oh....Then how did PF nerf "the fighters feats". Simply by not having them? Thats kinda unfair.

Benly

2012-02-04, 03:38 PM

What......

And isn't PF compatible with 3e?

As comes up a few times per thread: 3e material is largely mechanically compatible with PF. This does not mean it is automatically allowed in PF games, in the same way that, for example, the third-party Book of Erotic Fantasy is mechanically compatible with 3e but is not automatically allowed in 3e games.

Polarity Shift

2012-02-04, 04:58 PM

Polarity Shift, you haven't specified, within this thread at least, how Pathfinder nerfed MAD and melee characters. Do you mind clarifying?

Melee nerfs: This is a combination of PA nerfs and maneuver nerfs. Since those two things are the only things they have, and both are nerfed into the ground and replaced with nothing useful...

MAD nerfs: This one again hits everything with a few simple moves. The PB system was changed to further screw over MAD characters, and then once play starts the item system was changed to screw over MAD characters. In both cases they cost more than they otherwise would. Along the same lines those things were changed to favor SAD characters by making them cost less.

I am surprised this isn't common knowledge by now though. These have been known problems since the beginning and talking points shortly thereafter. I'm actually late to the party on this news.

How can they "not hurt anything", Polarity Shift?
In any game where HP matters at all, a COre Pathfinder Paladin can give a mighty good smack down I have found, for the features listed and better than before, and far better than a Core 3.5 Paladin.
Not a nerf.

Exactly as I describe. They cannot hurt anything. They do not hit hard enough to make a difference. They cannot even hope to compare to a 3.5 Paladin who could at least do one thing right - charge the weak point for massive damage.

"DR, as I mentioned before is a gear check, checking your ability to not care about DR and not your ability to bypass it. "
And what is that supposed to mean? How is it a nerf? How is "Oh darn, I forgot my Cold Iron Good sword, I only have my Silver Good sword. " is better than "Oh look, I forgot my Cold Iron Good Sword, I only got my sword I can make paste with this baddie regardless with"?

Once again, it means exactly what I describe. If you are a good melee, you don't care your damage is being reduced by 5 or 10, you're doing enough damage anyways. If you aren't you waste time worrying about that. Which means it's either a non factor, or you are screwed anyways. Since this is PF melee we're talking about, with all the associated nerfs the latter is true.

And if your out of smites, there's always Make-Your-Own-Magic-Weapon class ability.

"I can make a weak weapon I still can't hit hard with!"

Oh....Then how did PF nerf "the fighters feats". Simply by not having them? Thats kinda unfair.

Even if you brought in the 3.5 feats Leap Attack and Shock Trooper you're still stuck with nerfed PA, nerfed maneuvers... you'd still be better off playing 3.5 or not playing a mundane.