Pathfinder vs. D&D 3.5

[Aasimar]

Hey, I realize this may seem weird, even like trolling, but I played a bunch of d&d 3.0 and 3.5 back in the day, then took a long break from it, playing mostly starwars RCR and Starwars Saga.

Then my group wanted to get back into D&D, by which point 4th edition was out. Long story short, after buying lots of books, lots of online access to character builders, etc. We just didn't like it, so we bought the Pathfinder book and the pathfinder advanced book.

Now, it seems to me that Pathfinder is a clear improvement on 3.5, in nearly every way. Yet I see that of the people who did not move over to 4th edition, there is a clear split between people who go for pathfinder, and those who stick with 3.5. (and then there are those who just intermix the two)

Is there something Pathfinder did that messed things up, so some people don't want to move over, is it lack of availability of the books or knowledge that the system exists? Or is it just the fact that there is much more existing material for d&d 3.5 than there ever will be for Pathfinder?

Personally, I can't even imagine going back to playing a 3.5 Paladin, Wizard, Sorcerer, Rogue, Fighter, Monk, etc. after seeing how they were redone in Pathfinder, but I'm curious to hear people's points of view on this.

Am I missing something huge?

[Big Fau]

Yeah, they didn't listen to the people who actually know what is broken, they didn't nerf enough of the spells, and they didn't change enough to really alter the Tiers. Tier 1s are still Tier 1, and Tier 6s got screwed something fierce.

Edit: Bard and Barbarians got shafted hard. Wizards (all ready one of the 6 best classes in the game) got a huge boost at the cost of a few spells. Druids are still 2.5 classes in one. The Fighter's bonus feats got axed.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

They also doubled the feats - in a bad way. Improved Trip now needs another feat to get the old effect.

Multiclassing was axed hard, both with an FAQ saying wizards don't get more spells known from PrCs and the fact that the classes just don't support dips like 3.5 does.

[Mighty_Chicken]

I'll choose PF over 3.5 anytime of the week, but I think the essential complain is that they didn't actually fixed the Tiers. They either like the Linear Warrior Quadratic Mage thing, or accepted that it was impossible to balance D&D without changing it to the core (like 4E and Legend did).

They also made some mistakes. No Fighter Feat in 2nd level? Not a real nerf for the class (since the hige weapon bonuses), but invalidates 2 level dip. Wizards and Sorcerers getting stronger? Ok, maybe these guys did need more survivalability in the first levels, but that was the exact opposite of what everyone was expecting. And reading thru PathFinder core and source books, you find out that WotC's revision and edition is flawless compared to Paizo's.

But the worse thing are the changes... I like most of them, and I think that if I don't like any of them, I'll house rule them out faster then I would do with 3.5 rules. But the bigget hit dice, the role change of Rangers and Bards, the multiclassing rules (that pretty much forbid multiclassing if you want to optimize), the new maneuver rules... they can really change the feeling of the game. I think that's the thing that turns most people away.

But why people just don't pick what they like and forget what they don't? Yeah, this I can't answer.

[Psyren]

For those who stuck with 3.5, there isn't as much difference between 3.5 and PF to justify the switch and learning the new rules. The balance issues in 3.5 were not corrected going into PF, because really doing so would require an entirely new system. (Which is what 4e tried to do.)

They also hurt the balance relative to 3.5 even more - they gave out more feats for instance, but then required melee to need more feats to do many of the things they used to be able to do in 3.5. But the caster's toys like metamagic and item creation take the same number of feats as before. The result is that casters are much more fun to play in Pathfinder, but the gap between them and melee has grown.

In the end it comes down to this: If you want Pathfinder to be a "fixed 3.5," you will be disappointed (and should instead check out Fax's d20r, or perhaps Legend for a more systemic departure.) If you were okay with 3.5 and would just like more of it, Pathfinder is for you.

Pathfinder's biggest advantages are ubiquity, compatibility, and cost.

[Starbuck_II]

Hey, I realize this may seem weird, even like trolling, but I played a bunch of d&d 3.0 and 3.5 back in the day, then took a long break from it, playing mostly starwars RCR and Starwars Saga.

Then my group wanted to get back into D&D, by which point 4th edition was out. Long story short, after buying lots of books, lots of online access to character builders, etc. We just didn't like it, so we bought the Pathfinder book and the pathfinder advanced book.

Now, it seems to me that Pathfinder is a clear improvement on 3.5, in nearly every way. Yet I see that of the people who did not move over to 4th edition, there is a clear split between people who go for pathfinder, and those who stick with 3.5. (and then there are those who just intermix the two)

Is there something Pathfinder did that messed things up, so some people don't want to move over, is it lack of availability of the books or knowledge that the system exists? Or is it just the fact that there is much more existing material for d&d 3.5 than there ever will be for Pathfinder?

Personally, I can't even imagine going back to playing a 3.5 Paladin, Wizard, Sorcerer, Rogue, Fighter, Monk, etc. after seeing how they were redone in Pathfinder, but I'm curious to hear people's points of view on this.

Am I missing something huge?

They nerfed access to sneak attack (but removed most immunities).
Blink, grease, etc no longer provide denying dex to AC (okay Grease denies Dex with AoO but those are hard to count on).

I could go on, but the nerfs really make you limited. Check out the PF boards: they all realize for some reason rogues suck for damage now (which is why Ninja who isn't nerfed is better), but some don't know why. Those of us in the know, realize it is the nerfs.

So Pathfinder is three steps forward, two steps backwards. It is better in some ways but worse in others.

Monks for example are denied Improved Natural attack because the designers don't like Monks doing too much damage. :smallsigh:

[Aasimar]

To me, while these are all valid points, the fact that, for example, Paladin now feels like an actual playable class, the fact that fighter now gets clear and obvious combat bonuses beyond anyone else, the fact that sorcerer no longer feels like simply a gimped wizard, etc. more than makes up for it.

But that's just my opinion. I miss the option of dipping as freely, but I also appreciate there being payoff for staying in one class, to make it a less than idiotic strategy

I think many of the complaints are on how it's a different game in many ways. 2nd level dip into fighter was clever for how that system was, but fighter is no longer the useless-for-anything-but-a-dip class that it used to be.

I think part of the problem may just be that the games are so similar without being the same, so people find themselves frustrated that the same tricks don't always work.

[Hiro]

Personally I like to make characters that combine the benefits of both systems.

Like a Fighter's ability to improve on wepaon damage. Sorcerer bloodlines

but 3.5e PrC's, templates and races.

[Psyren]

I don't really think it's a problem - PF is pretty popular (understatement, I know), so expecting much more out of it when it really boils down to a collection of houserules for 3.5 is unrealistic imo.

There's nothing wrong with some people sticking with 3.5, any more than there is with some people liking to mix both. For the former, I can see how learning all the new rules changes could be an annoying task for comparatively little benefit - and for the latter, the system was designed to be hybridized with 3.5 from the beginning, so 3.P is working as intended.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Don't listen to Big Fau, he's still really mad that they banned him and some others for offering constructive criticism. Pathfinder devs are jerks. They also hate psionics. Barbarian and bard didn't get nerfed, and if they did, it was a very small nerf that just means you have to watch your resources of rage/music more carefully.

Pathfinder is a convoluted mess, but not more than 3.5. Pathfinder is not superior, look past the shiny new fighter and look at the Improved Combat Maneuver feats, as well as the Pathfinder version of Stand Still. Look away from the nerfed Polymorph and see the new wizard features and the fact that they didn't touch the entire conjuration calling and summoning lines, while heavily nerfing BFC that's actually party-friendly, such as Grease to make the enemies flat-footed the rogue to get sneak attacks. They did add some good stuff past the core for mundane classes, but only one combination of archetypes breaks the tier 4/tier 3 barrier, Hungry Ghost Quinggong monk. Sorcerer got a major buff when they didn't need it, and the human sorcerer ARF in the APG is enough to push it to tier 1.

Pathfinder should not be played as a stand-alone. It has "3.5 compatible" for a reason. The best way is to either play 3.5 with Pathfinder melee/mundane classes, archetypes, and feats for the guys that really insist on playing a fighter and not a warblade, but taking the 3.5 version of Improved Combat Maneuver, or Pathfinder base with Tome of Battle stuff. Also allow the paladin to take Battle Blessing. I don't care how much better the paladin is in PF, it's still only tier 4.

[Psyren]

They did add some good stuff past the core for mundane classes, but only one combination of archetypes breaks the tier 4/tier 3 barrier, Hungry Ghost Quinggong monk.

Sacred Servant Paladin also breaks this barrier I'd say.

(So does Gifted Blade Soulknife of course, but that's not by paizo)


Pathfinder should not be played as a stand-alone. It has "3.5 compatible" for a reason. The best way is to either play 3.5 with Pathfinder melee/mundane classes, archetypes, and feats for the guys that really insist on playing a fighter and not a warblade, but taking the 3.5 version of Improved Combat Maneuver, or Pathfinder base with Tome of Battle stuff.

I solidly agree with this. You may need to hunt around to find good conversions for 3.5 classes though.

[Novawurmson]

Is there something Pathfinder did that messed things up, so some people don't want to move over, is it lack of availability of the books or knowledge that the system exists?

The primary "sin" Paizo committed is that they didn't fix every conceivable wrong in the game; at level 20, the Wizard can unmake reality, and the Fighter can hit things (maybe).


Or is it just the fact that there is much more existing material for d&d 3.5 than there ever will be for Pathfinder?

Mathematically, Wizards of the Coast has abandoned 3.5 and is no longer printing the books, while Pathfinder is going strong; as long as they continue releasing books, there will one day be more Pathfinder content than pure 3.5 content.


Personally, I can't even imagine going back to playing a 3.5 Paladin, Wizard, Sorcerer, Rogue, Fighter, Monk, etc. after seeing how they were redone in Pathfinder, but I'm curious to hear people's points of view on this.

In my and my player's experience, the Pathfinder classes are more fun to play because they get at least some small, flavorful ability every level, tend to have higher HP, have a simplified skill system, gain a net-positive on whatever race they pick, and don't feel gimped for not multiclassing or prestige'ing out of their base class. Your mileage may vary.


Am I missing something huge?

Pathfinder is 3.5, just with some minor tweaks. If you like the tweaks (as I do), you'll like Pathfinder. If you don't like the tweaks (as many don't), you won't.

[Chained Birds]

I always liked Barbarians (both 3.5 and PF) and realize that the 1st level Pounce Barbarian will be missed, but the 8th Level Spell Sundering Barbarian will make be strive to go more than a level dip into the class now.

It is still pretty disappointing that I need to take a feat in order for my Barb to not die once he hits the negatives or is unconscious, but now I can choose to use rage more times per day then ever before.

Vanilla rogue pretty much sucks, but Scout rogue is pretty awesome and completely dippable (though a 4 level dip at the lowest) for other charge worthy classes like Cavalier or Beast Totem Barbarian.

The new classes are also fairly interesting, the Alchemist being my favorite amongst the group, as the Alchemist can be many roles. A high damage dealer (Rage), Crowd Control (Vanilla or Grenadier), Rogue (Crypt + Sneak Attack), and plenty more.

I personally prefer the CMD / CMB system more than the usual Touch Attack > Strength Check > Repeat, and even more so concerning the complicating Grapple rules found in 3.5.

Dipping is also pretty lackluster, but I think that is a good thing. Though I wouldn't say this is 100% true
-- LINK (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230500) --

Well those were my points about PF vs 3.5. I have plenty more, but most of those are really personal reasons than anything else.

[OracleofSilence]

That is a little harsh. Wizards gained *a little* but they were good to begin with. Most classes were generally improved, while Bards, Barbarians, and Druids got weakened (rounds not uses per day for bardic music and rage, and worse wildshape for Druids).

Paladins, Rogues, and Sorcerers got massive boosts (Sneak attack for anything, powerhouse smite evil, and Bloodlines for more spells known), while Fighters (now solid tier 4), Rangers, Monks (it should be noted, that with the right Archetypes, Monks can hit a fairly high Tier 4 (Quingong, Hungry Ghost (some would say Monk of Many Styles but that is arguable) is actually really fun and very playable) , Clerics got small but measurable boosts.

Similarly, Archery became one of the best damage seeds in the game.

Now, for the downsides. Prestige classes SUCK. Paizo apparently had some real issues with multiclassing, so while XP penalties are removed, there is little to no reason to multiclass at all (except for wizards who don't get anything good in class features after about 5th level (spells are still good))

Some spells (see Solid Fog, Wish, Polymorph line (except Shapechange),and many others) got nerfed through the floor. Some (see Shapechange, Color Spray, etc) did not.

That's basically it. I personally am unwilling to give up my PrC's and feats, but any DM's are willing to use Backwards Compatibility (TM) to counterbalance this (although there are some issues.

[Big Fau]

Don't listen to Big Fau, he's still really mad that they banned him and some others for offering constructive criticism.

I'll admit that I'm never going to forgive Jason and his cronies for that, but there are parts of PF I'd considered using (basically anything not written by the Paizo dev team, like DSP's Psionics fix).

I will provide a reiteration of an earlier sentiment: If you are familiair with 3.5 and have the books all ready, don't shell out the cash for Pathfinder's rulebooks. It's a collection of house rules and 3rd party support for a discontinued system.

[navar100]

Pathfinder is fine. Anyone who was enraged by 3E won't be satisfied. The only thing that really placates them is getting rid of magic altogether and start over. That is why they play 4E.

Pathfinder magic got rid of save or die. You can still be killed, but changing such spells to 10 damage per level means the warriors can take a hit. That they tend to be fortitude saves at that is even better. Phantasmal Killer is still there though. Pathfinder felt two saves or die is ok. No harm making that 10 damage per level as well. Save or suck still exists. Pathfinder considers that a feature for magic. Some people just hate that. Ergo, they won't be satisfied until magic is gotten rid of altogether and start over, i.e. 4E.

Pathfinder magic got rid of most immunities. They still exist here and there but most spells that used to provide immunities now give a saving throw bonus to such things, usually +4. That is not enough to satisfy some people. Hello 4E.

Pathfinder does not believe 3E magic system so horribly broken it needs to be abolished. They made their tweaks. That is not enough to satisfy some people.

As for non-magic stuff:

All classes are worth taking to 20th level.

All warrior classes get class features. Fighters can swap out feats, don't suck for wearing heavy armor, and get bonuses to hit and damage without needing to specialize.

Sorcerers get real class features such that going into a prestige class is a tough choice. That sorcerers are "stronger" for this is a feature, not a bug. Enraged? See above.

Skills are consolidated. Still sucks Fighters only get 2 + Int but no cross-class penalties helps. Minimum 13 Intelligence for some feat requirements, human, plus favored class bonus is 5 skills points a level. 10th level Fighter can have +10 Perception, +16 if spend a feat on Skill Focus. That is not bad.

Pathfinder probably made a mistake in feats. 3E combat maneuver feats allowing tripping, disarming, etc. got split up. It takes two or three feats in Pathfinder what you could do in 3E. On the plus side, critical hit feats allow warriors to provide negative conditions to their enemies when scoring a critical hit. Sword and shield style is a viable combat option. Two-weapon style is still hampered with heavy DX requirement, but it has some support.

Pathfinder Power Attack I call a wash instead of a nerf. You can't get very high damage out of it as in 3E, but it's still decent damage, one-handed weapons get good use out of it, and it's why sword & shield style is viable since while two-handed weapons get even more damage with it, it is not overwhelmingly so. I call this a good thing. Warriors are not lacking for damage with the Power Attack change.

[Coidzor]

The main thing that you and many others like you are missing is that there's no intrinsic need to go whole-hog one way or the other.

It's a vastly superior experience to blend the two together. 3.P, if you will. :smallwink:


Don't listen to Big Fau, he's still really mad that they banned him and some others for offering constructive criticism.

That's... That's not indicative of anything at all, then? :smallconfused:

Like, perhaps, some kind of fundamental flaw in the design process? Or maybe just an ego problem? Possibly just a lack of forethought on how to engage with the public despite promising to actually engage with the public?

[Aasimar]

The assumption being that someone barred from taking part in a project might call 'sour grapes' on the whole thing out of spite?

[Psyren]

Like, perhaps, some kind of fundamental flaw in the design process? Or maybe just an ego problem? Possibly just a lack of forethought on how to engage with the public despite promising to actually engage with the public?

I don't think anyone should form any conclusions about that incident without seeing the threads where it happened firsthand. I certainly won't. Do they still exist?

And even if they were totally irrational egomaniacs when that happened, I'm still going to judge the system on its own merits.

[Reverent-One]

Pathfinder should not be played as a stand-alone. It has "3.5 compatible" for a reason. The best way is to either play 3.5 with Pathfinder melee/mundane classes, archetypes, and feats for the guys that really insist on playing a fighter and not a warblade, but taking the 3.5 version of Improved Combat Maneuver, or Pathfinder base with Tome of Battle stuff. Also allow the paladin to take Battle Blessing. I don't care how much better the paladin is in PF, it's still only tier 4.

I disagree. Pathfinder works fine as a standalone. Nothing wrong with combining the two if you want, of course, but either way is viable. It's really just a matter of playstyle preference and how much material the DM wants to have to manage in the game to determine for which is better for any given group.

[Coidzor]

And even if they were totally irrational egomaniacs when that happened, I'm still going to judge the system on its own merits.

I do, however, the underlying design philosophy and view of the community that the designers and professionals behind the game possess is going to have no small effect on their product.

Like, say, if they view us as rubes that deserve to be tricked (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142)and as a result put in trap options intentionally. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2292.0) Granted, this particular example is from D&D 3rd Edition, but that's definitely not something one would want to see getting grandfathered into a successor system.

The handy links the Pathfinder SRD includes to when the people behind Pathfinder try to talk to their own forums have mostly confirmed my personal concerns about their design philosophy that were raised by their earlier actions, sadly.

[Lappy9001]

Pathfinder isn't nearly as afraid as 3.5 is to give characters nice things. Many classes that didn't have class features before (Cleric, Fighter, Sorcerer, Wizard) now have oodles of options that are all free on line (ta-daa! (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/)).

A lot of people have a bad taste in their mouth about the system, but navar100's summary is quite accurate. It's worth noting that Pathfinder hardware is of excellent quality, and if you're interested in getting newbies into the game, the Pathfinder Beginner Box is a wonderful resource.

Did I mention everything is free?

[Grommen]

The problem with over powered spells has existed well before 3.0. It goes back to at least AD&D (where I started playing).

In all honesty if one is hell bent on wrecking your game by pointing out the imbalances between classes. They will. No tweeking will help. If player #1 can do X and player #2 can do Y. One will always be better. That is why their is a DM to bring balance to the game.

On the surface Pathfinder is almost 3.5. Once you have plaied it a wile the differences are their. Some better, some worse. A lot of the spells that caused a lot of grief have been changed. Over all the weaker classes got more powerful bonuses.

CMB/CMD made combats a lot more colorful and a lot less hacking and slashing. Simply because in the middle of a fight you don't have to look up the rules. It's the same mechanic. Now after a few levels (say 10) the special maneuvers are harder to do because they put DEX bonus in the equation. This makes monsters who have high STR and DEX very hard to trip, push, grapple etc. Ya that sucks, but it's work aroundable. Epically with fighters. And to boot wizard spells like Black Tentials and Telekinisis now use the same CMB/CMD system. So to me this is a win. Players use it a lot more often.

I have not noticed any difficulty multi classing. Other than I've come to hate doing that with characters. I'm a one class/prestige class person now. Less it's a fighter/mage hybrid. I think this is because I've found both 3.0 and PF to be rather tedious and over complex (sometimes I think for the sake of being complex).

In the end I guess the biggest selling point for me is that Pathfinder is not dead. Say what you want about Pazio, but they kept D&D alive and kicking. Wizards has totally trashed my game. "Healing Phase" :smallfurious: I'll show you a "Healing Phase"

[Mighty_Chicken]

Monks for example are denied Improved Natural attack because the designers don't like Monks doing too much damage. :smallsigh:

And why is this important? Just house rule that it isn't denied. I understand why some people don't house rule 3.5, but why is anyone afraid of house ruling Pathfinder, which is just a house rules patch?

[Psyren]

Like, say, if they view us as rubes that deserve to be tricked (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142)and as a result put in trap options intentionally. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2292.0) Granted, this particular example is from D&D 3rd Edition, but that's definitely not something one would want to see getting grandfathered into a successor system.

That's a bit melodramatic, don't you think? Clearly you're not a "rube" - you have access to the internet and can read a gaming forum to learn which classes or builds are less powerful than they may appear to be. But even among those who know better, Fighters are still an attractive choice for their early-game strength and ease of play. Removing them from the game, or turning them into Warblades, would have been lauded on gaming forums but decried at gaming tables everywhere for being "too anime." (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070911)

As he says in the article, I'm fine with the "more honest, conversational approach" - but I don't think its lack really harms the majority of gaming groups out there in any material way, either.

[NoldorForce]

And why is this important? Just house rule that it isn't denied. I understand why some people don't house rule 3.5, but why is anyone afraid of house ruling Pathfinder, which is just a house rules patch?Just because you can fix it doesn't mean it's not a problem to be fixed.

@ Grommen: Healing phase? I assume you're referring to healing surges?

[Coidzor]

That's a bit melodramatic, don't you think? Clearly you're not a "rube" - you have access to the internet and can read a gaming forum to learn which classes or builds are less powerful than they may appear to be. But even among those who know better, Fighters are still an attractive choice for their early-game strength and ease of play. Removing them from the game, or turning them into Warblades, would have been lauded on gaming forums but decried at gaming tables everywhere for being "too anime." (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070911)

We were all new at some point, Psyren. And as you've seen more than your fair share of Monkdays, you know that there are *still* people out there with access to the internet and our forums who believe that Fighters and Monks are equal or superior to Wizards. Which is fairly widely considered here to be a lie told and encouraged by WOTC, well, at least the equality part, last I checked.

And I sincerely doubt that a well-done and competently delivered system for martial characters to contribute that was part of the system from the get-go would have been decried as "too anime." I've never really heard that complaint amongst 4e players, for instance, aside from the ones who went there from 3e after already being wrongheaded about ToB.

[Psyren]

We were all new at some point, Psyren. And as you've seen more than your fair share of Monkdays, you know that there are *still* people out there with access to the internet and our forums who believe that Fighters and Monks are equal or superior to Wizards. Which is fairly widely considered here to be a lie told and encouraged by WOTC, well, at least the equality part, last I checked.

As long as those people are having fun, their incorrect estimations of class power level don't really matter to me.

It's the players that come onto the forum having realized that they AREN'T having fun - that fighters and monks are distinctly lacking in a variety of situations - those are the ones I am concerned with. And once they achieve that realization, they are ready to move on to more complex classes - unless they're actively prevented from doing so by their DM, which is a separate problem that the system can't and shouldn't be expected to fix.

The beauty of Pathfinder is that they can do this with a scant 3 books, or even as few as zero if they're okay with relying on SRD content. Compare to their inspiration, Magic, where trying something new means playing the gambling game with booster packs or shelling out for expensive singles.


And I sincerely doubt that a well-done and competently delivered system for martial characters to contribute that was part of the system from the get-go would have been decried as "too anime." I've never really heard that complaint amongst 4e players, for instance, aside from the ones who went there from 3e after already being wrongheaded about ToB.

Of course you didn't hear that complaint from 4e players - the martial system was never 4e's problem. Rather, dissatisfaction with 4e comes from its magic - casters that can barely summon, where all the interesting magic is consigned to Rituals, where players can't create items, where out-of-combat uses for powers are drastically limited etc.

But as far as ToB being "anime" - you and I both know that's a meaningless term and that ToB is fine, but we're in the minority. Would I have wanted Pathfinder to add a ToB-esque quadratic system for melee? Absolutely, but I can't fault them for not including something like that at the outset, not when they were and are still trying to win people over from D&D.

Maybe 5th Edition will finally do fighters right in a way that appeals to system masters but won't alienate newer players. That's a tall order, and nobody ever went broke aiming at the lower denominator, but we'll see.

[Grommen]

Just because you can fix it doesn't mean it's not a problem to be fixed.

@ Grommen: Healing phase? I assume you're referring to healing surges?

Ooopps Ya Healing surge. Just hear that and my skin crawls.

[Gnaeus]

It's the players that come onto the forum having realized that they AREN'T having fun - that fighters and monks are distinctly lacking in a variety of situations - those are the ones I am concerned with. And once they achieve that realization, they are ready to move on to more complex classes - unless they're actively prevented from doing so by their DM, which is a separate problem that the system can't and shouldn't be expected to fix.

Regarding monks, they did fix it, just not in core. The 3.5 monk player gets shunted to psionics or unarmed swordsage. The PF monk player gets pointed to the bottom of the SRD where it talks about archetypes/ACFs. Most people agree that the Qinggong/Hungry Ghost monk is T3ish.

[Big Fau]

Regarding monks, they did fix it, just not in core. The 3.5 monk player gets shunted to psionics or unarmed swordsage. The PF monk player gets pointed to the bottom of the SRD where it talks about archetypes/ACFs. Most people agree that the Qinggong/Hungry Ghost monk is T3ish.

I'd have to disagree with Hungry Ghost pushing the class into Tier 3 (Punishing Kick works 1/round, the abilities are spread out over very dead levels, over half of it is reliant on killing blows/crits which the PF Monk can't do very efficiently, and the temp HP boost isn't that good). It might hit Tier 4, but only if there are a lot of viable Ki-based feats (in which case the Hungry Ghost Monk is an example of optimization raising a class a full Tier).

Quinggong, however, is actually capable of pushing the class into the Tier 4/3 range. It still has a large number of weak levels though.




The main issue with the Monk in PF is that it doesn't do that well in a pure-PF game; the best friends a Monk has are in 3.5 (discounting Quinggong for the moment), like being able to turn invisible at will (Exemplars of Evil), several PrCs, and a bunch of damage boosters that PF didn't port over.

[Fatebreaker]

That's a bit melodramatic, don't you think? Clearly you're not a "rube" - you have access to the internet and can read a gaming forum to learn which classes or builds are less powerful than they may appear to be.

Remember that a lot of these older games were designed in a day and age when gaming forums and the internet were not nearly so prevalent or convenient as they are today.

That, and the attitude of the developers does matter. They may be wrong about whether or not their playerbase is a bunch of rubes, but if they think that way, it will still influence their decision-making.

What's especially funny about the link Coidzar gave is that it shows how Monte Cook doesn't even understand what a Timmy Card is.

He described a Timmy Card as...

These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other.

Now check out how Mark Rosewater, the guy behind the Timmy/Johnny/Spike concept, describes Timmy and Timmy Cards:


"Timmy plays with cards that make him happy; cards that create cool moments; cards that make him laugh; cards that allow him to hang with his friends; cards that cause him to have fun."

"Timmy wants to smash his opponents. He likes his cards to be impressive, and he enjoys playing big creatures and big spells."

Those are two very different things. Cook wants Timmy Cards to look enticing but actually punish the inexperienced. At best, it's something that a smart player just doesn't take, because he realizes that the game is lying to him.

But the actual purpose of Timmy Cards is to appeal to and reward a certain type of player. Timmy is not a trap -- it's a very valid mindset.

By the way, for anyone interested, links to the Timmy/Johnny/Spike articles are...
Part I (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b)
Part II (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b)
...which is where I got my quotes from. And it's worth reading, since it can help you understand what you want out of a game, or what the other people at the table want out the game. It can go a long way towards helping you select the right game system.

[Engine]

the role change of Rangers and Bards

Could you explain this to me, please?

[Psyren]

Those are two very different things. Cook wants Timmy Cards to look enticing but actually punish the inexperienced. At best, it's something that a smart player just doesn't take, because he realizes that the game is lying to him.


I disagree; Pure Timmy cards DO punish the inexperienced. A card like Krosan Cloudscraper (http://magiccards.info/le/en/130.html) or Autochthon Wurm (http://magiccards.info/rav/en/191.html) looks fantastic to Timmy, but in reality you need to understand the system to realize why these options are less than stellar in practice. The system is rewarding you for learning how the game works, just as it is in 3.x and PF.

[Chained Birds]

I disagree; Pure Timmy cards DO punish the inexperienced. A card like Krosan Cloudscraper (http://magiccards.info/le/en/130.html) or Autochthon Wurm (http://magiccards.info/rav/en/191.html) looks fantastic to Timmy, but in reality you need to understand the system to realize why these options are less than stellar in practice. The system is rewarding you for learning how the game works, just as it is in 3.x and PF.

I have that card, but seeing as I'm more of a blue or black player, I never would put it in a deck.
Wait, when did this devolve into talking about Magic? :smallconfused:

Regardless, I feel (as a person who started with 3.5) that PF is a better game for new people who want to get into D&D, but don't wish to try out 4e for some reason. I've played 4e a few times, and found myself having fun but also getting bored even though I was always doing various different actions every turn during combat. Out-of-combat stuff in 4e however is pretty pathetic, because now I feel all I can do is rely on a few generalized skills that everyone else equally has maxed out and never practically use any of my actual abilities ever.
PF has the broken magics of 3.5, but I'll take fun (and potentially broken) utility spells, over being able to do nothing interesting when not fighting, any day.

[nightwyrm]

Just to chime in as a Magic player. Yes, some (ok, quite a bit) of Timmy cards are bad in constructed but a number of them are really meant to be limited staples and bombs (ie. dragons). Furthermore, Timmy doesn't necessarily mean bad player.

Cook's error is to confuse Timmy cards with "skill-tester" cards. For example, Eager Cadet (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=83064) is definitely not a Timmy card but a skill-tester.

[ericgrau]

IMO stay with 3.5. It's not that PF did anything terribly bad, it's that they didn't change very much. Whether people like it or hate it, it is over small things. So IMO stay with 3.5, but if you really like what PF did then fine go for it.

What I do find appealing are the new classes and feats. You could do a 3.5/PF mix using either system for the basic rules but allowing character creation material from both systems. Keep in mind that PF gave minor boosts to all classes (just look at a PF core class vs. a PHB one, for example), so you'll have to address that somehow.

Or try out PF temporarily for a change of pace, getting the Advanced Player's Guide and maybe more for more new options to toy with. It's more that I'm saying don't bother with PF. I'm not recommending strongly against it and it's perfectly fine to play. I was in a PF group for a while and it went well. And the new options are quite fun.

[Gnaeus]

I'd have to disagree with Hungry Ghost pushing the class into Tier 3 (Punishing Kick works 1/round, the abilities are spread out over very dead levels, over half of it is reliant on killing blows/crits which the PF Monk can't do very efficiently, and the temp HP boost isn't that good). It might hit Tier 4, but only if there are a lot of viable Ki-based feats (in which case the Hungry Ghost Monk is an example of optimization raising a class a full Tier).

Quinggong, however, is actually capable of pushing the class into the Tier 4/3 range.

I meant both together. They substitute different things.

[Big Fau]

I meant both together. They substitute different things.

Point conceded then.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

If you're DMing, IMO your best bet is to exploit as much content as possible in a very open 3.P. By this I mean you start with Pathfinder + DSP Psionics, then you convert any 3.5 material someone wants to use (IME it's easy peasy). As a final, controversial step, potentially allow same-named abilities/feats/spells/whatever from 3.5 by renaming them, but do this part on a case-by-case basis. Some things that were changed, like Polymorph, were changed for good reason. Other things which were changed, like Power Attack or Persistent Spell, are quite different in 3.5 and PF, but both iterations are potentially worthwhile to take.

If you're playing and you get a DM who does something like this, you're a lucky man. Most of the time 3.P means "Pathfinder + a few 3.5 things the DM likes," but the thing is 3.5 often means the same thing minus pathfinder.

So...

3.5 Core < Pathfinder Core < Full Pathfinder < Full 3.5 < Full 3.P

Where semi 3.P probably falls between Full PF and Full 3.5 depending on the material allowed. Side note: Insofar as PF encourages the DM to introduce crit and fumble decks PF is terribad.

[Coidzor]

Just to chime in as a Magic player. Yes, some (ok, quite a bit) of Timmy cards are bad in constructed but a number of them are really meant to be limited staples and bombs (ie. dragons). Furthermore, Timmy doesn't necessarily mean bad player.

Cook's error is to confuse Timmy cards with "skill-tester" cards. For example, Eager Cadet (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=83064) is definitely not a Timmy card but a skill-tester.

Or, perhaps, his error was in poor game design and applying a collectible trading card game's philosophy to a roleplaying game.

Or it was just incompetence that he was trying to cover up by claiming malfeasance.

Neither really seems good or like things I'd want to continue seeing in RPG game design though, and I don't know why any consumer would. Granted, I'm not what you'd call a typical player of collectible card games, but that I can't see any appeal for more experienced players in getting wins that are due less to their own skill or good strategy so much as my opponent's incompetence, ignorance, or simply being completely new to the game.

And a generally cooperative pen and paper RPG doesn't even really have that going for it.

[nightwyrm]

Or, perhaps, his error was in poor game design and applying a collectible trading card game's philosophy to a roleplaying game.

Or it was just incompetence that he was trying to cover up by claiming malfeasance.

In the article, I was referring to his use of the terms in the article only.



Granted, I'm not what you'd call a typical player of collectible card games, but that I can't see any appeal for more experienced players in getting wins that are due less to their own skill or good strategy so much as my opponent's incompetence, ignorance, or simply being completely new to the game.

Knowledge of the game and knowing how to construct your deck is a huge part of skill and strategy. And because in organized play, money and prizes are involved.

[Psyren]

Just to chime in as a Magic player. Yes, some (ok, quite a bit) of Timmy cards are bad in constructed but a number of them are really meant to be limited staples and bombs (ie. dragons). Furthermore, Timmy doesn't necessarily mean bad player.

Constructed is the main analogy here, since you're unlikely to make a character out of randomized splat books sight unseen :smalltongue:

Anyway - the things is, most Timmy cards ARE skill-testers. It takes skill to see past the big numbers to the true utility beneath, just like it takes skill to see past the fighter's full BAB/beefy d10/proficiencies/feats to the true utility a class can provide.


Or, perhaps, his error was in poor game design and applying a collectible trading card game's philosophy to a roleplaying game.

I don't think that's poor design though. Design principles come from a wide variety of sources, and I definitely think there is merit to the concept of system mastery and variegated choices.

[Particle_Man]

I am playing both. They are pretty much the same game, as far as I can tell. they use different splat books once you get beyond core. The only thing is I have to remember which ruleset I am using (since they are close, I sometimes mix things up a bit). Edition fugue, like when 3.0 changed to 3.5.

I am playing a 1st level ranger in a Pathfinder-only campaign (but the campaign world is mostly humans and undead (a few other humanoids and giants, later dragons and demons, but still mainly humans and undead even then) with few terrain types were we are (plains, underground, urban, so far), so this is going to help the ranger a lot). I am playing a 13th level crusader reincarnated as a treant in 3.5 (this is wacky but lots of fun) (since I get to keep my 13 crusader levels and am being treated as 13th level for xp purposes (mind you, no treant level HD), I don't feel any "tier envy" of the casters right now. :) Anyhow, I am happy with both games. The feel is the same, to me.

I personally think that rogues were improved, and have a reason to stick around to level 20. The skill consolidation helps them.

I agree that prestige classes don't seem to have that much compared to the base classes, but then again the spy prestige class in apg combined with assassin at least keeps the death attack going to level 20 (if one is not patient enough to take rogue 20 or bard 20 for the "I kill you if you fail this save" power).

I think the witch is pretty fun too in PF. Then again I would like to try a vow of poverty incarnate in 3.5 sometime. So far neither of my d20 DMs wants to "Cross the Streams" as it were.

I think that sorcerers were improved enough that I played one "self-nerfed" by taking only illusion spells without arcane foci or significant material components (except the arcane bloodline spells). And that was before the APG came out. I had a blast, mind you. :)

I think that grappling got a bit worse in PF, but I wasn't the grappler, someone else was, so who knows.

I also play Anima: Beyond Fantasy, and I don't have edition fugue there. I have issues with the English translation, mind . . . :smallbiggrin:

[Coidzor]

Knowledge of the game and knowing how to construct your deck is a huge part of skill and strategy. And because in organized play, money and prizes are involved.

Then there's no point to the game if the human element is that irrelevant, such that the only thing that matters is the deck construction. :smallconfused: I mean, if that were the case, you'd just compare the decks and that would be sufficient.

But, at any rate, the points about the mystery of satisfaction at winning out over people who don't know anything and how something like D&D which is not completely and utterly PVP doesn't really need or demand that paradigm of having to be better than someone else stand.

[eggs]

I prefer to play Pathfinder, because whatever marginal slaps it gave to balance, it made playing the game a whole lot easier. Both in-session (skill rank mechanics, CMB) and out (archetypes largely replace prestige classes in function, making planned character progression less of a necessary chore). Actually fleshing out class abilities and providing some distinguishing features within the classes also helps.

I prefer to nerd out over the internet in 3.5. The obnoxious prerequisite chains, crossclass skill fiddliness and favored class restrictions that are just a PITA in play make character-building a way more interesting puzzle to tinker with and try to smooth out.

Though I see no problem with mixing them.* The PF base classes are jut more interesting than their 3.5 counterparts, and rarely noticeably more powerful. Jason doesn't like giving Monks Dark Moon sub levels and WotC never gave its archers Deadly Accuracy, but that doesn't mean that putting those sorts of overlaps into the game will tear anything apart.

*Or in throwing in 3rd party books. Or homebrew. Or grammatically inconsistent dandiwiki pages that inexplicably transform into basil-tomato chicken recipes half-way down. Anything. After a group's screwed around with 3e for over a decade, anything that's not another Hellfire Ur-Lock, DMM:Persist Cleric, Knockback Battlejumper, cookie-cutter Sorcadin, &c. is always welcome.

[Acanous]

Then there's no point to the game if the human element is that irrelevant, such that the only thing that matters is the deck construction. :smallconfused: I mean, if that were the case, you'd just compare the decks and that would be sufficient.

But, at any rate, the points about the mystery of satisfaction at winning out over people who don't know anything and how something like D&D which is not completely and utterly PVP doesn't really need or demand that paradigm of having to be better than someone else stand.

Back in High School when I got into Magic, I had this philosophy that each one mana spent should give me a permanent, at least 1/1 if a creature, and an ability. Bare minimum. Any card that did not place a permanent on the field should either have a non-mana way to pay for it, or should *Win me the game*.

That's how I started building decks, and it worked really, really well. Based on that alone I got to completely ignore "Trap" cards, and due to the pure diversity of options, the "Skilled use" cards that veto'd weren't essential to my builds.

Same philosophy can be applied to D&D/pathfinder, but substitute "Mana" for "Class Level", and each different class is a different colour of Mana.
PrCs are gold cards.
Just like in Magic, not all prestige classes are good, and you don't need them in your game to have fun and win, but some of the very best, most powerful or most useful things in the game come from prestige classes (like Ur-priest, Planar Shepard, Incantatrix)
Pathfinder, though, decided that gold cards must be Blessed with Suck (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlessedWithSuck), and objectively worse than going monocolour in any situation where you've got at least 4 players.

[Fatebreaker]

I disagree; Pure Timmy cards DO punish the inexperienced. A card like Krosan Cloudscraper (http://magiccards.info/le/en/130.html) or Autochthon Wurm (http://magiccards.info/rav/en/191.html) looks fantastic to Timmy, but in reality you need to understand the system to realize why these options are less than stellar in practice. The system is rewarding you for learning how the game works, just as it is in 3.x and PF.

A Timmy card does not punish a Timmy, even if a Spike would see it as a suboptimal option. A card that deliberately pretends to be a Timmy card and never delivers on the facets that make it attractive to Timmy is not a Timmy card.

It's a subtle but distinct difference. As Rosewater said...


Timmy isn't an idiot. Timmy just chooses his cards for his own purposes. It's not the reason Johnny and Spike choose their cards, but then that's the entire point of psychographic profiles - to explain how different players are motivated by different criteria.

A Timmy card meets Timmy's needs. That makes it good for him. Now, if someone don't realize the kind of player they are (say they're a Johnny who thinks their a Timmy), sure, than they'll be punished for their inexperience. But that's not the game system, that's them. The designers made an option for someone who enjoys [x], and that option fulfills need [x]. The player was just looking for the wrong thing; they wanted [y].

For example, insisting that Timmy cards are skill-testers is a very Johnny trait. It focuses more on questions of skill and innovation than on how it makes the player feel. In D&D, wanting to play a barbarian because you just watched Conan the Barbarian and you want to recreate how awesome that movie made you feel is a Timmy thing; wanting to play a barbarian because you want to prove you can make a competitive barbarian character is a Johnny thing. The barbarian class can appeal to both types of players, but it does so for different reasons.

When Timmy realizes that the barbarian class doesn't do what it claims to do (and, as a result, it doesn't make him feel like a kickass barbarian), telling Timmy that he's "ready to move on to more complex classes" is totally missing why he wanted to play a barbarian in the first place. Timmy's not playing for skill. He's playing to experience something.

Which brings us to rewards. Cook uses the T/J/S profiles incorrectly, so folks who go in as a Timmy find the options that appeal to them, only to realize that there's no payout. It was a trap!

That's a bad game design because the group you're trying to appeal to (Timmy) doesn't feel rewarded by avoiding land mines. Spike might (since he's now more likely to win). Johnny does (since it shows he understands the intricacies of the system). But by aiming the lead-in at one group and the reward at another, you punish one style of players for making a decision you told them they would enjoy, and you "reward" another style in a way that only benefits them by choosing not to be punished. If that option wasn't appealing to them anyway, that's not much of a reward.

If you want to reward experienced players, the trick is to make good options, with better options tailored to fit the specific needs of the experienced player. As players become more experienced, they find the options that meet their needs, and take those. Other options are still viable for players who have other needs; each player is rewarded by learning, finding, and using what works for them.

In short, you reward players by providing options which match their needs and having their choices pay off.

[Chained Birds]

Then there's no point to the game if the human element is that irrelevant, such that the only thing that matters is the deck construction. :smallconfused: I mean, if that were the case, you'd just compare the decks and that would be sufficient.

You should see Yu-gi-oh players. If their decks aren't built around tournament winner decks then their likelihood of ever winning is largely forfeited.
At least magic grants you more options on what sort of deck you'd like to make and endless splatbooks (aka boosters) that will allow you to expand on those options. I should know, my roommate and most of our friends are into it and it can be boring seeing the same decks winning online over and over again. Though Magic (when not including all cards) starts to look this way in many tournaments as well...

[MukkTB]

Pathfinders biggest sin was building its game balance off a poor understanding of high optimization and holding people who understood high optimization in contempt. IE banning people who argued with devs and other fun things. Most feat changes resemble something a low-op group might decide to do based off a little experience with the feats. Class changes indicate little understanding of the tier system ect.

There isn't anything wrong with catering to low op players. Low op players at low levels probably make up the majority of the player base. The problem is in rejecting the high op understanding of things because of intentions to cater to low op. I'm trying to think of a good analogy. Lets just leave it that in any field you're better off knowing what the expert opinion is. If you differ from that opinion that difference should be based off more than a gut feeling or a dislike of experts.


3.Xs biggest sin is neatly described by Fatebreaker. 3.5 failed to understand how to reward Timmy. It played a dirty trick on him instead.


I personally play 3.P. because I like a lot of the PF changes like skills and CMD, but I don't like what they did to feats.

[Psyren]

A Timmy card does not punish a Timmy, even if a Spike would see it as a suboptimal option. A card that deliberately pretends to be a Timmy card and never delivers on the facets that make it attractive to Timmy is not a Timmy card.

But without significant optimization, those cards DON'T deliver, just as Fighters don't without significant optimization. They both die to cheap removal (Terror/Doom Blade etc.) just as easily. They're success - again, just like Fighter's - depends on their path being so clear of obstacles that the game may as well be warped around them.



A Timmy card meets Timmy's needs. That makes it good for him.

His need is to play the meatiest creature on the battlefield, regardless of complex concerns about card advantage and tempo. How is that a different need than the fighter player merely wanting a class that lets them smash face, without complex concerns like tier systems?

When he starts factoring in those other necessary conditions to keep his big creature safe, then we've shifted from pure Timmy to Timmy-Johnny or Timmy-Spike.



3.Xs biggest sin is neatly described by Fatebreaker. 3.5 failed to understand how to reward Timmy. It played a dirty trick on him instead.


I still don't see it that way. The "dirty trick" makes him ultimately a better player. It's a rite of passage, not a sin.

[Coidzor]

I still don't see it that way. The "dirty trick" makes him ultimately a better player. It's a rite of passage, not a sin.

I, for one, am not entirely comfortable with the idea of deception-based education.

Especially in this context, where one doesn't have to purposefully make bad options, much less go on to dress them up as trap options and professional pride is one of those things where people should at least be double-checking in order to try to not accidentally make bad options.

Further, Spike, as I understand him, is one of those personality types that doesn't really mesh with PnP RPGs, as I understand them, since one does not "win D&D." One certainly does not "win D&D" at the expense of someone else or by exploiting another person, whether through the other person's ignorance relative to their own system mastery or social engineering.

The only time I've heard about "Spike" behavior in a D&D group it has either been someone trolling the rest of the group as a joke or someone who seriously was a "Bad Munchkin." Well, that and this one old D&D webcomic where there was an order of self-avowed munchkins or some other title that purposefully went around and tried to ruin and destroy as many games as possible.

[Psyren]

"Bad" is a relative term though. A simple class like Warlock is "bad" when compared to a sorcerer, but for new players and DMs alike it's a wonderful class. For the DM, it is easy to challenge and predict what it can do; for the player, it conveys core principles of the game in an easy-to-digest format, gives them a breadth of options, and later rewards system mastery once they get into the crafting aspect or begin combining blast shapes and essences effectively.

It's also not about "winning D&D" - it's about having an objective, and building your deck/character in the most effective way to achieve that objective given the constraints of the rules.

Newer players are in it to have a good time, and only later will concepts like party utility and versatility really come into play. A player who picks Fighter is imagining themselves cleaving through swaths of bugbears - they're certainly not planning for diplomatic relations between the elves and orcs, fighting ghosts and shadows, or taking down a harpy that flies just out of reach while singing. Now, you can infodump all of that necessary utility on them at once - or you can have them learn by doing (and even failing) which internalizes the message much more swiftly.


Where I think D&D, and even Pathfinder, has failed - no player class should be below T4 effectiveness. T5 and 6 are really where the game breaks down and the DM has to step in to ensure the continuation of fun. T4s can get into a lot of trouble, sure, but they have the tools to get out of it too.

I don't have a problem with 5e having some classes weaker than others, so long as the ranges are not as wide as they were in 3e. Their big mistake in 4e was aiming for "one-tier" gameplay, and that's a one-way ticket to homogeny land from where I'm sitting.

[Venser]

This is the situation:

PF is a 3,5 rip-off, we all know it, and it did not manage what it set out to do, which is fix the balance in 3,5. If anything, it made some classes even more broken. It also complicated some stuff and failed with feats.

The only thing keeping PF society alive are the adventure modules.

PF got popular because the 4th edition failed and 3,5 was no longer being printed. Even now, more people still prefer 3,5 over PF. IMO, it is not worth playing, it is basicaly a more unbalanced and nerfed version of 3,5.

Also, if you plan on trying PF and sticking to it...don't.
The system will die the minute the 5th edition comes out(in case it turns out good, because lets be honest, the only reason PF was made and is still alive is beacuse the 4th edition sucked the big one).

[Reverent-One]

This is the situation:

PF is a 3,5 rip-off, we all know it, and it did not manage what it set out to do, which is fix the balance in 3,5. If anything, it made some classes even more broken. It also complicated some stuff and failed with feats.


Where did Piazo say their goal was to fix the balance in in 3.5? From the list here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_Roleplaying_Game#Goals), balance issues were only one small part of one design goal. Their design goals of adding options to classes, compatibility with 3.5, and streamlined rules are ones they did mostly hit.

[Voyager_I]

I don't have a problem with 5e having some classes weaker than others, so long as the ranges are not as wide as they were in 3e. Their big mistake in 4e was aiming for "one-tier" gameplay, and that's a one-way ticket to homogeny land from where I'm sitting.

One-Tier gameplay is actually a very good thing. The problem is that it's incredibly difficult to accomplish without making unacceptable sacrifices in other areas of the game, and it is not a penultimate design goal.

The real objective here is to create a framework that lets people give form to their fantasies. As long as everyone is able to participate meaningfully, it's okay if some characters end up being a bit stronger than others. Perfect balance would be ideal, but creating a system where an incredibly diverse range of characters can be created while keeping everybody equal without even trying to be is more or less impossible, so we shouldn't worry about it too much.

3.5's problem is that the power disparities are simply too large, and it gets to the point where some characters simply can't be represented in a way that makes them capable of what you imagine them doing without a near-ludicrous amount of system mastery (and splatbooks).

[Psyren]

{scrubbed}

[Neoxenok]

Is there something Pathfinder did that messed things up, so some people don't want to move over, is it lack of availability of the books or knowledge that the system exists? Or is it just the fact that there is much more existing material for d&d 3.5 than there ever will be for Pathfinder?
What pathfinder did with the 3.5 edition of the game is basically what many, many people have been asking for and many more improvements that werent' asked for but were happy to receive anyway. Some people don't feel that pathfinder went far enough, but I'm not one of those people.

For example, some classes weren't viable without a prestige class (sorcerer, fighter, paladin, etc) because so many of the class levels were simply either dead or didnt' provide as good as a benefit as a prestige class or combination of prestige classes. In all my years of playing D&D I'm glad to have a version of the game where I don't have to come up with some ridiculous combination of classes, prestige classes, feats, and abilities in order to be viable. Each class has improvements that can not only be switched around (similarly to 2nd edition's kits through PF's archeotypes) and built-in class features, like the rogue talents and barbarian rage features.


Am I missing something huge?

Not as far as I can see.

The biggest gripes I"ve seen about PF on this thread and other similar ones is that the feats aren't as good. Since when? The best examples I've seen people point to in this regard is the combat maneuver feats, which is a ridiculous example because a lot of the bonuses from creature size and otherwise were ALL reduced. Being large, for example, only grants a +2 size bonus on combat maneuver bonus for grappling. The improved grapple feat grants a +2 bonus to all combat maneuver checks to grapple and +2 to combat maneuver defense against grapple and greater grapple allows you to maintain a grapple as a move action on top of an additional +2 to grapple.
The biggest complaint that I remember about these feats and fighters is that size bonuses overwhelmed the feat bonuses you'd get short of spending a boatload of noncore feats just to be competant in 3.5 edition. Now, you can spend two feats to not only get a much larger bonus (compared to size bonuses) to grapple, but also other benefits, like defense against grappling and being able to grapple twice in one round using two move actions instead of just once using a standard action.
It's a similar story with the other manuever feats in addition to having several times more core feats that do more cool things than 3.5 edition. The complaint is illegitimate and based upon (I can only guess) just not reading the material.

Then there's the sorcerer, cleric and paladin boosts that have made all three classes worth taking from levels 1 to 20 - the general improvements to all shapechanging powers and animal companions as such that they are no longer as powerful as having another character in the party (as the druid animal companion), allow you to replace another character (as wildshape could with the right forms), or otherwise quite overpowered (with the right form, as is the gripes against shapechange and polymorph, which are now roughly in line with spells of equivelent power instead of must-haves for pure power.

Prestige classes are rarer in PF and more... prestigious - with some prestige classes improved from being too bland (mystic theurge), and others folded into archeotypes, which are actually balanced by way of taking away pre-existing powers and replacing them instead of attempting much more convulted methods of balance, like taking away precious caster levels in an attempt to balance out replacing precisely ZERO other class abilities (such as the case with the cleric and sorcerer and to a lesser degree the wizard and paladin).

I could keep going on and on about the tremendous improvements over 3.5 that pathfinder has and the illegitimate complaints against it, but those are a few examples without going into the ridiculous "tier"-related things but I'm starting to see why Piazo booted some people out of the discussion when they were making the game.

[Hiro Protagonest]

For example, some classes weren't viable without a prestige class (sorcerer, fighter, paladin, etc)
Um... yeah, sorcerer is one of the best classes in the game, only behind wizard, cleric, druid, artificer, Spell to Power erudite, and spirit shaman. It is ahead of everything else.

The biggest gripes I"ve seen about PF on this thread and other similar ones is that the feats aren't as good. Since when?
Stand Still. :smallmad:

The best examples I've seen people point to in this regard is the combat maneuver feats, which is a ridiculous example because a lot of the bonuses from creature size and otherwise were ALL reduced. Being large, for example, only grants a +2 size bonus on combat maneuver bonus for grappling. The improved grapple feat grants a +2 bonus to all combat maneuver checks to grapple and +2 to combat maneuver defense against grapple and greater grapple allows you to maintain a grapple as a move action on top of an additional +2 to grapple.
The biggest complaint that I remember about these feats and fighters is that size bonuses overwhelmed the feat bonuses you'd get short of spending a boatload of noncore feats just to be competant in 3.5 edition. Now, you can spend two feats to not only get a much larger bonus (compared to size bonuses) to grapple, but also other benefits, like defense against grappling and being able to grapple twice in one round using two move actions instead of just once using a standard action.
It's a similar story with the other manuever feats in addition to having several times more core feats that do more cool things than 3.5 edition. The complaint is illegitimate and based upon (I can only guess) just not reading the material.
I have read the Pathfinder core book through and through. My introduction to 3.5 was through Pathfinder. The feats were nerfed. Improved Trip no longer grants you a free attack. Greater Trip does, but it's an AoO, better used when the enemy stands up from prone.

Then there's the sorcerer, cleric and paladin boosts that have made all three classes worth taking from levels 1 to 20
...You really don't know how powerful spellcasters are, do you?

Prestige classes are rarer in PF and more... prestigious - with some prestige classes improved from being too bland (mystic theurge), and others folded into archeotypes, which are actually balanced by way of taking away pre-existing powers and replacing them instead of attempting much more convulted methods of balance, like taking away precious caster levels in an attempt to balance out replacing precisely ZERO other class abilities (such as the case with the cleric and sorcerer and to a lesser degree the wizard and paladin).
Caster levels are the most important resource to casters in the game. A fighter 1/wizard X/Eldritch Knight 10/wizard +Y is weaker than a straight wizard, except at 1st level because at that level, AC and HP are the best way to survive and wizards can't set up a few super-defenses at that level. But by 5th level? Yeah.

I could keep going on and on about the tremendous improvements over 3.5 that pathfinder has and the illegitimate complaints against it, but those are a few examples without going into the ridiculous "tier"-related things but I'm starting to see why Piazo booted some people out of the discussion when they were making the game.

They made improvements. "Tremendous" however, is the wrong word. Pathfinder isn't like some super-3.5. They didn't even fix half of what was legitimately wrong. The tier system is widely regarded on discussion forums like these as a great example of balance, and I fully agree, and dismissing it so easily is bound to make you less liked.

[turkishproverb]

pathfinder is...Well, I've said it elsewhere.

pathfinder is more 3.5 than 3.5. It has most of the good, and most of the bad, and they've been expanded on. Wizards and casters are even bigger, while the monk has been nerfed a bit and the Paladin is a major trap class (all those nerfs on mounted-anything, the fact that any minor violation of the code causes a fall now instead of just evil or GROSS violation, etc... YOU LITTERED? FALL! You sneezed at an inappropriate moment? FALL!). Actually, in general melee is noticeably worse than 3.5, even not counting the lack of TOB. Mind you, that's not to say there's nothing good about it, as I said they beefed up things, and some new options are alright, but they didn't do the game any particular good, and did plenty of crap to damage it as well.

In retrospect, the fact that one of the main designers favorite class was Wizard should have been a warning.

[Hiro Protagonest]

pathfinder is...Well, I've said it elsewhere.

pathfinder is more 3.5 than 3.5. It has most of the good, and most of the bad, and they've been expanded on. Wizards and casters are even bigger, while the monk has been nerfed a bit and the Paladin is a major trap class (all those attacks on mounted-anything, the fact that any minor violation of the code causes a fall now instead of just evil or GROSS violation, etc... YOU LITTERED? FALL! You sneezed at an inappropriate moment? FALL!). Actually, in general melee is noticeably worse than 3.5, even not counting the lack of TOB. Mind you, that's not to say there's nothing good about it, as I said they beefed up things, and some new options are alright, but they didn't do the game any particular good, and did plenty of crap to damage it as well.

In retrospect, the fact that one of the main designers favorite class was Wizard should have been a warning.

Wizards aren't better or worse. Spells were nerfed, but they got nice things too. Druids are undeniably nerfed. Cleric has too little changes to tell. Sorcerer got a little better than the wizard, but not much.

Fighter was buffed, but just with numbers, however, Unbreakable changes the bonus against fear to bonus against mind-affecting, Mobile Fighter is slightly better than regular (5 ft step for a good bonus to attack and damage that works with any weapon), Tactician and Lore Warden can sorta use the action economy more efficiently at high levels. Paladin was definitely buffed, but now have more restriction. Ranger was buffed a bit with better animal companion and hit die. Monk wasn't nerfed (seriously, what is the deal with Improved Natural Attack? It's like +1.5 on damage! And TWF on top of flurry? That's a pretty big penalty), but wasn't buffed enough to be much better, although now it has a chance of hitting at the higher levels.

Archetypes also really help the monk (Hungry Ghost Quinggong monk is one of the best non-full or 2/3rds caster builds) and sorta help the paladin (most suck, but Sacred Servant puts him at high tier 3 with the Planar Ally spells). There's also one ranger archetype that's effectively Wildshape ranger.

[Neoxenok]

Um... yeah, sorcerer is one of the best classes in the game, only behind wizard, cleric, druid, artificer, Spell to Power erudite, and spirit shaman. It is ahead of everything else.
I mentioned the sorcerer because it receives NO CLASS FEATURES and it was commonly griped about on the wizard's forums that they recieved too few spells known to be worth playing compared to many of the other spellcasting classes - including other spontaneous casters both arcane and divine - like the favored soul and even the warlock, which recieved fewer powers but could use them at will.
The commonalities among all of those is essentially the same - they all recieved class features and/or better/more skills. The warlock had many interesting powers and its own seporate catagory of abilities seporate from the wizard spell list. The favored soul attained anywhere from 1.5 to twice the spells known. Although I don't agree with the assessment that the divine psell list is equivelent to the arcane, it is none the less has more diverse powers AND it received class abilities, better saves (all good), and a 3/4 Base Attack bonus.
Although it recieves a split casting ability (it used wisdom and charisma), it is otherwise a far better example of good class design than the sorcerer and that was my point. I wasn't pointing out that the sorcerer is weak, despite the fact that I don't ascribe to this or the WotC board's assinine 'tier' system.


I have read the Pathfinder core book through and through. My introduction to 3.5 was through Pathfinder. The feats were nerfed. Improved Trip no longer grants you a free attack. Greater Trip does, but it's an AoO, better used when the enemy stands up from prone.
You also neglected to mention that PF's improved trip grants a +2 to combat maneuver defense against trip attempts, which replaces the free attack, yes, but it's now better balanced as a feat against the other maneuver feats - putting its special ability (the free attack) with the second feat, where all of the other maneuver feats get their free whatever. Greater grapple gets the 'grapple as a move action' in the second feat, greater sunder lets you damage your opponent with the excess damage, greater overrun forces your victim to provoke an AOO from you if you knock them prone.

This is on top of the fact that most of the bonuses granted from abilities and such were nerfed to half - so a +2 to whatever maneuver is the equivelent of +4 from 3.5 edition - this is most evident in the grapple chain as in my example, but it is evident in other areas as well, so in reality, you're getting more out of all of those feats and the complaints aren't because of a sensible comparison in this respect.


...You really don't know how powerful spellcasters are, do you?Caster levels are the most important resource to casters in the game. A fighter 1/wizard X/Eldritch Knight 10/wizard +Y is weaker than a straight wizard, except at 1st level because at that level, AC and HP are the best way to survive and wizards can't set up a few super-defenses at that level. But by 5th level? Yeah.
Only because people undervalue the gains and assume that a -1 to caster level and caster progression is a bigger loss than a 1/2 -> 3/4 BAB progression, a gain of a (roughly) good fortitude save, and the other martial abilities gained by the new class combination - forgetting the fact that you're a gish and not a primary caster because - again - people overvalue spells and spellcasting. I'm not, of course, saying that those complaints are unfounded, just hyperbolic.

That said, if you want to speak to my experience, I've been gaming in dungeons and dragons and the d20 system since 1999. I first played D&D in 2nd edition and quickly switched to 3rd, then 3.5, then pathfinder pretty much on the years of their release if not down to the month. I've both played as a player and run years-long campaigns that included games of up to and including 40th level using the epic level rules. So, I've played and DM'd the everloving hell of the game rules.


They made improvements. "Tremendous" however, is the wrong word. Pathfinder isn't like some super-3.5. They didn't even fix half of what was legitimately wrong. The tier system is widely regarded on discussion forums like these as a great example of balance, and I fully agree, and dismissing it so easily is bound to make you less liked.
Three things -

1) depends on how you define 'legitimate' because I have strong contentions of what seem to be commonalities on these and the 3.5e-era WotC boards as to what mounts to a 'legitimate' complaint.

2) The tier system is a bit of a hyperbolic explaination of the balance issues in the game in 3.5e and largely depends on subjective measurements of what is and is not legitimately powerful in a particular character class. It's a crude and largely incomplete representation of both legitimate and illegitimate problems of character class balance.

3) Saying something is 'widely regarded' on a internet forum isn't saying much.

It should be obvious that the issues you saw weren't recognized as such by all the people who helped design the Pathfinder RPG but what apparently isn't obvious is how subjective these issues actually are - which is why I generally consider many of the gripes I've seen here and elsewhere has more to do with personal taste than objective reasoning.

[mikau013]

(...)
3) Saying something is 'widely regarded' on a internet forum isn't saying much.

It should be obvious that the issues you saw weren't recognized as such by all the people who helped design the Pathfinder RPG but what apparently isn't obvious is how subjective these issues actually are - which is why I generally consider many of the gripes I've seen here and elsewhere has more to do with personal taste than objective reasoning.

You want some obvious issues? How about these 2 easy ones, first to pop in my mind.

Candle of invocation and dust of sneezing and choking.

2 Items that are so cheap and crazy that they are always banned at any table I played at and pathfinder just reprinted them in their core rulebook. Even though it was pointed out in their forums.

Candle of invocation is particularly crazy because summoning a creature with it is now actually cheaper than casting the gate spell yourself :smalleek:

[Hiro Protagonest]

I mentioned the sorcerer because it receives NO CLASS FEATURES and it was commonly griped about on the wizard's forums that they recieved too few spells known to be worth playing compared to many of the other spellcasting classes - including other spontaneous casters both arcane and divine - like the favored soul and even the warlock, which recieved fewer powers but could use them at will.
The commonalities among all of those is essentially the same - they all recieved class features and/or better/more skills. The warlock had many interesting powers and its own seporate catagory of abilities seporate from the wizard spell list. The favored soul attained anywhere from 1.5 to twice the spells known. Although I don't agree with the assessment that the divine psell list is equivelent to the arcane, it is none the less has more diverse powers AND it received class abilities, better saves (all good), and a 3/4 Base Attack bonus.
Although it recieves a split casting ability (it used wisdom and charisma), it is otherwise a far better example of good class design than the sorcerer and that was my point. I wasn't pointing out that the sorcerer is weak, despite the fact that I don't ascribe to this or the WotC board's assinine 'tier' system.
The warlock is worse than the sorcerer. Spell slots per day stop being a major hindrance at about 5th level, and lose most importance by 10th level. By 20th level, sorcerers have 43 spells known and more per day, warlocks have 6 invocations.

Favored soul is about on par with sorcerer.

You also neglected to mention that PF's improved trip grants a +2 to combat maneuver defense against trip attempts, which replaces the free attack, yes, but it's now better balanced as a feat against the other maneuver feats - putting its special ability (the free attack) with the second feat, where all of the other maneuver feats get their free whatever. Greater grapple gets the 'grapple as a move action' in the second feat, greater sunder lets you damage your opponent with the excess damage, greater overrun forces your victim to provoke an AOO from you if you knock them prone.
3.5 uses opposed trip checks. Improved Trip applies the +4 to all trip checks. It's not "better balanced". And in PF, the attack isn't free.

This is on top of the fact that most of the bonuses granted from abilities and such were nerfed to half - so a +2 to whatever maneuver is the equivelent of +4 from 3.5 edition - this is most evident in the grapple chain as in my example, but it is evident in other areas as well, so in reality, you're getting more out of all of those feats and the complaints aren't because of a sensible comparison in this respect.
Not against creatures your size and under, it's not.

That said, if you want to speak to my experience, I've been gaming in dungeons and dragons and the d20 system since 1999. I first played D&D in 2nd edition and quickly switched to 3rd, then 3.5, then pathfinder pretty much on the years of their release if not down to the month. I've both played as a player and run years-long campaigns that included games of up to and including 40th level using the epic level rules. So, I've played and DM'd the everloving hell of the game rules.
Have you ever used Tome of Battle?

Three things -

1) depends on how you define 'legitimate' because I have strong contentions of what seem to be commonalities on these and the 3.5e-era WotC boards as to what mounts to a 'legitimate' complaint.
Candle of Invocation, Dust of Sneezing and Choking, Planar Ally, Planar Binding, Summon Monster, Gate, Stoneskin, Mirror Image, Wild Shape (I don't care if it's been nerfed, it's still effectively all day flight).

All of those are OGL.

2) The tier system is a bit of a hyperbolic explaination of the balance issues in the game in 3.5e and largely depends on subjective measurements of what is and is not legitimately powerful in a particular character class. It's a crude and largely incomplete representation of both legitimate and illegitimate problems of character class balance.
The tier system was put up again on BG after the first thread was locked. I don't know if it's been updated since the first thread, but I do know it's practically complete. Just look at his examples (wizard just prepares the correct spells and dominates, sorcerer can dominate if he has the right spells and can be effective if he has decent spells, Batman factotum can pull something halfway decent out of his utility belt class features but will never be as good as a tier 1-2 built for the job, rogue can work if really clever, fighter can fight in melee.

3) Saying something is 'widely regarded' on a internet forum isn't saying much.
I have been here for over a year, and I've been active the entire time. I've gotten a decent grasp of how things work.

It should be obvious that the issues you saw weren't recognized as such by all the people who helped design the Pathfinder RPG but what apparently isn't obvious is how subjective these issues actually are - which is why I generally consider many of the gripes I've seen here and elsewhere has more to do with personal taste than objective reasoning.

People were banned from the Paizo boards for relentlessly persisting that Candle of Invocation was still broken. If not more because they took out crafting XP costs.

[Coidzor]

You also neglected to mention that PF's improved trip grants a +2 to combat maneuver defense against trip attempts, which replaces the free attack, yes, but it's now better balanced as a feat against the other maneuver feats - putting its special ability (the free attack) with the second feat, where all of the other maneuver feats get their free whatever.

I think that's because of two major factors, first the fact that the attack isn't free in PF and also that, as far as I can recall, there were no second feats in 3.5, splitting them into 2 feats was a thing introduced in Pathfinder. :smallconfused:

[Bovine Colonel]

Before this continues, Neoxenok, it'd be nice if you would read why each class is in its tier (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256.0) so that you fully understand the arguments in favour of tiers. If you've already read it, I apologize.

[Neoxenok]

The warlock is worse than the sorcerer.
In some ways, sure, but certainly not others.


Favored soul is about on par with sorcerer.
Exactly how often have you played or used as a DM any of the spellcasting classes in 3.5 edition - especially the three we're discussing?
I'm quite curious as to how you can justify the idea that the class with the most versitility is more powerful than those with less versitility (wizard vs sorcerer // cleric vs. favored soul) and claim in virtually the same breath that the favored soul is on par with the sorcerer.
Aside from that, I understand the point you're making - it just has nothing to do with the point that I made.


3.5 uses opposed trip checks.
... and pathfinder does not. It changed that basic mechanic and the feats were not only rebalanced amongst themselves but also using the rubic of several other modifications in other areas of the system as well.
Even if I were to concede this point, this not only doesn't necessarily even prove your point in regards to nearly all of the other feats especially considering that some of those maneuver feats were simply better than others to begin with (improved trip granting a free attack) vs. none of the other maneuver feats granting any additional free ability beyond the bonus and the negation of the AOO from your opponent.
So yeah - better balanced not only compared to the other maneuver feats, but the free attack was moved to a secondary feat that grants an additional bonus on top of those and the same was done to the other feats - which gained a freebie that they didn't get in 3.5 edition.

You also have to remember that all of these bonuses from feats and elsewhere were reduced for a reason as well - because people were complaining that - whether it was the size bonuses on grapple or weapon sizes on disarm and sunder - the +4 was such a large bonus that someone without the requisite feat was basically screwed - this was particularly egregious with grapple and size modifiers, but it applied in other areas as well - which is why you simply can't look at the +2 to grapple CMB and CMD and say it's a nerf, because it isn't. Considering the changes elsewhere, the bonuses are essentially the same considering the system-wide rebalancing.


Have you ever used Tome of Battle?
No.
I own most of the 3.5e books - the ones I don't own and still want are the MM4, MM5, Fiendish Codex 1: Hordes of the Abyss, and the two Tome books - the tome of magic and the tome of battle. By the time I had the money, WotC already switched to 4e, my longest-running 3.5e game had already ended, and we were looking into shadowrun 4e, getting ready for a short 4e D&D test run, and looking at PF as it began development.
I still eventually plan on hunting them down on Amazon or ebay or craigslist or whever I can find them, but money has been in short supply lately and I've been spending more of it on new PF stuff and movies among other things.

Long story short, we liked 4e... okay, but we liked shadowrun and PF a LOT better. My group unanimously agreed to switch to PF for our D&D-related needs. That's neither here nor there though.


Candle of Invocation, Dust of Sneezing and Choking, Planar Ally, Planar Binding, Summon Monster, Gate, Stoneskin, Mirror Image, Wild Shape (I don't care if it's been nerfed, it's still effectively all day flight).
I have to agree on the candle of invocation, but that seemes to be the only example that exists that has any merit in your arguement.


All of those are OGL.The tier system was put up again on BG after the first thread was locked. I don't know if it's been updated since the first thread, but I do know it's practically complete.
I've seen it and read through all of it.
I know what it is and what it's there for.
I'm not even completely disagreeing with some of its assessments - just its conclusion and the fact that the tier system is inherantly hyperbolic - or overstating the difference and power disparity between many of the classes.


I have been here for over a year, and I've been active the entire time. I've gotten a decent grasp of how things work.
I've been lurking around these boards off and on for ages since I discovered Oots I don't even remember how long back but since I stopped frequenting the WotC boards I just stopped visiting gaming forums altogether until I made this profile not too long ago.


People were banned from the Paizo boards for relentlessly persisting that Candle of Invocation was still broken. If not more because they took out crafting XP costs.
XP costs in crafting did nothing anyway. At worst, you might have been a level behind everyone else but because of the stupid way that XP gains worked, you would get more xp the more behind the party you got, so you could effectively cancel out your losses and you'd ultimately end up with 1.5 to twice the items you'd have if you were able to craft as often as you possibly could.
Pathfinder essentially took a more commonsense approach to xp and eliminated all XP costs everywhere which not only simplified everything but makes crafting more worthwhile - not that it wasn't before but it doesn't really change much anyway considering the problem.
Further, now that noncasters have access to magic item creation - it's no longer strictly a caster's pursuit - which is another tremendous improvement over 3.5 edition.

[navar100]

The Tier System is not the Holy Bible of D&D. Those of us who don't prescribe to it just don't prescribe to it. If you have a problem with that, tough noogies. We don't need your approval or permission. It's fine for its original intent - a discussion of comparison opinion of the power level between the classes to help DM and players understand what to expect and how to handle the various classes. Unfortunately, the original intent has been lost to hyperbole to accuse people of playing wrong. Now someone is saying you won't be "liked" if you don't agree to it. Not only are we playing wrong for not prescribing to the Tier System, now we're bad people.

[TuggyNE]

Unfortunately, the original intent has been lost to hyperbole to accuse people of playing wrong. Now someone is saying you won't be "liked" if you don't agree to it. Not only are we playing wrong for not prescribing to the Tier System, now we're bad people.

The person who said that was, if I'm not mistaken, also objecting to the tier system, and was giving their perception of the reason for the negative reactions they got. I don't think anyone in this thread that has recommended the tier system would consider you a bad person for not using it, or even "playing wrong"; rather, the general vibe is that if you don't understand it, you're likely to make some mistakes in attempting to deal with balance in actual gameplay and in discussions.

Again: playing without understanding/accepting the tier system is not "wrongbadfun", but it may not turn out as well as it could have.

[Bovine Colonel]

I have to agree on the candle of invocation, but that seemes to be the only example that exists that has any merit in your arguement.
Dust of Sneezing and Choking is 3d6 Con damage (Fort negates) and 5d4 rounds stun, no frigging save, in a 20 ft radius spread. And it's supposed to be a cursed item.
Planar Binding and Planar Ally--IIRC you can get wishes from these by summoning efreets.
Summon Monster lets you expand your spell list for free with monster abilities and spells.
Gate is like super planar binding. Also, chaingating Solars.
Stoneskin and Mirror Image are both powerful defenses. Mirror Image can give you 87.5% miss chance at higher levels, more than enough to keep you safe while you get out of melee.
Wild Shape has indeed been nerfed, but all that means is the Druid is slightly less effective at taking the Fighter's place. It's now 2.5 classes in one instead of 3.

[Hiro Protagonest]

In some ways, sure, but certainly not others.
HOW!?

... and pathfinder does not. It changed that basic mechanic and the feats were not only rebalanced amongst themselves but also using the rubic of several other modifications in other areas of the system as well.
Even if I were to concede this point, this not only doesn't necessarily even prove your point in regards to nearly all of the other feats especially considering that some of those maneuver feats were simply better than others to begin with (improved trip granting a free attack) vs. none of the other maneuver feats granting any additional free ability beyond the bonus and the negation of the AOO from your opponent.
So yeah - better balanced not only compared to the other maneuver feats, but the free attack was moved to a secondary feat that grants an additional bonus on top of those and the same was done to the other feats - which gained a freebie that they didn't get in 3.5 edition.
I still don't understand how it is better balanced.

And the second feat in PF does not give a freebie attack. It gives an AoO. An AoO that could've been used when he stood up from prone or another enemy moved. It is strictly worse.

You also have to remember that all of these bonuses from feats and elsewhere were reduced for a reason as well - because people were complaining that - whether it was the size bonuses on grapple or weapon sizes on disarm and sunder - the +4 was such a large bonus that someone without the requisite feat was basically screwed - this was particularly egregious with grapple and size modifiers, but it applied in other areas as well - which is why you simply can't look at the +2 to grapple CMB and CMD and say it's a nerf, because it isn't. Considering the changes elsewhere, the bonuses are essentially the same considering the system-wide rebalancing.
Yes yes, I get that, but it's still worse. There's no more free attack. The stuff other than trip and dirty trick pretty much sucks anyway, except for a bull rush in certain situations, in which case you could've just used dirty trick's reposition.

No.
Well, look at it. It's a different system with new and improved melee classes. No cries of "it's magic!" because the monk has magic, the paladin has magic, and the ToB warblade is completely mundane.

I have to agree on the candle of invocation, but that seemes to be the only example that exists that has any merit in your arguement.
They negate the wizard's weakness. Low defenses in melee. Oh, and I forgot. Contingency. Also, Dust of Sneezing and Choking is either 3d6 con damage, which is rather useful, or 5d4 rounds of being stunned (the specific wording means that if they succeed on the save, they're not stunned :smallconfused:), which is extremely powerful.

Wild Shape into Pteranadon. Hour/level flight. Extremely powerful. No major drawback starting at level 6.

Planar Ally, Planar Binding, Summon Monster, and Gate all give you minions. Minions to be beatsticks for you. At higher levels, minions to be spellcasters for you.

I've seen it and read through all of it.
I know what it is and what it's there for.
I'm not even completely disagreeing with some of its assessments - just its conclusion and the fact that the tier system is inherantly hyperbolic - or overstating the difference and power disparity between many of the classes.
You mean the power level between classes that rely on their own power, and other classes that rely on the christmas tree effect to survive.

You telling me the wizard isn't undefeatable by the fighter? Right. At 1st level, a tricked out wizard has Abrupt Jaunt, four 1st level spells per day (one per encounter), and a reserve feat. A fighter has six more hit points. During this power level, it basically relies on who wins initiative. The guy who loses initiative loses, period. At 9th level, the wizard can afford Contingent Dimension Door and Overland Flight, as well as a couple Fly spells for if he runs out of the nine hours of Overland Flight before resting, probably an Extended Fly and a regular Fly. The fighter can take out his backup bow, sure, so now he's plinking for minor damage unless he's a dedicated archer. This is before any Stoneskin, Displacement, or Mirror Image.

Sure, in PF, there aren't reserve feats, or Abrupt Jaunt, or reserve feats, but that doesn't change much about the "lose initiative, lose fight" thing. There's still Contingent Dimension Door, and Mirror Image, and Stoneskin, and Overland Flight.

Also, until Wild Shape, the druid can just lay down an Entangle on the fighter and have his eagle companion fly above the spell and slash at the fighter.

Sure, the wizard can buff the fighter and rogue and melee cleric and magus with things like Haste, but that's using his demigod-level power to make his allies good at combat. Doesn't mean the fighter's more powerful.

XP costs in crafting did nothing anyway. At worst, you might have been a level behind everyone else but because of the stupid way that XP gains worked, you would get more xp the more behind the party you got, so you could effectively cancel out your losses and you'd ultimately end up with 1.5 to twice the items you'd have if you were able to craft as often as you possibly could.
You'll still always be a level behind unless you fight a solo encounter at some point.

Further, now that noncasters have access to magic item creation - it's no longer strictly a caster's pursuit - which is another tremendous improvement over 3.5 edition.

Er, how?

*checks Craft Magic Arms and Armor*

*sees "caster level 5th" requirement*

In addition, to create something other than basic +s to attack/damage or AC on weapons/armor, you need spells.

[Neoxenok]

I still don't understand how it is better balanced.
My point with the sorcerer/warlock comparison had more to do with its design balance, not power. You really need to read my words as I wrote them. I brought up the warlock because warlocks actually have worthwhile abilities at every level and 19 of the 20 sorcerer levels are dead and the familiar is effectively a mobile (albeit useful) tumor that has 20% of all your xp bundled into it. As such, it is a better designed class and more balanced in the context of game design - not overall power.


And the second feat in PF does not give a freebie attack. It gives an AoO.
Still a free attack, but one that soaks up an AoO.
... and unless I'm mistaken, it borks a lot of those supposedly overpowered tripper builds that the WotC CharOp board members like to make.
I believe it was the reason why the spiked chain was often banned, yes? Considering that there are ways for an NPC or monster to get around that AoO, making it automatic still makes it a freebie - just not one that can be as easily abused.
So I suppose you could make the arguement that it's worse, but I fail to see how this negates its usefulness.


Well, look at it. It's a different system with new and improved melee classes. No cries of "it's magic!" because the monk has magic, the paladin has magic, and the ToB warblade is completely mundane.
I've heard good things about it. If I were still running 3.5e I doubt I would have issues running it, but I never really had any balancing issues with the core melee classes, so I don't really feel it's necessary to include it any more than psionics (which I included) or incarnum (which I also included).


They negate the wizard's weakness. Low defenses in melee. Oh, and I forgot. Contingency. Also, Dust of Sneezing and Choking is either 3d6 con damage, which is rather useful, or 5d4 rounds of being stunned (the specific wording means that if they succeed on the save, they're not stunned :smallconfused:), which is extremely powerful.
A few things:
1) How exactly do spells on the wizard's spell list negate its weakness? Technicallly, every defensive or battlefield control spell a caster can cast does this.
2)In pathfinder, the dust of sneezing and choking is a cursed item with no crafting rules in which to make it. As a cursed item, a PC can't easily identify it if/when he finds it and will more likely (in most cases) use it on himself - just like all of the other cursed items. Even if the player discover's the items true nature before this happens, it's only useful once and can only likely be found exactly ONCE in a character's entire adventuring career - so I fail to see how this item will be a major balancing concern unless I specifically allow it to be.
3) So wildshape gives hours/level flight at the same level the arcane classes get flight (through the fly spell). At 7th and 8th level, the clericm druid, and oracle all get air walk as well (allowing the druid to use his non-flying animal shapes in the air). The wizard and sorcerer can also use beast shape 1 and polymorph at those spread of levels, allowing them to do the same thing. I fail to see the problem of having flight at 6th level particularly given the change to all shapechanging magic in pathfinder. If it's such a balancing issue to you, ban natural spell and be done with it. As a DM I wouldn't really take issue with it.


Planar Ally, Planar Binding, Summon Monster, and Gate all give you minions. Minions to be beatsticks for you. At higher levels, minions to be spellcasters for you.You mean the power level between classes that rely on their own power, and other classes that rely on the christmas tree effect to survive.
Considering that the entire game is balanced around character wealth as much as anything else, I fail to see the issue with the "christmas tree effect." All of the classes, to whatever degree, rely on the equipment they have and fighters and wizards in this respect are no different from one another outside of the items they'd find most useful.

There's a good arguement to have designed a D&D-style game without the over-reliance on magic items - some people like them to be unique and truely special, but since I'm not one of those people as I don't really care.

I don't really know what you're attempting to argue in regards to the summoning/calling spells - they certainly do what you say they do in that you can make use of their punching abilities, skills, or magic. It's a fantasy staple and there's even a PF class that specializes in this very thing (the aptly named summoner class - a class one of my players in my current PF forgotten realms campaign has taken with the 'master summoner archeotype. The party also has a conjurer.)
If you're attempting to argue that it's overpowered, then I'd respond that it's no more overpowered than anything else in the game adn considering how easy it is for anyone to access magic in PF now (thanks to eliminating the 1 rank = 1/2 rank for cross-class skills nonsense) using UMD or hiring a spellcaster at the very least, I don't really see an issue here because it won't cause any caster to overpower a campaign or other players - particuilarly the summon monster/nature's ally spells. The planar ally/binding spells require money and can't be used on-the-fly (in that it has to be done out-of-combat) and has a chance to fail and pose danger to the caster (or at least no benefit) for only a somewhat better minion than you can get with the summon monster/nature's ally spells. This is on top of needing money to simply cast and more to bribe the outsider you summon.


You telling me the wizard isn't undefeatable by the fighter? Right.
Not my arguement.


At 1st level, a tricked out wizard has Abrupt Jaunt, four 1st level spells per day (one per encounter), and a reserve feat. A fighter has six more hit points. During this power level, it basically relies on who wins initiative. The guy who loses initiative loses, period. At 9th level, the wizard can afford Contingent Dimension Door and Overland Flight, as well as a couple Fly spells for if he runs out of the nine hours of Overland Flight before resting, probably an Extended Fly and a regular Fly. The fighter can take out his backup bow, sure, so now he's plinking for minor damage unless he's a dedicated archer. This is before any Stoneskin, Displacement, or Mirror Image.
... okay, this is off-topic, but if your setup requires nothing in terms of preparedness outside of a bow and arrow for the fighter and the wizard is required to have as many preconditions for 'fighter immunity' as you put up there, then you've already lost this arguement - particularly since your scenario doesn't have a win in the first round (invalidating your 'whomever wins initiative' arguement.) This applies to your other mundane v magic scenarios as well.
That said, this is off topic and I have little desire to engage in a discussion that'll get the thread closed (for being off-topic and retreading a tired/dead horse arguement that'll get neither of us traction with one another).


Er, how?

*checks Craft Magic Arms and Armor*

*sees "caster level 5th" requirement*
I thought you said you read the pathfinder core rulebook...
Check page 130 of the pathfinder RPG core rulebook and find the feat "Master Craftsman".


In addition, to create something other than basic +s to attack/damage or AC on weapons/armor, you need spells.
So what? All you've done is argue that characters with magic spells at their disposal and zero magic items are more self reliant in this way. In other words, you've described few, if any actual D&D campaigns for this to be an issue outside of the 'magic items are too important' arguement which isn't what this discussion is about.

This disussion is about Pathfinder and 3.5 edition in terms of how PF improved or didn't improve upon 3.5 edition. If you feel that items are too prevelant or important for character balance in D&D - that's fine, but D&D has never been a game where magic is rare or unique in that way and the entire system would need an overhaul from the very core of the system in order to change that. Every edition or version of the game would need such a change - this isn't a unique feature of 3.5 edition or pathfinder, so if your gripe is that casters can beat the pants off of a mundane class with only access to mundane items (because casters have traditionally been the only ones that can actually craft magic items with rare exception), then you're not even talking about an aspect of the game in which it was designed to balance.

In other words, the game is designed around a party of adventurers working together to overcome obstacles as a team and it assumes that the mundane classes have just as much access to tools and equipment as casters do - as such that a paladin can buy a new magic sword or have an NPC cast planar ally as easily as a wizard can buy a new magic robe and have an NPC cleric cast death ward into a contingency spell he's setting up for the next adventure.
Even if the wizard and/or cleric could cover for a lack of the fighter and rogue roles of the party, it only comes at the expense of numerous spells and other abilities that drastically reduce their available daily resources to do other things and most of the time they still wouldn't be as effective individuially without their more mundane counterparts. As an example, look at even your fighter v wizard scenario above by looking at how many spells he'd have to cast off his daily allotment and scrolls and a contingency just to battle ONE FIGHTER.
That's already a lot of resources one mage has to spend in order to overcome the problem of simply not having a fighter in the party that's already going to be more powreful than most of the things even a dedicated conjurer or summoner could summon and the wizard can focus his spell allotment on being an arcane toolbox and allow his compatriots to help him like the game was designed around allowing him to do.
This paradigm has been the same in every edition of D&D and I still don't see how or why this paradigm needs to be changed consdering it was never broken to begin with.
As far as pathfinder is concerned, it not only fixed a lot of problems I had with 3.5 edition, but fixed a lot more to positive effect and since I don't allow the vast majority of 3.5 edition materials in my current PF game, I anticipate zero balancing issues based on my experiences with 3.5 edition (of which I had few, if any balance issues until the party was well into epic levels - which was largely my fault but that's neither here nor there.)
The game is absolutely superior to 3.5 edition in every respect I can think of while still keeping everything I enjoyed about 3.5 edition (outside of the fact that there's been no update to psionics outside of a sub-par update by a 3rd party company and the fact that I want to play PF in the forgotten realms and have no official conversions so I have to convert everything on my own).

[Thrice Dead Cat]

My point with the sorcerer/warlock comparison had more to do with its design balance, not power. You really need to read my words as I wrote them. I brought up the warlock because warlocks actually have worthwhile abilities at every level and 19 of the 20 sorcerer levels are dead and the familiar is effectively a mobile (albeit useful) tumor that has 20% of all your xp bundled into it. As such, it is a better designed class and more balanced in the context of game design - not overall power.

In all honesty, any level where a sorcerer gains more spells is hardly a dead level. It's not much, but spell casters rarely have true dead levels to 'em. At the end of the day, the better weapons work, even if you only have a limited arsenal.

After all, while a warlock always has his d6s from EB, so does a rogue and sneak attack. A warlock may will play better in "siege" scenarios of fighting for hours at a time, (HP permitting), but his options are far more limited than a sorcerer's, even with the limited spells known.



Still a free attack, but one that soaks up an AoO.
... and unless I'm mistaken, it borks a lot of those supposedly overpowered tripper builds that the WotC CharOp board members like to make.
I believe it was the reason why the spiked chain was often banned, yes? Considering that there are ways for an NPC or monster to get around that AoO, making it automatic still makes it a freebie - just not one that can be as easily abused.
So I suppose you could make the arguement that it's worse, but I fail to see how this negates its usefulness.

Except that those tripper builds had one shtick: preventing allies from being hurt. A dedicated tripper spends a feat on Improved Trip (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedTrip), a feat on Stand Still (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#standStill), and a feat on Combat Expertise (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatExpertise) to make sure that enemies he threatens do not get to anywhere else outside of possible teleportation, tumbling, or similar. At a minimum, in 3.5, that's three feats. Earliest you get your shtick is first level, assuming flaws and either a level fighter or being a human, all while having a high Str, Dex >13, Con >12 (being dead hurts being a tank), and Int 13.

You don't need the spiked chain, but it is one of the few exotic weapons that is actually worth a feat, if only because of the silly wealth of options with it (bonus to disarm and tripping, two-handed for power attack *or* TWFing, reach and attack adjacent). With a bit of cash, anyone wanting to trip can just swing a Guirsame with armor spikes in case enemies close with him.

There's also the fact that PF did not double the feats one has. Without flaws, the earliest our would-be tripper could trip to his heart's continent would be 3rd level, assuming human. He is still limited by his DEX score for how many swings he has at a time, however on an AoO. At least in 3.5, his AoO return would go "Provoke from movement out of square (into via ToB)"->"Trip to stop movement"->"Free attack from the trip (if successful)." Assuming the schmoe tries to stand, he provokes another attack, which is possible free damage for the tripper, even though he can't trip via this AoO. Pathfinder changes the routine to "Provoke"->"Trip"->"IF successful, blow another AoO this round to get a free attack." Low levels, our crazy tripper is going to have at most 5 AoOs (assuming 20 dex via race/items). Realistically, it'll probably be closer to 2-3.

At 2-3 AoOs, the 3.5 dedicated tripper can insure he can drop multiple enemies in a round and still do damage while the PF alternative has to decide between just tripping and hoping no one else provokes him or tripping and blowing another AoO to get the free attack after he spent another feat.



I've heard good things about it. If I were still running 3.5e I doubt I would have issues running it, but I never really had any balancing issues with the core melee classes, so I don't really feel it's necessary to include it any more than psionics (which I included) or incarnum (which I also included).

K, then run it if you are as inclined. "Core" is a devilish issue, again, because of options. With a few action economy breaks in your first herring, both psionics and incarnum are more well balanced than core casting. (You can multiclass with either without being terribly behind in respect these add-ons, universal "juice" is easier to conserve than slots, from a numbers perspective)



A few things:
1) How exactly do spells on the wizard's spell list negate its weakness? Technicallly, every defensive or battlefield control spell a caster can cast does this.
2)In pathfinder, the dust of sneezing and choking is a cursed item with no crafting rules in which to make it. As a cursed item, a PC can't easily identify it if/when he finds it and will more likely (in most cases) use it on himself - just like all of the other cursed items. Even if the player discover's the items true nature before this happens, it's only useful once and can only likely be found exactly ONCE in a character's entire adventuring career - so I fail to see how this item will be a major balancing concern unless I specifically allow it to be.
3) So wildshape gives hours/level flight at the same level the arcane classes get flight (through the fly spell). At 7th and 8th level, the clericm druid, and oracle all get air walk as well (allowing the druid to use his non-flying animal shapes in the air). The wizard and sorcerer can also use beast shape 1 and polymorph at those spread of levels, allowing them to do the same thing. I fail to see the problem of having flight at 6th level particularly given the change to all shapechanging magic in pathfinder. If it's such a balancing issue to you, ban natural spell and be done with it. As a DM I wouldn't really take issue with it.

1. Check the spells mentioned. Contingency is there until dispelled or used. The others mentioned all amount to "Cast this to not die!" Which, to be fair, is a pretty sweet deal when it can last for at least a day, you can activate it with minimal time (swift or immediate actions), or, in the deliciousness that is Contingency, as a free action. Free is always available. As long as a wizard with Contingency DDoor is aware, saying "Hufflepuff" means being X-hundred feat away from the bad juju that would possibly kill him, be it sword, bow, or actual magic. Not having these bad boys means being down on the Star Wars defense program when possible nukes are flying about.
2. Check the item creation rules. Players can still make cursed items: they simply have to suck hard enough at it to do so (intentionally fail by 5 or more) when crafting the magical item in question.:smallannoyed:
3. Okay, so all casters can fly. What about Bubs the Horserider and his trusty lance? This is an issue. Casters get free (or nearly free) flight while nonmagical mean sit on the ground going "I sure wish I knew how to fight with a bow..."


Considering that the entire game is balanced around character wealth as much as anything else, I fail to see the issue with the "christmas tree effect." All of the classes, to whatever degree, rely on the equipment they have and fighters and wizards in this respect are no different from one another outside of the items they'd find most useful.

Consider the flowing: If a wizard gets free magic by virtue of being a wizard (he does) while the fighter must compensate for his known Lacking Aptitude in Magical Awareness Disease or "LAMED" via all of his wealth... does it not stand to reason that "Paying Bill to be Bob while Bob can also pay to be rich with gear" not seem a little, well, annoying?


There's a good arguement to have designed a D&D-style game without the over-reliance on magic items - some people like them to be unique and truely special, but since I'm not one of those people as I don't really care.

Okay, that's nice but irrelevant. From a balance perspective, it's annoying being told you can play someone like Conan only to find out that being a crafty barbarian requires you to use at least as much magic as the obviously evil wizard rather than just yelling "BY CROM!" to best him.:smallsigh:


I don't really know what you're attempting to argue in regards to the summoning/calling spells - they certainly do what you say they do in that you can make use of their punching abilities, skills, or magic. It's a fantasy staple and there's even a PF class that specializes in this very thing (the aptly named summoner class - a class one of my players in my current PF forgotten realms campaign has taken with the 'master summoner archeotype. The party also has a conjurer.)
If you're attempting to argue that it's overpowered, then I'd respond that it's no more overpowered than anything else in the game adn considering how easy it is for anyone to access magic in PF now (thanks to eliminating the 1 rank = 1/2 rank for cross-class skills nonsense) using UMD or hiring a spellcaster at the very least, I don't really see an issue here because it won't cause any caster to overpower a campaign or other players - particuilarly the summon monster/nature's ally spells. The planar ally/binding spells require money and can't be used on-the-fly (in that it has to be done out-of-combat) and has a chance to fail and pose danger to the caster (or at least no benefit) for only a somewhat better minion than you can get with the summon monster/nature's ally spells. This is on top of needing money to simply cast and more to bribe the outsider you summon.

Consider the following (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw). Paying someone else to be Angel Summoner while you're playing BMX bandit is, well, annoying. Quests can be built around this, surely. Hell, one of the best handbooks out there to arcane casters takes this gag and runs with it as its shtick. It can still suck to be in a group where four players go "Wow, that's really... strong" while the last guy says "Yeah, I know."

Sure, having a bag of tricks is nice (especially for someone who wants the extra goodies that are out there in random magic items), but when it comes time to spend your portion of the loot and you're the one constantly scratching to get your fix of magic, the rest of the group may say it's time for an intervention. That or you should all talk as players about it outside of the game. Either way, really.



Not my arguement.

K, then stop bothering with the ever-present case of Casters Vs Noncasters. Because both 3.5 and PF have that in their existence. Hell, a lot of it was shown during the open beta about balance issues and the like where the game breaks down. It was ignored, and, well, that's kind of an issue. If it isn't for your table, then play as you were.



... okay, this is off-topic, but if your setup requires nothing in terms of preparedness outside of a bow and arrow for the fighter and the wizard is required to have as many preconditions for 'fighter immunity' as you put up there, then you've already lost this arguement - particularly since your scenario doesn't have a win in the first round (invalidating your 'whomever wins initiative' arguement.) This applies to your other mundane v magic scenarios as well.
That said, this is off topic and I have little desire to engage in a discussion that'll get the thread closed (for being off-topic and retreading a tired/dead horse arguement that'll get neither of us traction with one another).

This is an old topic. The wizard straight up has more options and actions to use them (more so in 3.5, via Abrupt Jaunt, but certainly true at later levels via Quicken Spell). The fighter has, at 1st level in both PF and 3.5

Full armor proficiencies
Full simple/martial weapons
Feat for having INT
Feat for being a fighter
Possible Alternate Class Feature/Archetypes
Gear costing within the bounds of 50-300 GP
BAB +1


The listed wizard, meanwhile, has

A feat for having INT
A feat for being a wizard (Matters more in 3.5, via ACFs for Improved Initiative)
A familiar (read: decoy) or ACF (Abrupt Jaunt)/(Free magical guns or Shift, possible "free" 19s/20s for diviners, etc.)
Gear within the bounds of 20 and 120 GP
Spells
Possible Bonus Spells/Random "Specialization" Bonuses


In the end, it boils down to a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors. The fighter's going to throw rock or paper at just about all levels (do damage, maybe one type of CMD) while the wizard can throw all three (Fort Save, Ref Save, Will Save, Melee/Ranged (Touch) Attacks, et al.)


I thought you said you read the pathfinder core rulebook...
Check page 130 of the pathfinder RPG core rulebook and find the feat "Master Craftsman".

It is one feat for the price of two (Good), except that the DCs will be higher, what with the not having the right spells and all and the fact that you can't craft anything your heart desires, meaning in a larger chance of cursed (super bad) items. Or, hell, the fact that magical crafters can also take it for the same benefits if they so wish to craft like the madboys they are.



*snip*

Yeah, the issue still exists, though. It is a team game for teammates fighting encounters where people should be working together. It still hurts when one person can cast a spell and either circumnavigate the entire challenge (e.g., cannon meet fly) or entirely eliminate another party member at later levels (I.E., "Dear <Planar Binding Target>, I am contracting with you to serve a term of one (1) year as my personal butler and gladiator...").

Sure, low levels, a caster hellbent on beating a fighter in a one-on-one dual to the death can do it with his slew of options, possibly spending every single one of his spells to do so. He could also get lucky with the first Color Spray into a seven-round spree of crossbow bolts (or his SLAs provided by specializing).


PF didn't fix these imbalances, which is kind of a pain. Does everyone notice them? No, and for such people, they probably are doing fine and having fun. For people that do notice them, PF can look like someone's attempt at house-ruling the game in non-positive ways. Personally, I view it somewhere between someone's houserules and splat book rules by Green Ronin: overall interesting, but not always well crafted.

[Neoxenok]

In all honesty, any level where a sorcerer gains more spells is hardly a dead level.
That's... sort of true. My issue with the sorcerer is that every other spellcaster in the game gets their basic spellcasting AND class features and have something (important/useful) to loose when going prestige class. The sorcerer has absolutely zero reason to not prestige out as soon as possible which is why I consider every level to basically be a dead level. This is doubly so for a metamagic specialist sorcerer that takes obtain familiar for a net gain that all apply even with a prestige class. (Consider a sorcerer 6/Incantrix 10/Archmage 4 with obtain familiar - it literally has zero net losses in any ability and gains 100% profit in feats, special powers, and familiar abilities.)
It's like saying that fighter 5 isn't a dead level because they gain +1 BAB and +1d10 HP. Yeah, it's a gain, but it's nothing to be excited about.


After all, while a warlock always has his d6s from EB, so does a rogue and sneak attack. A warlock may will play better in "siege" scenarios of fighting for hours at a time, (HP permitting), but his options are far more limited than a sorcerer's, even with the limited spells known.
I understand that, but for the last time I wasn't discussing the warlock's difference in power over the sorcerer. I was discussing the balance of the class's design - the fact that it gains something interesting at every level - it's the same design that went into the pathfinder classes - especially the non-casters (but also the casters.)


snip
I'm starting to get a wee bit tired of having my arguements mischaracterized, misread, or misunderstood because I'm failing to understand why you explained all that to me. I know what a tripper build does.
I understand that a tripper needs to blow an extra feat to be not as awesome as the equivelent in 3.5 edition. I fail to understand how or why this a problem with Pathfinder's game mechanics and you and jade dragon have done nothing to explain this to me.

I do undstand this however - powers and abilities that bork an opponent with little chance of escape or resistance is bad game design. I believe this was why the more egregious tripper builds were evidence of something that needed fixing in 3.5 edition than an example of why 3.5 edition's strengths.
What you've shown me is that a pathfinder tripper requires one more feat to be equal or less effective (due to getting a free AoO instead of an outright free attack) at something that I've been told by others is supposed to be overpowered because it could shut down a whole group of people who, unless they have the proper skills or feats to specifically counter the detriment of tripping, are going to be borked with little chance of escape.

So I ask you that, given what you've told me about the plight of trippers in pathfinder, why should I care? Why is this an indication of Pathfinder being inferior in this respect to 3.5 edition?
You and others here have told me that a major problem with PF is that they make you take more feats for the same benefit, but so far improved/greater trip is the only viable example I can recognize. Although I disagree even with thi case, this definately isn't the case with most of the other feats, which are equal or better than the 3.5e equivelent as well as numerous feats that were never available in 3.5 edition - not even counting the feats that were traps in 3.5 that are now much more viable.
Catch off guard? Toughness? The fact that all of the maneuver feats have a bonus goodie on the 2nd feat and not just the two trip feats (whereas in 3.5, only improved trip granted the bonus freebie on top of the no AoO/+4 bonus), and so on.
This entire arguement is flawed.


1. Check the spells mentioned. Contingency is there until dispelled or used. The others mentioned all amount to "Cast this to not die!" Which, to be fair, is a pretty sweet deal when it can last for at least a day, you can activate it with minimal time (swift or immediate actions), or, in the deliciousness that is Contingency, as a free action. Free is always available. As long as a wizard with Contingency DDoor is aware, saying "Hufflepuff" means being X-hundred feat away from the bad juju that would possibly kill him, be it sword, bow, or actual magic. Not having these bad boys means being down on the Star Wars defense program when possible nukes are flying about.
I've been playing dungeons and dragons about every week for about 12~13 years (and running it as a DM for about 2/3rds of that time). I tend to prefer the arcane classes (wizard, bard, and sorcerer) so I know a thing or two about spells. I undertand that spells can be manipulated to good effect -that's what mages do. It's their primary class feature - being able to pull neat magical tricks X times/day through one or a combination of spells. That's the fun of playing mages.
That said, considering that all these things are a wizard's core class features of a wizard of at least 11th level (contingency is a 6th level wizard spell), what you didn't just tell me is how this trick negates a wizard's supposed weakness.
But I'll tell you why this is - it's because the 'wizard's weakness' is a stawman arguement. You and others might say (though you conveniently left out what weaknesses a wizard is supposed to have) wizards have a a weak AC and HD features and anything that boosts their defense is essentially 'negating' that weakness. Problem is that it's a faulty arguement because casting mage armor and shield or setting up a contingency//Dim-door is little different than a fighter being able to don armor, down a potion of shield of faith, and fight with combat expertise active, or any other combination of spell and/or mundane defenses - being able to dim-door on a contingency is more effective than fighter armor, but it's a trick they can only do once and then it's gone until/unless they can set those or a different set of spells again (and it also ignores any other feats, items, or whatever a fighter may have that would alter his defenses at any given moment).
So this entire arguement is invalid (and off-topic.)


2. Check the item creation rules. Players can still make cursed items: they simply have to suck hard enough at it to do so (intentionally fail by 5 or more) when crafting the magical item in question.:smallannoyed:
Except that those rules don't allow you to make specific cursed items. A item crafting mage or whatever can't say "I want to make dust of sneezing and choking" and succeed without the DM specifically allowing this to happen (the DM could easily just replace the offending item with some other curse.)


3. Okay, so all casters can fly. What about Bubs the Horserider and his trusty lance? This is an issue. Casters get free (or nearly free) flight while nonmagical mean sit on the ground going "I sure wish I knew how to fight with a bow..."
Potion of fly? Wand of Air Walk? Some other magic item? A flying mount? Having a class feature or being a race with flight?
If he's so intent on flying - this is why he has a wizard or cleric on the team - becuase Im sure a dedicated lancing PF fighter is going to be a bigger terror of the sky than either the cleric or the wizard will.
Why are we even discussing this again? I don't believe the whole mundane vs. magic arguement has been the focus of any of my main points in my initial post here or since. This has all been off-topic.
This was supposed to be about pathfinder and 3.5 edition comparative changes in terms of game balance. It's related, I understand, but sort of secondhand.


Consider the flowing: If a wizard gets free magic by virtue of being a wizard (he does) while the fighter must compensate for his known Lacking Aptitude in Magical Awareness Disease or "LAMED" via all of his wealth... does it not stand to reason that "Paying Bill to be Bob while Bob can also pay to be rich with gear" not seem a little, well, annoying?
Only if you picked fighter, have no idea how to play an effective fighter, and envy the other player who is playing an effective wizard. So far you and Jaded Dragon have focused on "well, wizard gets X and Y and Z spells and spell combos while fighter doesn't.
What am I supposed to say to respond to that? Yeah - spells and magic are sort of the caster's thing. Whoop de ****.
This is exactly what I mean when I say that the people who hyperbole the magic vs mundane classes arguements completely hyperbole the use and effectiveness of magic.


Okay, that's nice but irrelevant. From a balance perspective, it's annoying being told you can play someone like Conan only to find out that being a crafty barbarian requires you to use at least as much magic as the obviously evil wizard rather than just yelling "BY CROM!" to best him.:smallsigh:
Only because I don't think people have any real idea how to represent conan in D&D. In PF as well as 3.5 edition, characters of about 5th level are about the peak of human ability. a 15th level character is more powerful than every character in all three of hte lord of hte rings movies, including Gandalf, the Balrog, Sauron, Saruman, and everyone else. (I've seen a fairly good arguement that Sauron, when he had a body, was likely an 11th level cleric at the VERY most.)
So if you're idea of Conan is being able to run up to and slaughter an evil wizard in nothing but his skivvies and a big honking sword, then he's probably closer to 5th level, if that. (On top of the fact that you're also possibly imagining a different system from D&D that has vastly less emphasis on magic items that certainly is not dungeons and dragons where its classes and obstacles are balanced around this fact.)


Sure, having a bag of tricks is nice (especially for someone who wants the extra goodies that are out there in random magic items), but when it comes time to spend your portion of the loot and you're the one constantly scratching to get your fix of magic, the rest of the group may say it's time for an intervention. That or you should all talk as players about it outside of the game. Either way, really.
I should really emphasize the point I made above. Look in the core PF and 3.5e rulebook and look at the starting wealth by level guide. The game assumes you'll have roughly that amount of wealth in magic items (with a fair amount of flexability) and the game is balanced around this fact. This has always been the case with D&D. Always.
This is particularly true with high levels, to lesser extend with mid-levels, but also true to some extent with low levels as well (particularly with scrolls and potions, but also the odd cheap wonderous item). The game is rife with magic and some campaign settings (like forgotten realms and eberron) are absolutely rife with it in some fashion or another.
If you're going to make scenarios at me about all the magic the fighter doesn't have, then we're not even talking about D&D. This is why wizards, clerics, and bards are traditional members of the adventuring party and why even thorps and backwoods alleys in virtually every D&D campaign setting have access to magical wares.



K, then stop bothering with the ever-present case of Casters Vs Noncasters. Because both 3.5 and PF have that in their existence. Hell, a lot of it was shown during the open beta about balance issues and the like where the game breaks down. It was ignored, and, well, that's kind of an issue. If it isn't for your table, then play as you were.
Don't tell me that - I wasn't the one that brought it up. I just didn't back down from making a few points on the matter.


In the end, it boils down to a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors. The fighter's going to throw rock or paper at just about all levels (do damage, maybe one type of CMD) while the wizard can throw all three (Fort Save, Ref Save, Will Save, Melee/Ranged (Touch) Attacks, et al.)
Grossly oversimplified and you completely glossed over what the fighter CAN do, but yes wizards ultimately have more versitility in the core of their class if you don't count items, feats, skill selection, and numerous combat options and even so doesn't necessarily make the mage the more powerful character class overall by any sort of significant margin, much less game-breaking - particularly in pathfinder.


It is one feat for the price of two (Good), except that the DCs will be higher, what with the not having the right spells and all and the fact that you can't craft anything your heart desires, meaning in a larger chance of cursed (super bad) items. Or, hell, the fact that magical crafters can also take it for the same benefits if they so wish to craft like the madboys they are.
Well, let's say that my heart desires a lifedrinker. The caster level is 13 and enervation is a requirement. DC 18. My bonus is 13 (minimum ranks to meet the caster level prerequisite) +2 from the feat. I take ten on the craft/profession check and couldn't possibly fail by 5 if I need to roll. (13 ranks +3 trained +2 from the master craftsman feat). So there's an enormous chance I get hte sword I want, assuming I have to roll at all and don't have any ability or skill focus bonuses. Skill focus alone (before skill-boosting items and wisdom/int boosters borrowed from the party casters or other spells) gives access to items that have one or two prerequisties beyond that even (negated also by apprentices who can 'aid other' for silver pieces per day.)
Your arguement is invalid.


Yeah, the issue still exists, though. It is a team game for teammates fighting encounters where people should be working together. It still hurts when one person can cast a spell and either circumnavigate the entire challenge (e.g., cannon meet fly) or entirely eliminate another party member at later levels (I.E., "Dear <Planar Binding Target>, I am contracting with you to serve a term of one (1) year as my personal butler and gladiator...").
Indeed - also lots of money, time, and several chances to fail (the creature gets a will save, a spell resistance check, it can make a charisma check against a DC of 15 + 1/2 your caster level + your charisma modifier, and an opposed charisma check with bonuses or penalties depending on the reward and nature of the service.)
After all of that, you get a 6, 12, or 18 HD ally (as soon as 9th level, 11th level, and 15th level, respectively) that'll still be less effective than a dedicated and fully equipped player character and only for a single dedicated task that the DM can abjucate (which affects the cost and chances of succesfully convincing the creature to perform said task.) A natural one can allow the creature to break free adn escape or attack you and it may hold a grudge against you regardless of the success or failure of the spell. The spell remains in effect for 1 day per caster level regardless of everything and a new chance to break free if the task is too broad. Evil summoned creatures can also distort or pervert your instructions to its own ends.
So yeah - been there and done that. Your arguement once again is completely hyperbolic.
Even Gate in PF relies on the planar binding rules for the purpose of a summoned creature's extended stay and costs a minimum of 10k gold plus more as an offering.(based upon planar ally-type spells as an example).


PF didn't fix these imbalances, which is kind of a pain. Does everyone notice them? No, and for such people, they probably are doing fine and having fun. For people that do notice them, PF can look like someone's attempt at house-ruling the game in non-positive ways. Personally, I view it somewhere between someone's houserules and splat book rules by Green Ronin: overall interesting, but not always well crafted.
That's because those imbalances neither break the game nor invalidate other classes as you claim because your arguements conveniently forget the limitaitons of what spells and casters can do while ignoring just about everything the other classes can do because they can't cast spells as a class feature (or can't cast spells as well). That's essentially a strawman arguement.

[Fatebreaker]

[Timmy's] need is to play the meatiest creature on the battlefield, regardless of complex concerns about card advantage and tempo. How is that a different need than the fighter player merely wanting a class that lets them smash face, without complex concerns like tier systems?

-Psyren

Spoiler'd!

Because that isn't Timmy's need at all. Timmy's need is to experience the awesomeness of how the game makes him feel when he plays. In Magic, that's fairly straightforward. Big cards are an easy start. And dragons. Everybody loves dragons!

In D&D, though, it's a bit different. Magic cards are built around the T/J/S profiles. Other games may or may not be -- but the player mentalities still exist. Timmy is a Timmy no matter what he plays. So when he strolls up to the barbarian or the monk or the fighter, wanting to feel like the cool movie he just saw, he expects that those classes are going to deliver on an experience, because that's what the game is telling him.

The stereotype is that Timmy is dumb, or simple, or new, or a kid, or whatever. But it's not true (new / dumb / simple / kid Timmy's are just really easy to spot). Timmy just has a different motivation and objective while playing. He's looking for mechanics to deliver an emotion, not an outcome. It's that mechanics are secondary to experience. A complex class that delivers on the experience it promises is just as good in Timmy's book as a simple class that does the same.

Game balance is weird for Timmy as a result. Let's look at the monk, the fighter, and the wizard:

The monk is a "bad" class for Timmy, because the stories it derives from have a very different flavor than both D&D in general and the mechanical expression of the monk class in particular. Timmy is attracted to the monk for reasons that the mechanics don't really deliver on, because the monk doesn't behave like the anime ninja or mythical kung-fu master it presents itself as.

Fighter can be a decent class for Timmy, especially early on, both in terms of personal experience and character level. But as the game goes on, the shine starts to fade. The fighter disappoints Timmy not because of the theories of game mechanics or class balance, but because he gets disheartened when the party cleric starts being a better fighter than the fighter.

Timmy is capable of playing a wizard god-king, but he's not doing it because of any mechanical advantages. He's doing it because he wants to play a wizard of [cool sound echo] ULTIMAAAAAATE POOOOOOOOOOOWER! [/cool sound echo]. And since the wizard class mechanically delivers on that emotional need, it's a good class for Timmy.

Anyhow, the point is that trap feats or poorly constructed classes are terrible game design when appealing to Timmy, because the "rewards" for recognizing trap feats or poorly constructed classes are not actually rewarding to Timmy. It's like giving someone scuba gear for Christmas when they don't like to be underwater. Sure, they're ... better off? I guess? But it's not something that appeals to them.

Oh, and I got quite a chuckle out of your [citation needed] bit a ways back. Hats off, sir. Hats off indeed.


In other words, the game is designed around a party of adventurers working together to overcome obstacles as a team...

-Neoxenok

Well, that's the intention, but that doesn't mean that it follows through upon execution. Games have a variety of ways for their intentions to get lost well before it ever reaches the players. Good game design trims down on this and communicates its intentions in a mechanically executable way.

D&D 3.x has a variety of ways for certain classes to become largely independent of the "team" which follows in their wake.

Certainly, that's not always going to be the case. In one massive game we ran during a hurricane, twenty player-characters all showed up at a town. No characters knew each other. Naturally, factions began forming. Three days of treachery and betrayal later, the winning duo? A monk and a paladin.

Many wizards died to bring you this anecdote.

Recognizing that something you like has faults or areas where other games perform better is not a bad thing. This is how improvement begins.

[Lord_Gareth]

Hey, ah, Neoxenok? Relevent thread contains relevance (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129672). I suggest you read it thoroughly before you revive an argument that's as old as 3.5 and as tired, dead and false as Zeno's Paradox.

[nightwyrm]

Ok, one more try at porting this T/J/S thing into D&D. (An aside on "winning" in D&D, there might not be "winning" in a chess or Magic sense in D&D but there's certain aspect of the game a player can "win" at, winning the combat being the most obvious example.) With that in mind, let's take a look at how each of the archetype might approach winning in combat by playing a wizard.

A Timmy would most likely play the blaster. He likes big numbers and flashy effects. Blowing people up is cool. Fireball et al. are right up his alley. Now, a blaster is a bad archetype in 3.x, but pre-3e, it was a pretty good choice. A Timmy blaster in 2nd ed. would've been a valuable member of the party. Certain segments of Timmys might also enjoy playing the SoD wizard. Not necessarily because they recognize that SoD are better than blasting spells, but because they think that turning people into stone or killing someone by just waving a finger at them is cool.

A Johnny would play the gish. He likes to think outside the box and make normally bad ideas work well. A squishy wizard thriving in melee combat is a good challenge for him. Putting together all the PrCs and feats he'll need to make a gish is sorta analogous to putting together a Johnny deck.

As for the Spike, the common perception is that "he like to win". While that is true, that description is incomplete, even when you're only talking about Magic. After all, no one plays a game to deliberately lose, even Timmys and Johnnys wants to win. The true hallmark of a Spike is efficiency. Why cast two spells when a single one would do or why SoD one guy when you can SoL a bunch instead. A Spike playing a wizard would most likely play a God wizard. He's the guy who plays stinking cloud to incapacitate all enemies and lets the rest of the party mop up or who figured out that haste is actually the most damaging 3rd lv spell.

The problem with playing a Timmy (likes flashy effects and rolling big damage) in 3.x is that he also needs to be a Johnny to be effective. You can play an effective blaster or melee damage dealer (I'd put the ubercharger as a Timmy archetype), but you need to jump through a lot of hoops with feats and PrCs in order to be really good at what you do.

[Neoxenok]

Hey, ah, Neoxenok? Relevent thread contains relevance (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129672). I suggest you read it thoroughly before you revive an argument that's as old as 3.5 and as tired, dead and false as Zeno's Paradox.

Two things:
1) I'm not the one that keeps bringing this up! For all the links people have posted here to tell me to read. Why is no one actually reading my posts or the posts I'm responding to? Granted, I'm not going out of my way to end that portion of the debate but I'm not the one that brought up the tired magic v mundane arguements outside of its relationship to the changes that pathfinder made to the d20 system.

2) This debate is far older than 3.5 edition and 3rd edition. It's as old as people have been able to discuss the topic at all - particularly with the internet in the past decade. The discussion and entire premise is just as faulty now as it ever was.


Well, that's the intention, but that doesn't mean that it follows through upon execution. Games have a variety of ways for their intentions to get lost well before it ever reaches the players. Good game design trims down on this and communicates its intentions in a mechanically executable way.

D&D 3.x has a variety of ways for certain classes to become largely independent of the "team" which follows in their wake.

Really? Yeah, it was the intention. Yeah, people can 'go solo'. Yeah, they're still not nearly as effective or efficient in overcoming obstacles as a team and the odds of success are severely diminished barring spending far more resources than even an entire team for the same results, assuming success is even possible.
A DM could certainly design a solo adventure and the game would allow for that, but mostly that would involve making sure the challenges are easier to overcome the player never experiences certain challenges at all because of a required skill set, spell, power, or whatever.
It's just as true in PF as in any edition of D&D.

[Coidzor]

Certainly, that's not always going to be the case. In one massive game we ran during a hurricane, twenty player-characters all showed up at a town. No characters knew each other. Naturally, factions began forming. Three days of treachery and betrayal later, the winning duo? A monk and a paladin.

Many wizards died to bring you this anecdote.

Let me guess, they were entirely ignored and the others basically ended up illustrating the principle of mutually assured destruction admirably?

Also, your other spoiler? Well said.

nightwyrm: I believe your post illuminated the concept better than all of the WOTC articles I read on it combined.


Still a free attack, but one that soaks up an AoO.

Having to pay an AoO for the attack would be the opposite of free in that it has a cost. So you're wrong both in principle and in the definition of the word in the sense that it is generally used in this context.


10: not costing or charging anything (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free)


... and unless I'm mistaken, it borks a lot of those supposedly overpowered tripper builds that the WotC CharOp board members like to make.
I believe it was the reason why the spiked chain was often banned, yes?

Saying that the designers don't understand the game and that's why they changed it isn't better. That's worse.

:smallconfused: Why would you think that was a good point to bring up? Or is this not actually a point and instead an observational aside and you're actually asking the question unironically?

[Neoxenok]

Having to pay an AoO for the attack would be the opposite of free in that it has a cost. So you're wrong both in principle and in the definition of the word in the sense that it is generally used in this context.
If there's anything I'm always happy to hear about, it's someone who introduces themselves to me from an internet forum by nitpicking my english and showing me the definition of "free" as though I somehow didn't understand the term.
We appear to already be off to a good start.

Yes, it's not technically free. Neither is 3.5e's improved trip because it technically costs a feat, requires a suitable weapon, and a successful opposed trip attempt in order to activate the "free" attack at all.


Saying that the designers don't understand the game and that's why they changed it isn't better. That's worse.
I wasn't aware that the various peoples contributing to the Character Optimization Forums of the Wizards of the Coast Dungeons and Dragons/d20 forums were game designers of Dungeons and Dragons of any edition. In fact, I don't believe that I said anything about the game designer's ability to understand their own game to that effect at all.


:smallconfused: Why would you think that was a good point to bring up? Or is this not actually a point and instead an observational aside and you're actually asking the question unironically?
... I brought it up because I assumed people would read the entire post to get that point into proper context instead of skimming points and making assumptions about what I say and responding to a strawman instead of my actual point.
I brought it up to point out that improved trip got something above and beyond the other maneuver feats in 3.5 edition (the bonus attack) that wasn't considered balanced by some people and used in "overpowered" Charop melee builds by others. (There was even an Oots comic about such a tripper some time ago.)
It's important to note because the persons I've been in a discussion with have been pointing out to me that the feats in PF were knocked down in overall power - examplified by Improved Trip being split into two feats to do the same thing as one in 3.5 edition and making the increased number of feats actually a net loss instead of a gain.
My counterpoint is that that assessment is bullhockey becuase
1) Improved trip granted more than the other maneuver feats
2) the +4 benefit is the equivelent of the +2 benefit in pathfinder because of the way the game changes in other areas and shouldn't be considered as a nerf.
3) Improved Trip was problematic in 3.5e to at least some people so the change in PF not only made it more balanced in general, but also compared to the other maneuver feats since they get bonus abilities also between the improved/greater versions.

[Coidzor]

Yes, it's not technically free. Neither is 3.5e's improved trip because it technically costs a feat, requires a suitable weapon, and a successful opposed trip attempt in order to activate the "free" attack at all.

Indeed, but it does cost less than pathfinder's, which is the point of saying that it is nerfed above and beyond the doubled feat cost in a system that does not grant double the feats.

I don't usually like to do it, really, but people equating the AoO PF gives and 3.5's improved trip extra attack is a special pet peeve of mine. So that was perhaps a tad excessive.

On the other hand, I have not exactly been absent from this thread. :smallconfused:


I wasn't aware that the various peoples contributing to the Character Optimization Forums of the Wizards of the Coast Dungeons and Dragons/d20 forums were game designers of Dungeons and Dragons of any edition. In fact, I don't believe that I said anything about the game designer's ability to understand their own game to that effect at all.

Well, then, either that was just disingenuous to imply that it was changed to fix that perceived problem by the pathfinder devs then or the question as to what you were really angling at by bringing it up in the first place is still valid and you should probably actually address it rather than attempt to distract the conversation from your point with a side tangent.

What you go on to say in the rest of your post certainly makes it seem like you do feel that the pathfinder devs either had similar complaints themselves or were reacting to those complaints you mentioned by nerfing improved trip.


... I brought it up because I assumed people would read the entire post to get that point into proper context instead of skimming points and making assumptions about what I say and responding to a strawman instead of my actual point.

Ah, but I did read the rest of your post. I just didn't feel like bogging down people skimming through thread with excess text.

Like now, for instance. I just didn't particularly feel like you were expressing a very compelling point.

Making them cost two feats when the system's change didn't really add in enough feats for it to be reasonable for characters to take double the feats combined with putting the feats somewhere between very bad and fairly good still means that the fairly good option has had its station lowered.

[Acanous]

Oddly enough, from my experience, Timmy archetypes enjoy Pathfinder independant of third edition, Johnny archetypes want both 3.5 and pathfinder, and Spike likes just 3.5, because the infinate combos and win-spells are well known and numerous.

I peg myself as a Johnny.

[Leolo]

I played in a pathfinder RPG group for about a year, and it was really funny. Mainly because of the group, the story and because Pathfinder RPG is based on 3.5 and 3.5 is a good system.

But most of the changes PRPG made to it are not really well thought, and often they where standing in our way and heavily critizised.

When the beta cames out i stated: If anyone would post this changes as a potential houserule in a forum, claiming it is his own idea people will judge them as no improvement to the game. If not outright saying that those are bad houserules.

And this has not changed.

[Fatebreaker]

I'm not the one that keeps bringing this up!

Well, you do keep trying to say that the "entire premise is just as faulty now as it ever was," which is... not so true. Or, rather, it is, but not for the reasons you think. It's just as true then as it is now (which is to say, very true), so I'd suppose it's also just as false then as it is now (which is to say, not very false at all).

It's worth mentioning, by the way, that your first contribution to this discussion ended with...


I could keep going on and on about the tremendous improvements over 3.5 that pathfinder has and the illegitimate complaints against it, but those are a few examples without going into the ridiculous "tier"-related things but I'm starting to see why Piazo booted some people out of the discussion when they were making the game.

...I mean, that's just not constructive, y'know?

(emphasis mine, by the way)

The opening poster asked why some people stuck by 3.5 while others migrated to Pathfinder, and what the differences between the two systems were. Discussing how Pathfinder did not fix a variety of very real game imbalances and poor mechanics is a legitimate topic. Anyone who had these concerns in 3.5 would likely be interested to know whether or not they exist in Pathfinder, and to what degree.

For players who already felt that feats were a poor return on their investment, Pathfinder's tendency to break up feats and require an even greater investment to get a similar (still poor) return is worthwhile to know. For players who aren't bothered by it, knowing it doesn't hurt them, and may help them avoid becoming bothered by it by helping them make smart choices in their feat selection.


Yeah, people can 'go solo'. Yeah, they're still not nearly as effective or efficient in overcoming obstacles as a team and the odds of success are severely diminished barring spending far more resources than even an entire team for the same results, assuming success is even possible.

The point isn't that you can play a solo adventure. A solo adventure (well, a two-player game if you count the DM, and you really should) is fine and dandy. The point is that some classes reach a point where they have little to no incentive to keep the rest of the team around.

And it's worth mentioning that this occurrence is not always the result of an individual deliberately choosing to manipulate the game in such a fashion as to render everyone else at the table little more than a bystander. These are people you should not play with, and if you do, you have only yourself to blame. This can very easily result from players following through on the mechanics of the game, especially if they aren't aware of things like "Linear Fighters & Quadratic Wizards." When the fighter-player is surprised to learn that his contribution isn't relevant, how much fun do you think he'll have?

Heck, even understanding the difference between what the game tells you a class can do and what a class can actually do is a great first step towards playing the class you want to play.

I'm going to use an example from Shadowrun. Now, this example features an individual who drags the group down, because it provides a convenient means of examining one party member, and a clear-cut case of where fewer party members would have actually increased our success, resources, and all-around fun. The reverse is also true, where a single party member is dragged down by the actions of the group.

Our party had a decker (hacker, for all you non-runners out there), who was absolutely terrible. At everything. Everything, everything, everything. She couldn't fight. She couldn't socialize. She couldn't use technical skills. She had no useful contacts. She couldn't contribute in any way.

And that would have been okay, if she'd been any good at decking.

She was not.

She cost us money, because every time she tried to do something, she failed. Sometimes that meant we had to expend more resources just trying to get back to square one. Sometimes that meant that things we'd stolen were ruined, and now unable to be cashed in for real money-dollars. And every time we did get paid, she got a cut, even though she hadn't earned it, which meant less money for people who had actually been competent.

She also cost us in less tangible resources. Whenever a fight broke out, we had to protect her, because she couldn't fight. We learned two-thirds of the way through the campaign that her npc-boyfriend was actually spying on us and selling information on us to the same megacorporations we were targeting, and she'd never realized this because she couldn't socialize. She cost us jobs, because when the job calls for a decker, and your decker can't deck, you don't have the most stellar chances of doing the job and getting paid. Other party members had to learn skills that she was supposed to be covering, because she was not, in fact, covering them.

Now, we kept her around because she was our friend, and we wanted her to be a part of the group. But there was no real reason in-game for us to keep her around. She had such a negative impact on our party that it strained our suspension of disbelief that, in a game about cutthroat criminals, we did not in fact cut her throat.

We laugh about it now, but at the time, any time she got involved, the game became a lot less fun for everyone. The GM had to coddle her. The rest of us had to make up for her. She was always being overshadowed by everyone else.

For the next campaign, we sat down and helped her find the right mechanics to match her concept and be a functional part of the team. She played the same character, but this time, she was a much more positive influence and we all ended up having a lot more fun.

Whatever the reason, whatever the circumstance, understanding the difference between original intent and mechanical execution is a positive thing.

Understanding what elements of a game are aimed at what kind of player is, likewise, a positive thing, because that helps players find what they're looking for in a game. I get it -- things that bother other people don't bother you. That's fine. There are a lot of people just like you who are also not bothered by it or who feel that the positives outweigh the negatives. But other people are bothered by certain elements of 3.x's game design, and trying to say that those concerns are illegitimate or ridiculous is in no way constructive towards helping someone understand the pros and cons of two different (though) similar games.


Let me guess, they were entirely ignored and the others basically ended up illustrating the principle of mutually assured destruction admirably?

Also, your other spoiler? Well said.

At first, yeah, they kept their heads down while the others fought. Smiled the whole time, playing factions against one another, and basically stayed one or two steps behind everyone else, backstabbing and betraying when no one else was paying attention. It was a great exhibition of both good roleplaying (on everyone's part, since out of character they could see where this was headed, but admirably stayed in character), and smart play on the paladin/monk duo.

Also? Thank you.


-Stuff-

I'd like to second Coidzor's compliments. Very nicely put.

[Rejusu]

The best thing about Pathfinder is that it's still in print and you can actually buy it. Trying to find 3.5 books that are both in good condition and priced reasonably is difficult. And the only other option is pirating the PDF's. I can understand WotC not printing 3.5 material to promote their crummy new edition but they could at least sell us the PDF's. I'm so glad I got a set of core books and some good supplements (XPH, CP, MoI, Magic Item Compendium and Spell Compendium) before they vanished but I really wish I had a full set of the Complete books too.

Other than that Pathfinder or 3.5 aren't really better than one another. They just make trade-off's. Some things PF improved, some things they made worse. Thankfully they're similar enough that you can just cherry pick from both.

[Chained Birds]

All this talk about Johnny, Timmy, and Spike type players has gotten me thinking about where I'm at on this spectrum.

Hmm, I'd say either Full Johnny or 3/4th Johnny with 1/4th Timmy.

I like flashy characters but am pretty good at natural optimizing so that my flashy character can be both good at his job and be able to accomplish other tasks. My characters are never "I win" types, as playing a character like that ruins the fun a bit; much like when DMs simply give you everything you ask for and never give the party a challenge because of fear of TPK.

Regardless of the nerfs PF has received, I still feel like I actually have more options playing it compared to 3.5. And me and my friends are actually big fans of sticking with a class from 1-20, which 3.5 (most of the time) penalized you for doing so.

[Neoxenok]

Well, you do keep trying to say that the "entire premise is just as faulty now as it ever was," which is... not so true. Or, rather, it is, but not for the reasons you think. It's just as true then as it is now (which is to say, very true), so I'd suppose it's also just as false then as it is now (which is to say, not very false at all).
That's debatable and yes I do keep bringing that point up as a response to the accusations of retarded statements of "well the wizard can just gate in a pit fiend and take a nap" sorts of arguements. The angel/BMX was one such thing pointed out on this thread.
It's a strawman and an incomplete picture of the balance of the game as a whole with a not-so-subtle hint of bias. You can't just isolate parts of the game into petri dishes and expect good results.


...I mean, that's just not constructive, y'know?
Neither is saying "You're wrong" (or rather '...not so true') and offering neither reason nor counterpoints. I disagree and I feel I have good reason to do so for the reason I've already outlined.


The opening poster asked why some people stuck by 3.5 while others migrated to Pathfinder, and what the differences between the two systems were. Discussing how Pathfinder did not fix a variety of very real game imbalances and poor mechanics is a legitimate topic. Anyone who had these concerns in 3.5 would likely be interested to know whether or not they exist in Pathfinder, and to what degree.

For players who already felt that feats were a poor return on their investment, Pathfinder's tendency to break up feats and require an even greater investment to get a similar (still poor) return is worthwhile to know. For players who aren't bothered by it, knowing it doesn't hurt them, and may help them avoid becoming bothered by it by helping them make smart choices in their feat selection.
A legitimate topic it is - my disagreement comes from what those so-called "very real game imbalances and poor mechanics" are and the effectiveness of what pathfinder has done with them both specifically and what it means for the game as a whole.

This isn't to say that I don't have my gripes with both systems, they simply appear to be different and with subsequently different conclusions.

Your above assessment of feats for example is completely wrong and your only evidence for that conclusion is the change with improved trip which still got a net gain because the bonus from the two feats is twice the 3.5e equivelent and you STILL get the extra attack. The only difference is that the other maneuver feats (which are essentially equal to their 3.5e counterparts) now ALSO get a boost like the bonus attack.
You're talking about trees while condemning the whole forest.


The point is that some classes reach a point where they have little to no incentive to keep the rest of the team around.
... and when does this happen, exactly? People keep saying this like it's supposed to be a thing but I have never seen or heard of this actually happening. Anywhere. Ever. It's like the D&D equivelent of Urban Legends or old wives' tales or other myths.

Now, I need to point out something important in that I'm not blind to 3.5e's problems. At some point, I'll make a post to clarify my issues with 3.5e and how pathfinder fixed most of them and my issues with pathfinder so perhaps we'll have a bit better understanding of one another, but it took me far longer than I thought it would to make this post so it's going to take a bit of time and I'll save that for later.


And it's worth mentioning that this occurrence is not always the result of an individual deliberately choosing to manipulate the game in such a fashion as to render everyone else at the table little more than a bystander. These are people you should not play with, and if you do, you have only yourself to blame. This can very easily result from players following through on the mechanics of the game, especially if they aren't aware of things like "Linear Fighters & Quadratic Wizards." When the fighter-player is surprised to learn that his contribution isn't relevant, how much fun do you think he'll have?

Heck, even understanding the difference between what the game tells you a class can do and what a class can actually do is a great first step towards playing the class you want to play.
I get that high level spells are more powerful than high level class abilities, but that's only one dimension to D&D and Pathfinder's 11-dimensional string theory of game balance.
Again, this seems like a fabricated issue.


Whatever the reason, whatever the circumstance, understanding the difference between original intent and mechanical execution is a positive thing.

Understanding what elements of a game are aimed at what kind of player is, likewise, a positive thing, because that helps players find what they're looking for in a game. I get it -- things that bother other people don't bother you. That's fine. There are a lot of people just like you who are also not bothered by it or who feel that the positives outweigh the negatives. But other people are bothered by certain elements of 3.x's game design, and trying to say that those concerns are illegitimate or ridiculous is in no way constructive towards helping someone understand the pros and cons of two different (though) similar games.
Great, we agree then on several points here, except one.
When a bunch of people tell a OP that the game is systemically problematic because they made one (supposedly) problematic feat less powerful as a symptom of every other feat in the book, the relationship between the magic and mundane aspects of the game don't conform to their subjective views on what the game should have (the 'christmas tree effect'), and so on as actual game balance issues, then I have every reason to call them out on it, particularly since some matters appear to be 'common knowledge' here but not in actual gameplay (wizards making fighters irrelevant).


Indeed, but it does cost less than pathfinder's, which is the point of saying that it is nerfed above and beyond the doubled feat cost in a system that does not grant double the feats.
Well, I've already said why this is wrong, so I don't really see a point in doing anything other than mentioning that since I'm tired of repeating myself since none of my points on improved trip have been refuted.


I don't usually like to do it, really, but people equating the AoO PF gives and 3.5's improved trip extra attack is a special pet peeve of mine. So that was perhaps a tad excessive.
that's fine - I've just seen too many people complain in the past about abusive tripper builds (this is before people moved onto the abusive caster builds, but it hasn't gone away) so I can understand why it's there even though I myself never considered it an issue. It doesn't appear to negate the usefulness of the feats, the "improved trip" feat is now in line with the other improved maneuver feats, and the greater versions all double the maneuver bonus and also grant a special thing like greater trip does - keeping in mind that +2 Maneuver bonus and defense is the same as the +4 in 3.5e because of the change of several of the core mechanics so a lot of the bonuses have been halved (the best example being size bonuses for grapple.)
So with that mind, the improved trip feat in pathfinder is now exactly where the other maneuver feats were to to begin with - bonus plus negates AoO. It's still a net bonus.


Making them cost two feats when the system's change didn't really add in enough feats for it to be reasonable for characters to take double the feats combined with putting the feats somewhere between very bad and fairly good still means that the fairly good option has had its station lowered.
... and my ultimate point that you didn't feel the urge to respond to was that this is an illegitimate complaint because that individudal feat was imbalanced, not representative of any of the other feats (more feats got boosted in power than nerfed), and is now better designed considering the issues with tripper builds that were commmonly complained about in 3.x and telling me that the whole forest should be burned becuase you thought that one of the trees was sick.

[Big Fau]

... and unless I'm mistaken, it borks a lot of those supposedly overpowered tripper builds that the WotC CharOp board members like to make.
I believe it was the reason why the spiked chain was often banned, yes?

The reasons the Spiked Chain was banned was because some DMs could not cope with an encounter-altering ability like chain-tripping. They did not understand how to bypass it, which is relatively trivial to do, and hardly overpowered. Even the best chain tripper build out there falls short of Tier 3, and was easily rendered obsolete by certain enemies (swarms, for example, completely dominate a Chain Tripper).

Paizo nerfed it because they didn't understand this either.



By the way, the wording you used in that quote makes me think you don't really understand what the WotC CO boards were ment to do: Provide players with optimization advice. The Chain Trippers that popped up were almost universally attempts to improve upon on an existing tactic that was nearing it's peak.

[Aasimar]

The more I read this, the more I get the impression that either people are playing WAY too much, running into WAY too esoteric troubles that start overpowering their enjoyment of what is a pretty good system if people don't intentionally break it.

Or, alternately, people are getting way too hung up on hypothetical issues that never come up in most peoples actual play.

You don't like that a wizard can replace the whole party if he's built that way? Don't build him that way.

It's like we're always competing, always feeling like if we don't go for the absolutely hyper-optimized choice, we're being stupid, and might look stupid in front of the guy sitting next to us who does play that way (or would in our shoes)

It's a game, for fun. Much like Varsuvius would be much more powerful as a conjurer than as an evoker, but the story would suffer for it if Rich built him to be a God-wizard.

Instead he thought, 'What would an elf like that pick as his abilities?' And wound up with an interesting, powerful character, that doesn't break his setting.

I'm not telling you you're having your fun wrong (well, maybe a little bit), I'm just saying, all these concerns only need to trouble you as much as you allow them to.

I think good practice for this is playing Mutants and Masterminds. Using that system, it's a given that even a low power character can absolutely horrifyingly break the system and do whatever he damn well wants, if that's the goal of his designer. Instead, it takes some self discipline to focus on your goal of creating a useful, fun character, instead of grabbing every possible advantage and running with it.

[Felorn]

I don't know if this has been said. I don't wanna read ll of your posts. But the reason I like 3.5 better is because its 3.5. Pathfinder is fun but its just a rip-off of 3.5 with minor 'tweaks'. I have no further interest in supporting Paizo. 3.5 may have been a remake of 3.0 but at least its the same company and ultimately for the better. Paizo just wanted to make money, therefore they ripped off a game and called it theirs.

IMO

[Big Fau]

Paizo just wanted to make money, therefore they ripped off a game and called it theirs.

As much as I badmouth Paizo, I'd have to argue against this. They made Pathfinder because they felt WotC had abandoned their fans when 4E was finally revealed.

[Coidzor]

As much as I badmouth Paizo, I'd have to argue against this. They made Pathfinder because they felt WotC had abandoned their fans when 4E was finally revealed.

I seem to recall that at least some of it was that they liked having a business publishing adventure paths and such and continuing by making their own tweak of 3.5's OGL content was more palatable to them than starting to do it for 4e or whatever would have been necessary to do it for 4e or having the business fold.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I'll echo Big Fau. Chain trippers aren't overpowered. Tripping may have been one of the more viable combat maneuvers in 3.5, but that only means other maneuvers weren't viable enough. I have never met a DM or been in an actual game that couldn't handle a tripper. YMMV, but like Big Fau already said, there are umpteen counters, so one could quite easily learn to handle a tripper.

Aasimar: What spells would someone with a supergenius intellect prepare if he believed he would spend that day spelunking and killing dangerous monsters? If you said "the most effective spells possible for that situation," you get a cookie. If you said "spells that are weak enough to make his companions feel useful," you are metagaming. Sure, it's nice metagaming that the group doesn't mind, but it can break the player's immersion. So yes, it's possible to cope with the system by essentially ignoring the win buttons. It's still a problem if you have to ignore the win buttons.

[Gnaeus]

Well, let's say that my heart desires a lifedrinker. The caster level is 13 and enervation is a requirement. DC 18. My bonus is 13 (minimum ranks to meet the caster level prerequisite) +2 from the feat. I take ten on the craft/profession check and couldn't possibly fail by 5 if I need to roll. (13 ranks +3 trained +2 from the master craftsman feat). So there's an enormous chance I get hte sword I want, assuming I have to roll at all and don't have any ability or skill focus bonuses. Skill focus alone (before skill-boosting items and wisdom/int boosters borrowed from the party casters or other spells) gives access to items that have one or two prerequisties beyond that even (negated also by apprentices who can 'aid other' for silver pieces per day.)
Your arguement is invalid.

So, wait, let me see... My sorcerer spends 2 feats, and maxes his Spellcraft, which he was going to do anyway, and he can craft any magic armor and weapon in the book, and any miscellaneous item in the book.

Total cost: 13 ranks of skills, 2 feats.

Your Fighter spends 2 feats, and maxes craft: Weaponsmithing, and he can make magic weapons. If he wants to also make armor, thats another feat. If he wants to make most (not all) wondrous items, he has to take Master Craftsman 2 more times (jewelry, Clothing) and then the crafting feat.

Total cost for similar result: 2 crafting feats, 4 Master Craftsman feats, 52 ranks in crafting skills, and at the end he can craft ALMOST as well as I can.

And this is an argument for narrowing the gap between fighters and casters HOW?

[Aasimar]

I don't think we need to treat high int as 'supergenius', people can be very intelligent and at the same time be very dumb. (I've talked to Bobby Fischer, he's a good example of this)

I don't think every wizard has access to or knows about the peculiars of all the spells in the same way as someone who has poured over the rulebooks. He may be the in-universe equivalent of a rules lawyer, but he should not have the same mastery of his in-universe physics as someone able to look up all the rules on a whim.

Like say, Rope trick, they might have heard about it, but would the idea of using it extended as a place to sleep have occured to EVERY adventuring wizard? Not if we don't think it ought to have. Maybe they just consider it a nifty trick that comedians use in slapstick comedy or something.

I'd much rather handwave it away in some fashion than go "oh well, there goes the game" or painstakingly try to mend every fence or power up every other class so it still works.

[Doug Lampert]

3.5's problem is that the power disparities are simply too large, and it gets to the point where some characters simply can't be represented in a way that makes them capable of what you imagine them doing without a near-ludicrous amount of system mastery (and splatbooks).

My summary of the problem is that Rogue/Wizard/Cleric/Fighter is substantually weaker in every significant way than Cleric/Wizard/Cleric/Druid.

I don't care if a wizard can beat a fighter one on one, the game isn't about one on one. I don't care if a wizard has more options than a fighter, its nice to have a class for people who aren't all that interested in lots of complicated options. The actual goal is for Wizard/Cleric/Fighter to be at least as good in general as Wizard/Cleric/Cleric and better at some things.

The fighter needs a reason to EXIST. There needs to be a reason some of the handful of people in the world with the will, training, and abilities to take levels in PC classes and become really successful adventurers might plausibly be fighters, otherwise its an NPC class.

Even if the fighter isn't useful without buff spells, that's fine as long as its clearly better to buff the fighter than the cleric. But it's not. The best buff spells are self only cleric spells, and a melee cleric (or a druid's animal companion) isn't that far behind in melee without buffs.

[Coidzor]

Indeed, party-buffing is one place where the ball really feels like it was dropped in general. :/

[Doug Lampert]

So, wait, let me see... My sorcerer spends 2 feats, and maxes his Spellcraft, which he was going to do anyway, and he can craft any magic armor and weapon in the book, and any miscellaneous item in the book.

Total cost: 13 ranks of skills, 2 feats.

Your Fighter spends 2 feats, and maxes craft: Weaponsmithing, and he can make magic weapons. If he wants to also make armor, thats another feat. If he wants to make most (not all) wondrous items, he has to take Master Craftsman 2 more times (jewelry, Clothing) and then the crafting feat.

Total cost for similar result: 2 crafting feats, 4 Master Craftsman feats, 52 ranks in crafting skills, and at the end he can craft ALMOST as well as I can.

And this is an argument for narrowing the gap between fighters and casters HOW?

Sadly, that IS narrowing the gap! That the mundane character can do ALMOST the same thing for ONLY 3-4 times the resources is a much narrower gap than "you can't do that at all".

[Neoxenok]

The reasons the Spiked Chain was banned was because some DMs could not cope with an encounter-altering ability like chain-tripping. They did not understand how to bypass it, which is relatively trivial to do, and hardly overpowered. Even the best chain tripper build out there falls short of Tier 3, and was easily rendered obsolete by certain enemies (swarms, for example, completely dominate a Chain Tripper).

Paizo nerfed it because they didn't understand this either.
Apparently some DMs can't cope with wizards, druids, and clerics doing their thing either and don't understand how to bypass it, but when I say that, people tell me I'm wrong.

I don't even particularly care that trip was changed. All the change does is 1) bring the feat to the same power level as the other maneuver feats by not giving it a blatant advantage over the others and 2) prevent the trip-abuse builds that I'm guessing that some people on the design team and customers reported as being problematic. 3) What's true for you isn't necessarily true for others. I know it's strange that people have differing opinions. Quite frustrating, but it's something we all have to live with.


By the way, the wording you used in that quote makes me think you don't really understand what the WotC CO boards were ment to do: Provide players with optimization advice. The Chain Trippers that popped up were almost universally attempts to improve upon on an existing tactic that was nearing it's peak.
And what exactly did I say that gave you that impression?
I ask because I'm hoping that it wasn't because I fundementally disagree with the CO boards on numerous balance issues. I'd hate to think that all my frequent trips there for advice on certain character builds over the years as a player designing characters and as a DM making noteworthy NPCs left me with a fundemental misunderstanding of what it's there for.

I'm getting tired of people who disagree with me assuming I don't really understand the game because I haven't really gone around and accuse people who disagree with me of being a relative newbie to the game because I'm sure there are people who disagree with me who have more play/DM experience than I do as well as the opposite. I'm also sure that those same people have fundemental disagreements with me about the game's balance issues. That's good and fine and all - people do that, but don't think that just because a group of people agree on something on an internet forum - particularly if it contradicts my knowledge and experiences of playing and running the game that it's necessarily scientific and indesputable fact.

This is particularly true becuase the CO boards - for a long time - had issues with a group of regulars who were prone to their own sort of group-think that had a tendancy to shoot down people who disagreed with them and people who went there to ask questions that supposedly had an easy answer (among other issues) to the point to where the Wiz_Os and prominant forum members had to basicall give the entire CO forum a club meeting to tell them to be friendlier.
In other words, doing things like helping someone do what they ask instead of telling someone who wanted to make the half-elf bard/wizard/fighter to just play the cheater of mystra or pun pun or whatever. I hasn't had issues in regard to that since, at least as far as I know given that I don't go there anymore.

So, I don't feel particularly inclined to believe everythign I see on the internet - particualrly since, when people are passionate about an issue (however small), they tend to be hyperbolic, subjective, and biased and it shows up in things like the perceived issues about class balance and it shows - particularly in some of the argueemnts here.


Or, alternately, people are getting way too hung up on hypothetical issues that never come up in most peoples actual play.
Agreed 10,000,000,000%


And this is an argument for narrowing the gap between fighters and casters HOW?
Who was arguing that? I certainly wasn't.

[Leolo]

It is not only balance that is missing. It is playtesting. Thinking about rules and why they should be changed. And what results this changes have.

Look at the polymorph changes. If you want to infiltrate a guarded building changing into a guard sounds like a good idea. Maybe with alter self?

That's what such a spell is supposed to do.

But if you look at the changes Pathfinder RPG has made it looks weird. First - you can not change into an individual person. You can only change into some generic member of the race. Even if the guard that you wanted to change into _is_ just a generic average member of his race you can not look like it.

But it does not matter - Pathfinder RPG reduced the duration of the spell and made it to a short term buff, so you don't have to worry about it too long. A buff that does not care into what you actually change yourself into. Changing into an old woman gives you a bonus to strength. Why? She is a medium humanoid. Sure: You are also a medium humanoid, but your granny form is simple stronger. Don't think about it too much. After changing into some random generic human you will be able to disguise yourself better. Only to disguise into someone who looks actually like the one generic average member of this race you have changed into? No. Changing into a girl still helps you to disguise as an old man. Your new form does not matter at all.

Still not weird enough? Well now look at this: We already have seen that alter self can not grant you the ability to switch into a individual creature. But now read the component list for it.

Vocal, Somatic and Material (a piece of the creature whose form you plan to assume).

Does that sounds like "you can not change into the guard, but you need a hair of him nevertheless" to you? Well in fact i don't know. It could also be that i can use a hair of my own to change into him, or anyone. And that would be the point of a question like: Why do i need a piece of the creature at all if i can choose the form free? It just don't make sense. Worse than that alter self is now not only a single spell - it is a template that even higher level polymorph spells use. Even greater polymorph just duplicates it's effect. And even greater polymorph - a spell that could transfer you into a dragon is not able to transfer you into a fey creature. Simple because they have forgotten to create a specific "polymorph into this" spell to polymorph into creatures of this type.

Now imagine this changes would not be part of pathfinder RPG. That i just have invented them and have posted them in the homebrew part of the forum. How would people react? What if i would add: "Oh, and wizards have too few hitpoints and need some more class abilities. Let's gave them more" ?

The problem with pathfinder RPG is not balance. The problem is quality. Most of the changes are not really well thought, bring new problems and fail to solve the old problems. That this also affects an already very fragile 3.5 balance is just a result of such rules.

Polymorph spells where problematic because they lead to people searching for the best form and the best benefits, instead of using them for quest reasons like changing into someone. Pathfinder reduces the "change into someone" part into the "don't use it this way, it does not work" range, while still granting engine benefits (and even some that you could not get before via polymorph).

It is simple the wrong way.

[Yahzi]

prescribe
ascribe

/pedant off

[navar100]

I don't know if this has been said. I don't wanna read ll of your posts. But the reason I like 3.5 better is because its 3.5. Pathfinder is fun but its just a rip-off of 3.5 with minor 'tweaks'. I have no further interest in supporting Paizo. 3.5 may have been a remake of 3.0 but at least its the same company and ultimately for the better. Paizo just wanted to make money, therefore they ripped off a game and called it theirs.

IMO

Right. WOTC made 4E and is working on 5E out of the pure goodness of their hearts so that we may all basque in the glow of D&D nirvana and not for some cruel bad reason such as making money.

[The Troubadour]

It is simple the wrong way.

I think the best solution - and probably easiest, too - would have been separating the "take new form to gain combat bonuses" line of spells into several specific spells that worked more like short-term buffs - "Beastshape", "Trollshape", 'Dragonshape", etc. - and leaving "Change Self" as a longish-term (say, 1 hour for every 2 caster levels) spell meant for infiltration, disguise, etc.

[Laniius]

[QUOTE=J A fighter 1/wizard X/Eldritch Knight 10/wizard +Y is weaker than a straight wizard, except at 1st level because at that level, AC and HP are the best way to survive and wizards can't set up a few super-defenses at that level. But by 5th level? Yeah.

[/QUOTE]

The trait Magical Knack. +2 to caster level. So you have the spells per day of an 18th level wizard at 20th level, and the caster level of a 20th level wizard. Spells gained per level hurts a bit as a wizard taking levels in a prestige class doesn't get his free spells that he usually does, but what wizard relies solely on the spells he got for free and didn't buy any at all?

Weaker? Perhaps a little bit. But personally I don't think by very much at all. I would almost call it on par, but I will be honest in that I've never actually played a full wizard (I prefer divine magic).

[MDR]

To the OP,

My group moved from 3.5 to Pathfinder after some discussion when 4e came out. We didn't want to abandon 3.5, but we realized that if we didn't change somethng, we were going to be stuck with the same books forever. So we bought into Pathfinder because it was 3.5+, so we could use our books and not be starting totally new.

We have never regretted it. We like the changes made to the classes, especially since the ones that are not at least partially playable (i.e. straight Paladins). Occasionally a rules change will blindside us, but we roll with it and go on.

The only problem that we have come across is that we find ourselves *not* using any of the 3.5 books now. We just do not know what will and will not break PF (to the point I had to recreate my Initiate of the Seven Veils from scratch to remove that prestige class when the campaign was converted). I've been asking around in various places about MiC and SC in particular, and the answers I got mostly said 'MiC is good though you need new prices' and 'Spell Compendium needs DM approval on a per spell basis'. How annoying! Out of all the 3.5 books, those are the ones I'm personally most interested in.

I have seen a lot of arguement, and a lot of talking, about feats that have been nerfed, expanded, removed, and created. Yes, some things are better, some things worse, some things the same. In the end though, PF is an improvement over 3.5. It is just currently being dragged down by needed errata that exists only on message boards and interviews and the fact that 3.5 has way more resource books. In both cases, time will solve the problem.

Sigh, I do miss Warlocks, MiC, and SC though. :)

[Neoxenok]

It is not only balance that is missing. It is playtesting. Thinking about rules and why they should be changed. And what results this changes have.
When I look at the rest of your post, you don't really make a convincing arguement of this point in regard to shapechanging magic - just notes that it's wierd to be able to alter self into an elderly woman who has a strength that's better than yours and the spell itself doesn't last long enough for infiltration and that you can't customize the spell to look like a particular individual without getting a sample or the eschew material components feat.

I think you're confusing the alter self spell with disguise self - a lower level longer duration illusion that's obviously not intended to be a combat buff given the much longer duration and the fact that it doesn't alter your ability scores at all.

In 3.5 edition, the even the lowly alter self was maligned because it could do overpowered things like give you a +6 natural armor bonus or flight or any number of other combat buffs, depending on what you choose to be. The 3.5 edition version doesn't alter your ability scores at all, meaning your grandmother analogy is exactly 2 strength points (or dexterity points, if small) less entertaining than the pathfinder version, which you'll note doesnt give you a 4 str, dex, or con, nor does it give you arthritis or incontinence. (I'm certain chronic flatulance is a supernatural ability, so you have to shapechange or take a feat or something to get it.)

In fact, this is the same game where a 70 year old woman can be an epic level barbarian and still be stronger than a low level fighter (and kick his ass six ways to sunday) on top of the stranger creatures out of the various monster manuals/bestiary that have phenominal abilities but as far as spells are concerned, - even the transmutations do little more than make you look like what you want to transform into. They're not a complete reinvention of your character sheet into the bestiary creature and even the spells that bring the PCs the closest to that point stop short of doing so.

To paraphrase Elminster in regard to shapechanging magic: "Ye may look like a giant, walk like a giant, but a giant ye be not!"


you can not change into an individual person. You can only change into some generic member of the race. Even if the guard that you wanted to change into _is_ just a generic average member of his race you can not look like it.
You ever notice how on one hand people can complain about the balance of the game between casters and mundanes because spells allow you to render the rest of the party redundant but now Pathfinder is a problematic mess because alter self doesn't let you out-and-out allow casters to replace the use of the disguise skill?
Even with a +20 to disguise, you can't use alter self to infiltrate someplace as a particular person. I'm not really sure how this reflects badly on pathfinder.

Although now I have the idea to have a party fighter (or magus or whatever) use disguise self or alter self potion along with a series of other buffs to look like a 10ft tall nana that's stronger than a world champion bodybuilder with a greataxe and a thirst for bloody vengence for the lulz.

I should also point out that in the PHB2 there was a wildshape varient for the druid that was basically the same sort of shapechanging as the pathfinder style (you get x bonuses and y abilities if you transform into a creature with Z stuff). Yeah, go figure that alter self doesn't have you ACTUALLY transform into a particular creature, it just shapes your body to look like one and since the shapechanging magic is more often used to change yourself into some creature that can survive combat better than your fragile wrinkly wizard body, the polymorph like was balanced as such.

... but hey - that's why we have illusions and/or a disguise skill!


Your new form does not matter at all.
It does if you can't swim, or breath fire, fly, regenerate, or wish your strength was two points higher.

So I guess you've proven your point. Alter self isn't simply a better version of disguise self anymore.


they have forgotten to create a specific "polymorph into this" spell to polymorph into creatures of this type.
Also undead, oozes, constructs, abberations, outsiders, objects, incorporeal creatures, and any creature size above or below the spell limitations listed in the PFRPGCR.
I know one of the suppliments adds undead forms, but I believe the rest are still up in the air.


Now imagine this changes would not be part of pathfinder RPG. That i just have invented them and have posted them in the homebrew part of the forum. How would people react? What if i would add: "Oh, and wizards have too few hitpoints and need some more class abilities. Let's gave them more" ?
Apparently WotC thought the same thing as PF, because that's why the later books added spells that change you into specific creatures. As I recall, some people liked the idea of out and out replacing the polymorph line of spells with similar things. Then there's the wildshape varient in the PHB2 for the druid.
So I imagine that if PF hadn't come along, the suggested changes would have gotten you a medal, given the incessant complaining people did about those spells. It's something the RPGA apparently agreed with as well since before 4e, they outright banned all shapechanging magic all the way down to and including alter self.
As far as the boosts to the wizard, PF has the luxury of its fans being able to dismiss or filter all their 3.5 edition materials and remove the abusive things that would have been irrelevant anyway. From a less CO perspective and considering that PF's prestige classes aren't just outright supreior to your core class abilities anymore, the wizard now has good reason to stay wizard all the way up to level 20 now and you don't have to have 4 different prestige classes, feats, and items from 15 different books in order to stay competitive anymore.
So given that, it seems more like a positive change than a negative one.

Though if this were still pre-4e and pre-PF, I'm sure the reaction would be akin to the reactions by people to the lightning warrior (http://www.myth-weavers.com/wiki/index.php/Lightning_Warrior) who didn't get the joke.


The problem is quality. Most of the changes are not really well thought, bring new problems and fail to solve the old problems. That this also affects an already very fragile 3.5 balance is just a result of such rules.
Really? Well, your experience and opinions are quite different from mine, then.
I've yet to meet anyone who has played 3.5e, then PF, and then stated that the quality is inferior. My longest-running group switched and never looked back and several of the players in my new group (and another group I played in for awhile) even went through the same thing.


It is simple the wrong way.
I hope this posts makes you understand why I don't really consider things like this a valid complaint. It's not 3.5 edition.
As far as I'm concerned, it's what 4th edition should have been.

[Leolo]

I think the best solution - and probably easiest, too - would have been separating the "take new form to gain combat bonuses" line of spells into several specific spells that worked more like short-term buffs - "Beastshape", "Trollshape", 'Dragonshape", etc. - and leaving "Change Self" as a longish-term (say, 1 hour for every 2 caster levels) spell meant for infiltration, disguise, etc.

Exactly.

@Neoxenok: I know that shapeshifting was a problem in 3e/3.5. This just does not make the pathfinder solution any better.

[Neoxenok]

I know that shapeshifting was a problem in 3e/3.5. This just does not make the pathfinder solution any better.

It solves the issue of being able to become immediately more powerful by leaps and bounds with every new monster manual, certainly.
With the epic game I ran, shapechange was still among the best spells available to the party sorcerer because he could shapechange into a young adult force dragon for an immense charisma-to-AC and Natural Armor boost and force/prismatic breath weapon, the balhanoth from one of the later monster manuals for an extraordinary (as opposed to supernatural or spell-like) anti-magic grapple among other very powerful benefits - not to mention things like the Sarrukh's manipulate form ability that's just cherry pickable from any form-changing effect that grants you access to supernatural abilities.

It's not perfect since I can't turn into everything but Pathfinder's solution is leaps and bounds better than both 3.5 edition's specific monster spells (like trollshape and such) or simply removing them from play since they are fantasy staples.

It's the best solution that Pathfinder could have had while still keeping the original flavor and effect without borking over every individual monster to make sure that mages don't own the game with that or a combination of forms at high and epic levels.

So I consider it an improvement and not a small one at that and that's one of the many reasons why I think Pathfinder is the best natural evolution of the D&D brand than the direction WotC went.

Something else I should also point out:
Beast Shape (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/beast-shape), Dragon Shape (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/form-of-the-dragon-i), Giant Shape (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/g/giant-form-i).
I point those out because of your response to trobadour and the fact that PF does exactly what you appear to be agreeing with him about unless I'm understanding something other than what you're talking about.

[Eshi]

I personally love how Pathfinder changed alter self and other spells in the same vein. They did a lot of other things right. The main problem I have with it is that they "fixed" a bunch of non-issues like combat maneuvers and spiked chain and essentially axing prestige classes, but that's why playing 3.P and taking the best (most balanced) of both worlds is superior. :smallsmile:

[navar100]

I personally love how Pathfinder changed alter self and other spells in the same vein. They did a lot of other things right. The main problem I have with it is that they "fixed" a bunch of non-issues like combat maneuvers and spiked chain and essentially axing prestige classes, but that's why playing 3.P and taking the best (most balanced) of both worlds is superior. :smallsmile:

Instead of prestige classes, though there are a few, Pathfinder chose the archetype model where you trade out class features for others. Many 3E prestige class themes could be found among them. Cynically, they're trying to stress for players to really, really want that type of character instead of cherry picking abilities. It's aesthetically against the concept of multiclassing multiple prestige classes in 3E. Some people did not mind that, but it's a choice Pathfinder made. Pathfinder does encourage to still use some 3E stuff if it suits your fancy. 3.P offers the best of both worlds. Don't like 3E warrior classes? Use Pathfinder. Don't like Pathfinder feats? Use 3E.

[MukkTB]

3.P FTW. I don't know why more people don't play it. Get rid of the stupid nerfs to non magic-users. Take advantage of new material. I guess its because it feels like a set of house rules. So much easier to stick with pure PF or pure 3.5. Also there isn't an agreed upon method for how you combine 3.5 and PF to get 3.P.

Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Loonies and Munchkins are what I would rather use than the MTG personalities. The arena of D&D is very different from the arena of MTG. Its not as directly competitive. The mechanics are different.

I'd classify myself as a Real Man who has realized he needs to do some optimization (munchkin work) to actually fill that role. My brother is a roleplayer who goes loonie about every third session. People generally die when that happens. My uncle is a roleplayer who will mostly play the role regardless of optimization. He does like rules lawyering though. My cousin is a pure real man. Unfortunately he doesn't understand optimization much.

My cousin seems to get the shaft more than anyone else. My brother might get killed because he ran ahead of the party into the BBEG's lair or tried activating the evil magical device. Once my brother gibbed himself when he was playing a caster and got into an argument over rules shouting "I stick my head in the ground and shoot a fireball out of my ass!" Damn if I can remember exactly what the argument was about. But all of those times you could trace events back to his decisions. My Uncle will roleplay his way out of bad situations. When he dies he can clearly point at the actions of another PC as the fault. (When my brother self destructs sometimes it takes other people out with him.) I haven't died in a long while. Probably its some combination of luck and optimization. If I had to pin it on one thing I'd say its because I am rarely the biggest target on the firing line for anyone, and I'm a tough target. For example one time (at band camp) a party member who shall not be named got cursed to become 'irrevocably evil' by an item in a campaign we had bought to run. His first action was to coup de gras the party paladin. I was playing a good inquisitor so I was just as reasonable a target. However I wasn't playing up the religion too much. The Paladin would shout things like "DESTROY THE EVIL!" regularly. I guess you could call the 'not be a target' thing a munchkin quality.

Back to my cousin. He likes a lot of the eastern animation. He roles up fighters or monks and he wades into combat. Very blunt and very direct. Unfortunately the crunch of those classes don't hold up. Several times he's died at the front lines of a battle because his character wasn't strong enough. He didn't particularly make serious mistakes or do anything really dumb, he just died in combat facing serious threats head on.

3.X overly punishes people who don't optimize. Ah well. I'm going to play a Swordsage with a 3.5 spiked chain next time. Maybe my cousin will get interested in tome of battle.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Back to my cousin. He likes a lot of the eastern animation. He roles up fighters or monks and he wades into combat. Very blunt and very direct. Unfortunately the crunch of those classes don't hold up. Several times he's died at the front lines of a battle because his character wasn't strong enough. He didn't particularly make serious mistakes or do anything really dumb, he just died in combat facing serious threats head on.

3.X overly punishes people who don't optimize. Ah well. I'm going to play a Swordsage with a 3.5 spiked chain next time. Maybe my cousin will get interested in tome of battle.

Yeah, ToB warblades and crusaders are great for walking up to someone and hitting them in the face. Swordsage is good for players who want to use clever tactics (the Throw line from Setting Sun is great, as are the mobility maneuvers from Tiger Claw, and Stone Dragon and Diamond Mind can fill out the rest. Just don't take any Stone Dragon stances, don't take Iron Bones or Adamantine Bones, and if you take Stone Bones, which is fantastic at the low levels, trade it away by level 4) but want to be better than rogue and don't want to be intelligence-based or forced to have magic powers like the factotum.

Also, totemist from Magic of Incarnum is a great enhancer to your abilities for melee and skills, a 2 level dip is great. You can bind Pegasus Cloak or Dragon Mantle (Dragon Mantle is in Dragon Magic, and you can get it from the excerpt online (just google Dragon Magic excerpt)) for big jumps like in martial arts movies and games. But if you're not a straight totemist, it's typically better to just use Leaping Dragon Stance (although essentia capacity is based on character level, not meldshaper level). There's also stuff like Impulse Boots (Uncanny Dodge, I don't know what you get when bound), Kruthik Claws (for stealth), Girallon Arms (grapple when shaped, extra claw attacks when bound), and more. An incarnate dip also works.

[navar100]

Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Loonies and Munchkins are what I would rather use than the MTG personalities. The arena of D&D is very different from the arena of MTG. Its not as directly competitive. The mechanics are different.


I know that reference well. :smallsmile: For personal reference I added two more - Real Lawyer and Real Jerk

[MukkTB]

I wonder if you could make something like this for D&D.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/

[pres_man]

This is what I posted on the Paizo boards about the same issue.
================================================
*PF didn't fix any problems with the system, it just gave a different version.
*Cleric armor proficiency, reach on spiked chain, improved natural attack not working with monk's unarmed strike, monsters shouldn't be played as characters, etc. all show a design viewpoint that I don't agree with.
*Needless changes that just cause added confusion.
*Necessity to purchase table full of new books to be used in the group, can't mix 3.5 PHB with PF Core book.
*Core book is too large, too expensive, and has binding issues (not really a reason not to switch but just an area of concern).
*3.5 isn't "missing" anything that PF gave. Frankly 3.5 isn't leaving me feel missing anything anyway.
*Gimped many feats and combat options.
*3.5 SRD is free and irrevocable, so don't need official books in print to keep new players with the rules.

That's a few things off the top of my head. I don't have a problem with PF, and if anyone is totally new and wants to know what system they and their group should probably try, I'd recommend PF. For myself, I didn't give up 3.5 for WotC, and I have no interest in giving it up for Paizo.

[FaiT]

I just wanted to thank Neoxenok for all the very well written responses. It really helped me get a clear picture from an expert on the specific instances brought up in the thread.