3.5 to Pathfinder

[Jukebox Hero]

So...due to the unwillingness of my group to abandon the world of D&D, I have turned to Pathfinder instead. Unfortunately, the campaign I have prepared was made for 3.5 characters...I've taken a look at Pathfinder, and it seems that overall, the characters are a bit more powerful. Would it be unwise to make the campaign more difficult? I've heard that Pathfinder is interchangeable with 3.5, so I'm wondering if I should leave it as is...

Thanks,
Jukebox Hero

[Pyromancer999]

It should be fine to leave as-is. You can also switch out monsters and other aspects from the 3.5e campaign for their Pathfinder counterparts, which can be found in the Pathfinder SRD Bestiary. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary)

[Techsmart]

As you said, PF characters are a bit more powerful. A small bump would not be a bad thing, especially if your group likes a challenge, but I wouldn't do anything significant.

[Hiro Protagonest]

More powerful? Are your groups made up of fighter/rogue/healbot cleric/blaster wizard? Or warblade/factotum/cleric/wizard? Because that'll decide whether it's more powerful. Core vs core, yes, PF classes are more powerful (except they nerfed half the wizard's control spells, which are far more party-friendly than the summoning and calling spells, which they left alone. And druid is definitely nerfed), but when you get into the amount of options 3.5 classes have, even a straight 3.5 fighter can be more powerful than its PF counterpart (Zhentarim soldier with Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip, Stand Still, Skill Focus: Intimidate, and either a guisarme and spiked gauntlet or EWP: Spiked Chain. Also, spiked chain was nerfed in PF).

Now, PF fixed a few things. But it also made a few things worse (most notably the fact that 3.5 lockdown builds are quite a bit weaker because PF nerfed Stand Still to the point of being flat-out worse than tripping, and tripping itself was nerfed a bit, and the aforementioned nerfing of the spiked chain). There are some PF diehards who are going to say "you have to take the bad with the good, and it means other fighter builds are more viable" or something along those lines. But that's not true. Just because the two best fighter builds (charger and lockdown) are nerfed doesn't make the other options more viable. And PF is fully compatible with 3.5. Think the spiked chain nerf is bad? Use 3.5 spiked chain! Same with Stand Still and Improved Trip (keep PF's Greater Trip, since a +2 to tripping rolls is still decent for dedicated trippers). PF is not "what 3.5 should've been" and it's not "what 4e should've been". But P.5 (3.P tends to indicate 3.5 with PF books allowed, so I reversed it) is what 3.5 should've been, if you mix them right. Don't use PF wizard with 3.5 spells, 3.5 wizard with 3.5 spells is good enough already. But toss PF's Sneak Attack and Grease out the window, in favor of the 3.5 versions, no matter which version of the class they're using.

But now I'm getting into a rant about PF's mechanics again. But the thing is, you wanted to try a new system so that the players who have memorized the 3.5 MMs won't have any particular advantage. PF won't help. So I'm focusing on PF's strengths and weaknesses.

[navar100]

While Pathfinder classes are more powerful than their 3E counterpart (with possible exception of druid), it is not so surmountable you need to make things tougher to compensate. This is true even for spellcasters because what spellcasters got in new class features only means they have reason to stay in the class as oppose to automatically going into a prestige class at the first opportunity, not that there's anything inherently wrong about prestige classes. Maybe you do have to increase the challenge level, but don't do it as a knee-jerk reaction just because it's Pathfinder. See how the actual game play is affected as you normally would.

Pathfinder feat changes to their 3E counterpart is the biggest controversy. Some people absolutely hate the changes and will bash Pathfinder to kingdom come because of it. Some people don't care either way. Others actually like the changes. The controversy exists whether colloquial you like it or not that it does, and I don't foresee it going away unless 5E wins over the 3E fans and abandon the debate altogether or perhaps just morphs into a 5E vs Pathfinder debate in general rather than the feats in particular. All you can do is look at the changes, decide for yourself whether you'll use the Pathfinder version or the original 3E version, and use them. Those who hate Pathfinder's changes aren't wrong. Those who like the changes aren't wrong either. Choose what it best for you.

[Jukebox Hero]

But the thing is, you wanted to try a new system so that the players who have memorized the 3.5 MMs won't have any particular advantage. PF won't help. So I'm focusing on PF's strengths and weaknesses.

Ah yes, I've gone into the habit of making my own monsters, only using some monsters as skeletons, as a basis with which to make them.

And thank you to everyone for the help.

[NikitaDarkstar]

To be honest it shouldn't be that hard to just rebuild a character using the PF races and classes, and if you have a sorcerer I think they'd certainly enjoy it.

The rest is fairly inter-changeable. You can still grab 3.5 spells that don't have a PF counterpart, same with feats, ditto with monsters, prestige classes and so on. Main thing I've noticed that isn't very inter-changeable is templates, PC or NPC ones. They can still be used of course, but 3.5 assumes a lower average power-level than PF does and not taking that into account can make things odd. (And yes there is a rather large amount of irony in that.)

But best thing in my opinion? PF's "SRD" actually seems to include pretty much all their books, including having 3rd party material listed, which is just generally awesome in my opinion.

[Psyren]

But best thing in my opinion? PF's "SRD" actually seems to include pretty much all their books, including having 3rd party material listed, which is just generally awesome in my opinion.

Be careful here - PF actually has two SRDs, and the one you're likely referring to (www.d20pfsrd.com, the one with 3rd-party stuff) also has some rules errors, assumptions, and overly-suggestive links in many of the articles. The real SRD for Pathfinder is the PRD (www.paizo.com/prd) which is Paizo (i.e. 1st-party)-only and wholly official.

Both are useful - but if there is ever a rules question, be advised that the latter trumps the former in hierarchical terms. (Though they are the same on the majority of rulings.)

[cfalcon]

You should definitely try to use the Paizo monsters. A CR 8 3.5 encounter will likely be CR 7 in Pathfinder without modifications.

While highly optimized 3.5 characters have largely been fixed in Pathfinder, if that is the kind of game your players want to run and you are experienced with it, you probably are just adding Pathfinder to existing 3.5 stuff, and you probably have your own more appropriate way of doing CRs.


In general, Pathfinder adds power to every PC class.



For my game, which is mostly 3.5, I have added weakened versions of a few Pathfinder classes (for instance, the summoner matched an undefined "darkbonded" NPC type that I had used as enemies in previous games, and let me assign some stats to that, and the alchemist was a safe drop-in with the removal of the rapid bombs), and access to most of the Pathfinder feats that I feel are appropriate. My next game will transition to being primarily Pathfinder, with some support for popular legacy classes in 3.5 being converted over. This will still be the same game world, and I'm feeling really good about the Pathfinder stuff.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Be careful here - PF actually has two SRDs, and the one you're likely referring to (www.d20pfsrd.com, the one with 3rd-party stuff) also has some rules errors, assumptions, and overly-suggestive links in many of the articles. The real SRD for Pathfinder is the PRD (www.paizo.com/prd) which is Paizo (i.e. 1st-party)-only and wholly official.

Both are useful - but if there is ever a rules question, be advised that the latter trumps the former in hierarchical terms. (Though they are the same on the majority of rulings.)

Yes I was in fact referring to d20pfsrd.com and wasn't aware of the srd on pazios own website (shame on me). I'll make sure to keep track of both from now on since I'm currently playing in a PF game. :)

[StreamOfTheSky]

PF, core or with splats included, is slightly more powerful than core 3E. With the exception of Monks, Rogues, and Bards, who were incomprehensibly nerfed, in some areas quite massively. Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, and Sorcerer got buffed the most. Fighter, Ranger, and Barbarian (with the exception of now needing a non-core feat tax just to not have going unconscious auto-kill them at higher levels) were slightly buffed but to such a miniscule extent you won't notice much difference. Druid was also nerfed, though unlike the first 3, that one actually made sense.

But compared to 3E w/ splat books? PF is a huge step down in power, whether looking at it w/ PF core only, or all PF material allowed. It's a massive power down for all classes, but since primary casters do quite well in core only, the brunt of the loss is felt by the noncasting classes IME.


As for switching...I would stick with 3E. Aside from the blatantly broken stuff that is pretty easy to spot (Celerity spells, Incantatrix, Planar Shepherd, Divine Metamagic + Persistent Spell, Wings of Cover, Shapechange, Abrupt Jaunt, and so forth...), it's a much more well thought out and balanced game than PF is. And while PF has less broken content, it still has broken content, so converting doesn't really solve anything. There's still save or lose spells, still a class (Synthesist) that can dump its physical scores (except now he can get away with it right from level 1!), still massive disparity in the power levels of class features both within the same classes and compared between them at equivalent levels. What did change is the ability for noncasters to have interesting niches besides just doing big damage. Tumbling has been nerfed to HELL, so tactical positioning and skirmishing is dead. All combat maneuvers were nerfed, in some cases now needing 3 feats and BAB +6 just to do what a level 1 feat-less commoner could do in 3E (like cause a bull rushed foe to provoke AoOs). The spiked chain was made non-reach and inferior to every MARTIAL weapon. Stand Still is no longer a way to control the battlefield w/ a reach weapon. It's supposedly to make casters' lives hell, but since defensive casting DCs are still easy as pie (and they get the "concentration ranks" for free now!), all it's actually good for is screwing over archers and reach weapon users. Ditto for the new Step Up feat. Power Attack technically gives a better ratio of return now, but you cannot throw everything into it like before nor have any control at all over how much you PA for, so the loss of tactical flexibility effectively makes it nerfed, too. Have I mentioned yet that combat maneuver feats were split in half?
In comparison, not a single caster feat was nerfed in any way, shape, or form. And the splats have added insane new powerful metamagics and more to further buff the casters.

I encourage you to stick w/ 3E...

[Hiro Protagonest]

First, how were monks nerfed? I've always thought stacking TWF on top of FoB was overrated. Oh great, now I get one more attack with even less chance to hit things. And in just two splats, there's a way to make them tier 3 (Hungry Ghost Quinggong monk), as well as some decent tier 4s with the addition of Utimate Combat (Martial Artist Master of Many Styles is a good tier 4 for those who want a non-magical monk. I'm sure we can work out something with Zen Archer).

How was bard nerfed? Because it can use bardic music for less total time? I dont think this is ever going to be major. It's a minor nerf at worst, equal at best. As for rogue, I don't think that was nerfed either, but it's definitely not a higher average power level. It's roughly the same power level as 3.5 rogue, with the extra stuff making up for worse Sneak Attack (oh, and rogues are now visible in undid-heavy campaigns). Yes, the PF devs treat optimization like the plague (as do the Paizo forums), but saying they nerfed anything other than druid is sketchy.

[peacenlove]

Monsters in pathfinder got beefier (in numbers) and more customizable (due to the greater number of feats and increase in treasure). They also have new tricks (such as the banshee's death ward dispelling), not to mention the massive spellcasting powerup for dragons and the absurd hit point boost for mid and late game undead.

The power up to the classes sometimes isn't enough to cope up for the changes in monsters.

[StreamOfTheSky]

First, how were monks nerfed? I've always thought stacking TWF on top of FoB was overrated. Oh great, now I get one more attack with even less chance to hit things. And in just two splats, there's a way to make them tier 3 (Hungry Ghost Quinggong monk), as well as some decent tier 4s with the addition of Utimate Combat (Martial Artist Master of Many Styles is a good tier 4 for those who want a non-magical monk. I'm sure we can work out something with Zen Archer).

How was bard nerfed? Because it can use bardic music for less total time? I dont think this is ever going to be major. It's a minor nerf at worst, equal at best. As for rogue, I don't think that was nerfed either, but it's definitely not a higher average power level. It's roughly the same power level as 3.5 rogue, with the extra stuff making up for worse Sneak Attack (oh, and rogues are now visible in undid-heavy campaigns). Yes, the PF devs treat optimization like the plague (as do the Paizo forums), but saying they nerfed anything other than druid is sketchy.

Monks:
1. Flurry of Blows. First of all, in 3E at was at least debatable that you could tack on natural attacks to the end of a flurry like any other full attack action, but in PF it's specifically forbidden. More painfully, there's currently a big brouhaha that paarently the designers intended all along that FoB ctually required attacking w/ two different weapons, like actual TWF. Which is patently ridiculous because many many examples assuming otherwise (most notably the Zen Archer archetype) have cropped up since PF came out. But IF they stubbornly hold to that faulty logic, it means you eitherh ave to pay through the nose for the stupidly overpriced amulet of mighty fists, or require two buffs of Greater Magic Fang/Weapon, instead of just one.
2. Fast movement. In 3E, it applied to all forms, in PF it's land only. Past level 10, give or take, "ground mobility" is an oxymoron.
3. Improved Natural Attack. They can no longer take this. The designers wrote in a specific exception to the feat they were so appalled of this.
4. Improved Trip. Monks can still get "Improved Trip," but what one would actually label the equivalent of 3E's IT is now called "Greater Trip," which they cannot get as a bonus feat, and thus their poor MAD carcasses need to blow a 13 on Int, a wasted feat on expertise, and wait till level 9 to qualify. All for something they could just pick up no-strings-attached at level 6 in 3E.
5. Tumble was nerfed. I mentioned this already. But as a super squishy "melee" class, Monk, like the rogue, REALLY depended on those "easy" tumble DCs to attempt melee and get out of there alive when reality hit like a wall of bricks.
6. Grapple was nerfed. All maneuvers were nerfed, but grapple was arguably nerfed the hardest. You can't AoO with it anymore, you can't full attack (an thus flurry) with it anymore, either. It's a standard action, the actual penalties to the grapplee are much less severe (with the exception of casters w/o a magic item or Su means to teleport out or freedom of movement... PF went crazy on the concentration DCs in a grapple), and you need to waste a move action each round to "maintain" it now. And if you fail to, the foe gets free. And combat maneuvers are attacks, so you autofail on a 1 even if your maintain bonus is higher than the foe's CMD. I realize monks (both in 3E and PF) aren't actually that good at grappling, but it was still one of their supposed niches, so this hits them hard.

Probably more, just the stuff off the top of my head. Oh, also as the most MAD class...paizo sticking ALL THREE physical ability boosters into one magic item slot punches monks below the belt, too. And yes, certain monk archetypes can salvage the class, at least as a solid multiclass option if nothing else. I was talking about the core class.

Bard: Yeah, the drastically reduced performance times. Basically makes the out of combat performances of little to no use, just due to the massive drain on daily resources they'd entail. Bard was only slightly nerfed, though. And my personal opinion is that w/ the slightly improved inspire advancement, more spells/day, and versatile performance, they actually came out about even. But majority opinion seems to be that they were nerfed, so I listed them in the nerf column.

Rogue:
1. Tumble, as above. Possibly hurts even more than it does the monk, due to the need for flanking. Especially since...
2. EVERY method of attaining and using ranged sneak attack was banned into the ground. You no longer can use blinking. You can sort of use Grease / balancing, but need to ready an attack instead of just full attacking. Splash weapons are now a no-no, too.
3. The biggest stealth nerf to rogues was the skill system. Now having a "class skill" is just a +3 bonus. Even 4E at least gives a stinking +5. And it's SO easy to get a class skill. Just dip a class for a level. Or take any of a myriad of traits to get a class skill and an extra +1 bonus. In 3E, not having a skill on your list made it brutally, painfully expensive to invest in, and you were capped even then so the rogue would be better than you, nyah nyah nyah. A lot of people didn't like that form of harsh niche protection, but...PF blew it up completely and did nothing to ameliorate the fall out. As a result, rogue no longer really has a use to a party. Thanks to being MAD, pretty much every skill will have another PC that does it better (aside from dex-based ones if no archers or the like in the party), unless they intentionally don't invest in it just to not make the rogue feel bad. Rogue can manage to be "pretty good" at a bunch of skills. Guess what? Optimally, you're better off specializing, sorry. Better to have a team where each person is REALLY good at 3-4 skills than one guy who's pretty good at 8 of them.
4. It's not core, but it really does bear mentioning. The Flanking Foil feat, which has ZERO requirements, completely strips the rogue of being able to SA someone by any means for a round if he is struck by that creature in melee. You know, melee, the only place left where rogue can maybe qualify for sneak attack. I consider it the most abominable feat ever written. Literally the only thing that "balances" it is that rogues are so weak anyways that it's not worth taking the feat.

It also doesn't help that with Versatile Performance, Bardic Knowledge, and Jack of All Trades, the Bard just plain outshines rogue in every possible way you could measure "good at skills" now....

[NikitaDarkstar]

Guess what? Optimally, you're better off specializing, sorry.

Hope you don't take this the wrong way, because it's not meant to offend, but I think that little statement right there says a bit about your playing-style/preferences. D&D 3.5 Nowadays is an optimizing game, it might not have been designed to be that from the beginning but that's what it's become, and you're expected to do it at least to a certain extent when you join a 3.5 game.

PF is far more friendly towards people who are more about being able to back up fluff with mechanics (I think PF's take on the skill system is the best example of that really) and people who aren't really interested in optimizing that much. (You know the guy, the one who takes a feat that really makes no sense mechanically for his character but justifies it with "But it fits him!" and sees nothing wrong with that.)

There's nothing wrong with either game style, but I can see how someone who is interested in getting the most power out of their character wouldn't be happy with PF.

That said, some changes they made does make you wonder why they did what they did in the first place.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Guess what? Optimally, you're better off specializing, sorry.

Hope you don't take this the wrong way, because it's not meant to offend, but I think that little statement right there says a bit about your playing-style/preferences. D&D 3.5 Nowadays is an optimizing game, it might not have been designed to be that from the beginning but that's what it's become, and you're expected to do it at least to a certain extent when you join a 3.5 game.

PF is far more friendly towards people who are more about being able to back up fluff with mechanics (I think PF's take on the skill system is the best example of that really) and people who aren't really interested in optimizing that much. (You know the guy, the one who takes a feat that really makes no sense mechanically for his character but justifies it with "But it fits him!" and sees nothing wrong with that.)

There's nothing wrong with either game style, but I can see how someone who is interested in getting the most power out of their character wouldn't be happy with PF.

That said, some changes they made does make you wonder why they did what they did in the first place.

[cfalcon]

I don't know that they don't want optimizers. I think they don't want optimization to make as large of a difference as it does in a DM permissive 3.5 environment. I don't think they want anyone on the forum saying "Help me build my monk, but no Ultimate Combat" the way that so much splat material gets removed from so many 3.X games.

The monk thing with the natural attack seemed right to me. That's not an issue of power- that's really an issue of the monk getting one less feat.

The monk thing with the two weapon fighting seems... well, pedantic. I mean, this is a breaking issue, keep in mind- every thread about it fills up, and the last official word is that they are looking into it (aka, they might change it due to player opinion). SKR and the other devs have a point, and that is, if you can use absolutely any combination, you have an advantage over the fighter (or generic two weapon fighting build) in that you can just enchant one weapon and get the benefit twice. I don't know if a factor of two weapon spending "exploit" is worth redefining flurry to not mean that you can actually flurry. Personally, I was VERY disappointed to see SKR state that the ability to strike with any body part was, in his opinion, fluff. I'm sure they can solve the case with the really magical kama or whatever somehow.


Even with that, I'd still feel a lot better running a PRD monk than a 3.X monk.

[Gavinfoxx]

Uh... here's a thing, though. I would consider Pathfinder 3.55, Trailblazer 3.60, and Legend 3.75. You shouldn't just automatically say 'Pathfinder' by default, you should definitely look into the other two options!

And Pathfinder characters are more powerful at extremely low optimization environments. But they removed most of the tricks that mid and high level optimization martial type characters can do (which at least let them have a single useful trick they could do!), while mostly ignoring the high op tricks that casters can do.

So it's not really BETTER than 3.5e, it's just a mix of arbitrary house rules.

[cfalcon]

Well, it's definitely not ARBITRARY. I mean, they have a system, they have a set of new balance points that they like. They've touched pretty much every powerful spell, for instance.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Well, it's definitely not ARBITRARY. I mean, they have a system, they have a set of new balance points that they like. They've touched pretty much every powerful spell, for instance.

Oh (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/balefulPolymorph.html#_baleful-polymorph) really (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/cloudkill.html#_cloudkill), you (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/commandUndead.html#_command-undead) think (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/confusion.html#_confusion) so (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/divinePower.html#_divine-power)? I'll (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/dominatePerson.html#_dominate-person) admit (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/enervation.html#_enervation) many (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/feeblemind.html#_feeblemind) spells (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/fleshToStone.html#_flesh-to-stone) were (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/freedomOfMovement.html#_freedom-of-movement) nerfed (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/gate.html#_gate), but (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/grease.html#_grease) they (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/haste.html#_haste) were (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/hideousLaughter.html#_hideous-laughter) very (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/holdPerson.html#_hold-person) spotty (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/magicJar.html#_magic-jar) in (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/maze.html#_maze) execution (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/mirrorImage.html#_mirror-image).

(And I'm just gonna quit with the M's. Next week: SotS lmakes a big list of all the NEW superpowered spells paizo has since added in splat books! Yay!)

[Craft (Cheese)]

not to mention the massive spellcasting powerup for dragons

Wait wait wait, now here's something I didn't know. How'd they get boosted? I must have missed it somewhere.

[Gavinfoxx]

Uh yes. Yes it was Arbitrary. I chose my words carefully...

And you listed Grease in that for some reason. They DID nerf Grease in particular... you should only have kept spells that they DIDN'T nerf in that list. :P

[StreamOfTheSky]

How did they nerf grease? By giving it 10x its original duration?

You now need to ready an attack to catch someone who's balancing flatfooted, so Rogues got screwed...

I suppose you could argue that since cross class skill learning is so pathetically easy now, many more foes will be able to make the DC 10 acrobatics check than before. Hardly the only thing that was nerfed by side-effect. Still, grease has its disarm and grapple escape qualities, and it should still work well aagainst big brutes or wizards generally.

[Reverent-One]

How did they nerf grease? By giving it 10x its original duration?

You now need to ready an attack to catch someone who's balancing flatfooted, so Rogues got screwed...

I suppose you could argue that since cross class skill learning is so pathetically easy now, many more foes will be able to make the DC 10 acrobatics check than before. Hardly the only thing that was nerfed by side-effect. Still, grease has its disarm and grapple escape qualities, and it should still work well aagainst big brutes or wizards generally.

There's the acrobatics thing, but the bigger nerf was that PF removed the save or fall repeating every round they remained in the area.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Oh (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/balefulPolymorph.html#_baleful-polymorph) really (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/cloudkill.html#_cloudkill), you (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/commandUndead.html#_command-undead) think (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/confusion.html#_confusion) so (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/divinePower.html#_divine-power)? I'll (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/dominatePerson.html#_dominate-person) admit (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/enervation.html#_enervation) many (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/feeblemind.html#_feeblemind) spells (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/fleshToStone.html#_flesh-to-stone) were (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/freedomOfMovement.html#_freedom-of-movement) nerfed (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/gate.html#_gate), but (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/grease.html#_grease) they (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/haste.html#_haste) were (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/hideousLaughter.html#_hideous-laughter) very (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/holdPerson.html#_hold-person) spotty (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/magicJar.html#_magic-jar) in (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/maze.html#_maze) execution (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/mirrorImage.html#_mirror-image).

(And I'm just gonna quit with the M's. Next week: SotS lmakes a big list of all the NEW superpowered spells paizo has since added in splat books! Yay!)

3.5/PF Haste isn't broken. It's a nice buff. 3.0 Haste is broken.

Divine Power was nerfed.

Hold Person isn't very overpowered, it allows a save every round.

Look, I know PF isn't some godsend. But you seem to be treating it as a complete waste of time compared to 3.5.

[Gavinfoxx]

Look, I know PF isn't some godsend. But you seem to be treating it as a complete waste of time compared to 3.5.

I'm mostly saying that for balance purposes, it's a complete waste of time compared to Trailblazer, which was better at balancing. It's a good place to take some feats and a few, tentative houserules for, for the things it improves slightly which help the gameflow or help certain character concepts. Just use it as an online, free, extended 3.5e where the best rule that helps a particular character concept work tends to win...

[StreamOfTheSky]

There's the acrobatics thing, but the bigger nerf was that PF removed the save or fall repeating every round they remained in the area.

Ah, I see. I tend to use it as BFC from afar, so them not trying to leave is...just fine with me. I can see if you used it in say...a small room with the big stupid fighter locking it down in melee so it can't leave, the threat of falling prone each round sucks to lose. Fair enough. The duration was buffed, though, it's now a much more viable spell at low levels.


3.5/PF Haste isn't broken. It's a nice buff. 3.0 Haste is broken.

Cfalcon said "powerful" spells, not "overpowered," so that was the threshold I was working under. :smallyuk: Haste isn't broken, but it is a very strong buff, especially relative to its level.


Divine Power was nerfed.

No it wasn't. It's different, but it is not nerfed. Extra attack at highest BAB > possible extra attack at bottom of the rung BAB, and the attack/damage bonuses cap higher (+6) and stack with gear better. I consider it better. If you frequently get buffed with haste, it's a bit worse. If not, it is significantly better than before.


Hold Person isn't very overpowered, it allows a save every round.

That doesn't matter. You either ready to cast it to disrupt the foe's turn and then have an ally coup de grace before he has a chance to save again, or you just delay your action till just before your ally, paralyze them, and let the ally coup de grace. It's a single save or die, it just requires very minor set up to work (basically...wait till an ally is in melee with the foe, and don't cast it immediately before the foe's turn...not too demanding).


Look, I know PF isn't some godsend. But you seem to be treating it as a complete waste of time compared to 3.5.

It has some good parts, like making paladin a good class and making the half-races actually worth playing as. But it also buffed casters and nerfed noncasters, further wrecking 3E's already pitiful (basicalyl nonexistent) class balance, for no logical reason. I'm fine with mining it for the good bits. But the overall game system is a giant turd. Some dude's big binder of really poorly thought out houserules, with a few good ones that got in accidentally. The "broken clock is right twice a day" and all that.

[peacenlove]

Wait wait wait, now here's something I didn't know. How'd they get boosted? I must have missed it somewhere.

They gain spellcasting earlier. A 3.5 black dragon great wyrm has 15th level sorcerer spell casting at cr 22 while a PF one gains it at CR 19. Note that there is a trait in PF that works just like practiced spellcaster but for 2 levels.
They lose Hit die (HP and B.A.B.) and saves (about 1/3th of them) but they keep the same AC plus better mobility and SR. For 3 CR less.
Plus some more useful spell likes and supernaturals over their 3.5 brethren (sand stride for our example dragon, which further enhances his mobility).

Feats would be an issue but honestly 3.5 Epic feats either suck, are unavailable due to lack of high level spell slots or are epic spell casting / epic leadership.

When you lower the age categories the changes tend to become less apparent, losing at spellcasting power but gaining in combat strength. When you go to stronger dragons (such as reds) the differences are greater.

[Lycar]

But the overall game system is a giant turd.

Then 3.x is a giant turd.

Allow me to clarify a few things that I believe Pathfinder did right.

First of all, PF did not balance melee with magic. There, I said it. Warriors and Wizards are still not playing the same game.

BUT! Melee is now better balanced with other melee.

Power Attack:

Gone is the Übercharger. Good riddance I say! For some kind of people, the one-trick pony Übercharger was one of the few builds that have a right to exist and not be a full caster. But the proud nail that Power Attack was has been hammered in line with a vengeance. No more PA-for-full-or-don't-bother.

before the fix, TWO-Handed PA builds were the only 'viable' dmage dealers. Or maybe a two-weapon-fighter who got to add oodles of bonus (SA) damage on every attack (but more about that later).

Now that the PA fighter no longer has such a ridiculous advantage over the other styles, those become viable option, since they got nice things to make them more interesting.

Shields (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/saving-shield-combat) for (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shield-master-combat---final) example (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shield-slam-combat---final) get (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/bashing-finish-combat) some (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/ray-shield-combat) interesting options (feat intensive, more about that later).

When we go look at TWFing:
First a little history lesson: The Sneak Attack we all love in 3.x evolved from a skill that only Thieves had in OD&S called 'Backstabbing'. Short version: If you get your foe with the proverbial pants down, you have a flat percentage to outright kill that foe. Not some extra damage or damage dice, a kill. A Die-and-you-don't-get-a-save-either.

In 3.x it was a bit easier to get that backstabbing to work but with the bonus damage being what it is, you would only on-shot-kill monsters that your character outclasses anyway. Oh sure, Assassins get their Death Attack, what is conceptually closer to the kill attack of the Thief, but it is still a far cry from the potential no-save-insta-kill it used to be.

But let us look at what a Sneak Attack is in 3.x: Some bonus damage if you either flank your enemy or surprise him or successfully feint him.

Yes people, you can Sneak Attack a foe you rolled a successful Bluff check against. Didn't know that? Not surprising, it hardly ever came up in 3.x now did it...

So about the OMGWTF nerf for Rogues: Making Tumble actually a skill that matter is a good thing (YMMV).

So while before you never would have to look at the Tumble skill again with your ass as soon as you could make it on a nat. 1, the DC now scales with level (or rather, opposing CMD). So you still have to put work into keeping your Tumble skill relevant at higher levels. And that is an improvement in my book. Suddenly those Skill Focus feats look like something to consider. Especially since they double their bonus if you put 10 ranks into a skill.

And while we are at it: Dodge and Mobility are now slightly more then feat taxes.

But let us get back to Tumbling and Sneak Attacks. Now that the Rogue has to work a little harder to get a flank going, it suddenly becomes more important for his buddies (you know, those other people that tag along with him in the party) to help him out. And everything that promotes teamwork is a good thing (YMMV). More about that later.

But hey, what if you don't want to jump through hoops to get into the back of an enemy, onyl to find yourself surrounded and the target of enough attacks to kill you twice over? Well, there is the Gang Up (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/gang-up-combat) feat. Which, as written, even works with reach weapons. Sneak Attack from the safety of the 2nd combat rank if you wish.

But now let us get back to the red-haired-stepchild of triggering SAs: Feinting. In 3.0/5 a lackluster option because it reduces you to one attack. No extra attacks form iteratives or off-hand weapons.

Pathfinder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/two-weapon-feint-combat) to the rescue (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/improved-two-weapon-feint-combat). There is a Monk (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/feinting-flurry-combat) version (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/improved-feinting-flurry-combat) too.

And given that Rogues now are allowed to Sneak Attack undead and constructs, formerly known as the banes of Rogues and I say that Rogues have improved overall. Yes, you have to sink a ton of feats into the whole TWF-Feint thing but if you want to be that kind of Swashbuckler you now can be. The feats you use for this can't be used for other things. It is a tradeoff, and that is just as it should be. No more no-brainer options.

And that brings us to the much-maligned Fighter, our resident feat-junkie.
There are two thing that people criticize: Trip, Disarm etc. now suck because they have been split up in two feats instead of just one. And since people now get 10 feats in 20 levels instead of 7m the feat advantage of the Fighter is worth even less.

Really?

Let us take a closer look: If the Fighter is supposed to be master of combat, then that can be two things: King of Damage (but he isn't, Barbarian is) or Master of Maneuvers.

Why? Because there are two thing you have to consider:
1) While needing two feats to get the full use out of a combat maneuver now costs the Fighter comparatively more of his feat allotment (2/21 or less then 10 % compared slightly more then 5 % ), the cost for non-Fighters is now even higher (1/7 or 14 % to 2/10 or 20 %). The opportunity cost for 'stealing the Fighter's shtick' is much higher.

2) Since the 2nd feat in the chain requires BAB 6, having a full BAB actually matters. Usually the base BAB doesn't matter much because you have so many ways to boost your to-hit. But only full BAB classes can access the 2nd feat at level 6. Medium BAB classes can't get it before level 9 regularly (they hit BAB 6 at level 8 but the next feat is at level 9). That is a full 3 levels earlier (note however the special rules for Monks!).

So what can a Fighter do with all these feats then? Well, there are a few ways to, say, control (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/greater-reposition-combat) the (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/greater-drag-combat) battlefield (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/greater-bull-rush-combat---final). And you can take a feat to make them as an attack rather then a standard action. Go find them yourself.

For example to reposition/drag/bull-rush a target right into a flank with the Rogue. Or just in a position to make Gang Up work. Just for example (and go look up Dirty Trick. Short duration debuffs, nuff said).

And if you want to be a two-weapon-fighter with actual Fighter levels instead of Rogue? For the full BAB to better pull off your maneuvers? Well, you may do less damage by yourself but you can feint a foe and deny it the Dex bonus to AC vs. anyone but yourself. And the Quick XXX feats mean that you can shift around a foe on the battlefield with every attack. But I already mentioned that.

Yes, non-Fighters can do that too, but they don#t have the feats to do more then one trick. A Fighter can manage two or three of them. And sacrifice his damage potential for it, sure. But if you want to be a self-sufficient entity, be a caster.

Also, about damage:
Barbarians: Do the most damage because of Rage etc. against, frankly everything.
Paladin: Does lots of damage against (usually) evil foes and outsiders.
Ranger: Does lots of damage against his favoured enemy.
Rogue: Can, if he choses so, potentially do a lot of SA damage on things with an anatomy.
Fighter: Can do a lot of damage against, frankly, everything.

So, just looking at the most basic melee classes, they all have their thing going. But Paladins and Rangers are specialists in fighting certain enemies and Rogues usually are not primary fighters. Barbarians hulk out and smash stuff but have no finesse. Fighters can go for damage or battlefield control or even (to a lesser extend) debuffing enemies.

Thanks to Pathfinder.

It is not perfect but it did a lot of things right. Think about it.

EDIT: Added spoilers because Wall of Text.

[Lycar]

Monks:
2. Fast movement. In 3E, it applied to all forms, in PF it's land only. Past level 10, give or take, "ground mobility" is an oxymoron.
Because it is 'fly or die' anyway?



Not by RAW they can't. So houserule it in. Done. But you may want to compare the Monk damage with the damage other melee are capable of inflicting with the way Power Attack works now before you do. Just saying.

[QUOTE=StreamOfTheSky;13360379]6. Grapple was nerfed. ... I realize monks (both in 3E and PF) aren't actually that good at grappling, but it was still one of their supposed niches, so this hits them hard.
Uhm, maybe you would like to take a look at a certain class feature that Monks get at 3rd level. Monks aren't off worse then any other melee. And remember, once you have established a grapple you get a +5 on the roll to maintain. It isn't automatic but it helps. A lot.



Bard: Yeah, the drastically reduced performance times. Basically makes the out of combat performances of little to no use, just due to the massive drain on daily resources they'd entail.
On the other hand, you now can fine-tune your uses better. Blow all your uses of BM in 1 fight per level or spread it out as required? I say it is a net gain on the part of the Bard, depending on how long a combat lasts. But once you are in the mop-up stage you can as well save your juice.



3. The biggest stealth nerf to rogues was the skill system. ... In 3E, not having a skill on your list made it brutally, painfully expensive to invest in, and you were capped even then so the rogue would be better than you, nyah nyah nyah.
So that makes Rogue a one-level-dip class. And that is a good thing?



A lot of people didn't like that form of harsh niche protection, but...PF blew it up completely and did nothing to ameliorate the fall out. ... Rogue can manage to be "pretty good" at a bunch of skills. Guess what? Optimally, you're better off specializing, sorry. Better to have a team where each person is REALLY good at 3-4 skills than one guy who's pretty good at 8 of them.
Okay... you do realize that that depends entirely on party composition? For example, even if the resident Archer has the same (or slightly higher) bonus on Stealth it never hurts to have another sneak around. Charisma? If you have a Bard, there is a lot of overlap but if your CHA-wonder happens to be a Sorceror? With 2 skill points per level and no incentive to up INT? Way to generalize there.


4. It's not core, but it really does bear mentioning. The Flanking Foil feat, which has ZERO requirements, completely strips the rogue of being able to SA someone by any means for a round if he is struck by that creature in melee.
Uhm. No. It only negates a flank. If the Rogue gets hit. But see my previous post re: Feinting and Ganging Up (with a reach weapon).

Oh and yes, of course every enemy will have that feat, the same way every enemy will have a locked gauntlet.

But you know what? Having a skilled NPC who has a thing to defend against a certain MO of the PCs every now and then is a good thing. More options and such. Plus your own Swashbuckler-style character can make use of it too.


It also doesn't help that with Versatile Performance, Bardic Knowledge, and Jack of All Trades, the Bard just plain outshines rogue in every possible way you could measure "good at skills" now....
Uh... take a closer look at the kind of skills you can replace: No Stealth (obviously) and no Disable Device (also not Bard class skill). Of course if your resident full caster decides to make it his life's goal to make the Rogue useless...

But again, between a Bard and a Rogue there is a lot of overlap already. Since 3.5. Rather not PF's fault. Besides, there are a lot of tasty Bard archetypes that trade in Versatile Performance. So the Bard doesn't even have to tread on the Rogue's toes. Unless the player wants to. And then your problem is not with Pathfinder.


How did they nerf grease? By giving it 10x its original duration?

You now need to ready an attack to catch someone who's balancing flatfooted, so Rogues got screwed...
So make up your mind already, nerfed because no longer auto-flatfood or improved because of better out-of-combat utility?

And remember that the whole auto-flatfooted thing is a double-edged sword: It applies to PCs as well as NPCs. Maybe they decided to err on the side of Player Survivability? Just a thought.


Again: Pathfinder isn't the Holy Grail of D&D. They did very little to bridge the gap between melee and magic. That is the greatest failing. But if they want to remain backwards compatible, how could they?

Remember that the problem with casters is not the 'can cast spells' class feature but the plethora (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plethora) of spells in existence. No matter what the PF crew did with the spells, it is still the duty and burden of the Game Master to control and contain the player's access to spells. It has been in 3.X and it is in PF. If a spell doesn't work for you, nix it.

Or just have mature players who don't break the game, no matter how easily they could do it.

Oh and about the whole buffing casters thing: So they can cast cantrios all the day now. Net result: Casters don't become useless once they run out of spell slots. And cantrips are hardly overpowered, now are they. Advantage Pathfinder in my book.

And sorcerors? I don't think I do have to tell anyone here that unless you want to sacrifice power for flavour, you have to spend your spells known on the usual 'best of' spells. So no matter what background your sorceror has, their spell lists will probably be... remarkably similar. The bloodline bonus spells ensure that the sorceror will have at least some spells that will be thematically appropriate to his supposed background. And that is a bad thing how? Again advantage Pathfinder (YMMV).

[StreamOfTheSky]

Because it is 'fly or die' anyway?

To be terse: Yes. 3E monk maintained his speed advantage once the game took to the skies. PF monk kisses it good-bye. That's a nerf. Ditto for if the game goes under water, or using slippers of spider climbing...any other form of speed.


Not by RAW they can't. So houserule it in. Done. But you may want to compare the Monk damage with the damage other melee are capable of inflicting with the way Power Attack works now before you do. Just saying.

“Just houserule” is a poor excuse to defend bad rules with. And it's difficult to house rule, because the designers went out of their way to specifically state that they don't want monks taking it.
As for monk damage...their MAD hasn't changed the slightest bit and their unarmed damage dice hasn't changed either. So their damage has mostly stagnated. As for flurry...it ends up with more total attacks than in 3E, but all but 1 of them are iteratives and not at highest BAB like 3E. For other classes... Fighter got straight boosts to attack/damage; ranger's favored enemy now does attack and damage, smite is now every attack instead of one... yeah, not seeing how monk caught up here.


Uhm, maybe you would like to take a look at a certain class feature that Monks get at 3rd level. Monks aren't off worse then any other melee. And remember, once you have established a grapple you get a +5 on the roll to maintain. It isn't automatic but it helps. A lot.

Their MAD limits them, their still-medium BAB puts off the Greater Maneuver feats, and other classes like fighter got straight up buffs to attack rolls, and are thus better at it. They can't really use reach weapons and flurry, either (splats might have given them a monk reach weapon, though, I don't recall). Trip and disarm have AoO usage practically as their foundation. They can be ok at combat maneuvers, but they're still definitely not the best.
And that +5 is crap. You still auto-fail on a 1, and it still costs an action. You know what action it took to maintain a grapple in 3E? NONE. You know what roll you had to make? NONE. Even if maintaining had a +50 bonus, it'd still be a nerf from 3E.


On the other hand, you now can fine-tune your uses better. Blow all your uses of BM in 1 fight per level or spread it out as required? I say it is a net gain on the part of the Bard, depending on how long a combat lasts. But once you are in the mop-up stage you can as well save your juice.

3E bardic music, at least inspire, came with a free 5 round lingering effect. And you got so many uses/day, you could blow them on stuff pretty easily. At level 1, PF's might be better. It quickly becomes worse. But as I said, I don't think bard was nerfed (or buffed...it came out about even), so I don't feel like arguing this anymore.


So that makes Rogue a one-level-dip class. And that is a good thing?

I think you're confused. The Pathfinder Rogue is a 1-level dip class, because having it as a class skill just once is good enough in that system. In 3E, 1-level dip would let you have max ranks of 3 + HD, sure. But you'd be paying 2x skill points for each of those ranks on non-rogue levels, so it was still prohibitively expensive.


Okay... you do realize that that depends entirely on party composition? For example, even if the resident Archer has the same (or slightly higher) bonus on Stealth it never hurts to have another sneak around. Charisma? If you have a Bard, there is a lot of overlap but if your CHA-wonder happens to be a Sorceror? With 2 skill points per level and no incentive to up INT? Way to generalize there.

Sorc needs Cha, Con, and Dex. He can easily afford a 12-14 Int with that. And every sorcerer will be human, due to how insanely awesome their alt. Favored class option is, so that's another +1 skill point/level. :)
He'll have plenty for UMD, Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate if he wants all 4.
As for overlapping being helpful...sure it is. Having a second or backup anything is better than having nothing. But if one guy can already scout well and the party lacks a good pokedex (knowledge guy) or survival expert, or whatever...it's much more useful to have a class that is great in those areas than someone to double up on stuff that's covered.



Uhm. No. It only negates a flank. If the Rogue gets hit. But see my previous post re: Feinting and Ganging Up (with a reach weapon).

That may be the intent (which is still bs, it's basically Improved Uncanny Dodge as a level 1 feat for the “massive inconvenience” of needing to try and kill your enemy), but that is NOT what the rules for it state.

“Benefit: Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies.”


Oh and yes, of course every enemy will have that feat, the same way every enemy will have a locked gauntlet.

But you know what? Having a skilled NPC who has a thing to defend against a certain MO of the PCs every now and then is a good thing. More options and such. Plus your own Swashbuckler-style character can make use of it too.

No, it's not a good thing. It's a feat with NO pre-reqs that completely shuts down an entire class without any save to resist, just by hitting them in melee. It doesn't even require dealing damage! Show me any other such 1st level feat that utterly shuts down a class. I see stuff like Disruptive, which requires 6 levels in a specific class and even then just increases a DC, not auto-shut-down. Flanking Foil is unique in it's screw-you-over-ocity. Unique and horrible.


Uh... take a closer look at the kind of skills you can replace: No Stealth (obviously) and no Disable Device (also not Bard class skill). Of course if your resident full caster decides to make it his life's goal to make the Rogue useless...

But again, between a Bard and a Rogue there is a lot of overlap already. Since 3.5. Rather not PF's fault. Besides, there are a lot of tasty Bard archetypes that trade in Versatile Performance. So the Bard doesn't even have to tread on the Rogue's toes. Unless the player wants to. And then your problem is not with Pathfinder.

But it is my problem with PF. PF made the problem much worse. In 3E, a caster had to actually spend spells to make the rogue useless. Now he can just take the skill points directly. In 3E a bard did not get more skill points than a rogue (via versatile performance). In 3E a bard did not get a high level class skill to take 10 on EVERY skill, compared to rogue's high level Skill Mastery, which is just 3+Int skills, arguably doesn't work w/ UMD, and doesn't even retroactively add more to the list if you later increase your int. Not to mention the tremendous lessening of value of “class skill” in general. These are ALL pathfinder-created problems, and it should be blamed for them.


So make up your mind already, nerfed because no longer auto-flatfood or improved because of better out-of-combat utility?

And remember that the whole auto-flatfooted thing is a double-edged sword: It applies to PCs as well as NPCs. Maybe they decided to err on the side of Player Survivability? Just a thought.

I was being sarcastic.
And anyone that cares about keeping dex to AC (especially the rogue, who has it as a class skill) gets the ranks and doesn't sweat it. A lot of monsters, however, don't have the ranks. Even in PF. So it didn't help the rogue's survivability much, just neutered his offense.


Again: Pathfinder isn't the Holy Grail of D&D. They did very little to bridge the gap between melee and magic. That is the greatest failing. But if they want to remain backwards compatible, how could they?

Well, they could have at the very least not widened the gap. Is that so much to ask for?


Remember that the problem with casters is not the 'can cast spells' class feature but the plethora (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plethora) of spells in existence. No matter what the PF crew did with the spells, it is still the duty and burden of the Game Master to control and contain the player's access to spells. It has been in 3.X and it is in PF. If a spell doesn't work for you, nix it.

Or just have mature players who don't break the game, no matter how easily they could do it.

Oh and about the whole buffing casters thing: So they can cast cantrios all the day now. Net result: Casters don't become useless once they run out of spell slots. And cantrips are hardly overpowered, now are they. Advantage Pathfinder in my book.

You...don't get it. As long as there's at least one or two good spells at each level to win with, casters will remain uber. Nerfing “a bunch of them” does nothing for balance. It just makes the spell selection less interesting and varied.

As for the class feature boons... Infinite cantrips isn't even a concern. Infinite detect magic does go a long way to putting the rogue out of a job on trapfinding, but in general, that is not the problem. The problem was giving casters big bonus class features to “entice them not to multiclass.” What a joke. Barring a broken full-CL PrC that's plainly better, a caster would never want to multiclass even if he got squat for class features beyond the spells. And the class features they got were incredible. Much better than the ones melee got. How would you like to have Su teleportation as a swift at level 1? Or call up any combat feat you qualify for as a swift at level 8 to gain on the spot? Or have 24/7 magical flight by level 10? Or have infinite use Sleep w/ no HD cap or SR and as a standard action at level 1? Or roll 3d20 for initiative and take the highest? Or roll a d20 in advance and save using it in place of another roll later on when you choose? Or have pounce at level 1 with 3 primary natural attacks (not to mention completely replace all your physical ability scores you obviously dumped in favor of casting stat with a new set of scores)? NOTHING the non-casters got can even compare to the uber goodies the casters got. Nothing.

And then there's the new caster feats PF has introduced...


And sorcerors? I don't think I do have to tell anyone here that unless you want to sacrifice power for flavour, you have to spend your spells known on the usual 'best of' spells. So no matter what background your sorceror has, their spell lists will probably be... remarkably similar. The bloodline bonus spells ensure that the sorceror will have at least some spells that will be thematically appropriate to his supposed background. And that is a bad thing how? Again advantage Pathfinder (YMMV).

Like I said, PF casters still cast win spells. Their selection is just smaller, so playing them is less interesting and more cookie-cutter-y. It neither helps nor hurts the pursuit of balance much either way.

[Reverent-One]

You...don't get it. As long as there's at least one or two good spells at each level to win with, casters will remain uber. Nerfing “a bunch of them” does nothing for balance. It just makes the spell selection less interesting and varied.


You seem to be assuming that everyone who tries to play spellcasters tries to optimize and be uber. For people who do that, your assessment is correct. However, nerfing a bunch of spells does help in lower-optimization games where some form of inter-party balance between melee and magic occurs, as it provides the spellcasters in those games with a more varied and interesting spell selection and reduces the chance of accidentally breaking the game.

This is what happens when you have a game with a scale of potential power as large as 3.5 has, any new material that leans more toward one end of the scale becomes useless for those who play on the other end, and even stuff in the middle is probably going to be higher/lower powered than some groups like.

[Craft (Cheese)]

The problem was giving casters big bonus class features to “entice them not to multiclass.” What a joke. Barring a broken full-CL PrC that's plainly better, a caster would never want to multiclass even if he got squat for class features beyond the spells.

Any full-CL PrC is better than straight-classing for a 3.5 Wizard/Sorcerer, if you can meet the requirements.

[Mikal]

You seem to be assuming that everyone who tries to play spellcasters tries to optimize and be uber. For people who do that, your assessment is correct. However, nerfing a bunch of spells does help in lower-optimization games where some form of inter-party balance between melee and magic occurs, as it provides the spellcasters in those games with a more varied and interesting spell selection and reduces the chance of accidentally breaking the game.

This is what happens when you have a game with a scale of potential power as large as 3.5 has, any new material that leans more toward one end of the scale becomes useless for those who play on the other end, and even stuff in the middle is probably going to be higher/lower powered than some groups like.

Player intent doesn't matter when it comes to balance.
How the actual mechanics work together does.

Like the Oberoni Fallacy, the thought that "only optimizers will do x" does not make unbalanced mechanics viable, nor does it shows that system A is somehow better than system B (in this case, pathfinder vs. 3.5)

[Reverent-One]

Player intent doesn't matter when it comes to balance.

It does, however, matter when it comes to discussing the choices players will make. Like whether or not all spellcasters will just care about the power options and thus have less variety in PF.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm discussing the balance of the game systems themselves.

If everyone plays a sword and board fighter, scouting rogue, blaster wizard w/ conjuration and transmutation banned, unfocused jack-of-all trades bard, etc... 3E is pretty balanced, too!

[Reverent-One]

I'm discussing the balance of the game systems themselves.

If everyone plays a sword and board fighter, scouting rogue, blaster wizard w/ conjuration and transmutation banned, unfocused jack-of-all trades bard, etc... 3E is pretty balanced, too!

Alright, it didn't quite come out that way on my read of that section of your post, but if all you were saying is that some uber spells still exist, then sure.

[StreamOfTheSky]

What I'm trying to say is that when people claim PF balanced spellcasters because they nerfed a bunch of spells, that doesn't actually mean much if anything, as plenty of great spells went untouched and many more awesome ones have since been added.

Further, PF did actually nerf almost every decent thing non-casters had, while giving the casters extremely powerful new class features and introducing all sorts of other rules and effects that benefit them most (for example, the massive prevelance of races that boost mental stats; it's extremely hard to find races that even buff strength anymore other than the +2 to any stat choices, but basically EVERY race is now giving a mental bonus).

[Mikal]

It does, however, matter when it comes to discussing the choices players will make. Like whether or not all spellcasters will just care about the power options and thus have less variety in PF.

Except it doesn't, insofar as to the balance between those choices. I.E. it's not whether it'll be chosen, but rather what will happen IF it's chosen when compared to other choices.

[Hiro Protagonest]

What I'm trying to say is that when people claim PF balanced spellcasters because they nerfed a bunch of spells, that doesn't actually mean much if anything, as plenty of great spells went untouched and many more awesome ones have since been added.

Further, PF did actually nerf almost every decent thing non-casters had, while giving the casters extremely powerful new class features and introducing all sorts of other rules and effects that benefit them most (for example, the massive prevelance of races that boost mental stats; it's extremely hard to find races that even buff strength anymore other than the +2 to any stat choices, but basically EVERY race is now giving a mental bonus).

Um, PF races are balanced around "net gain +2. Either +2 to any, or -2 to one, +2 to one physical, +2 to one mental".

Of course, this "PF nerfed melee into uselessness while casters still pwn everything" I'm hearing reminds me of a certain banned user named Elitarismo...

[Reverent-One]

Except it doesn't, insofar as to the balance between those choices. I.E. it's not whether it'll be chosen, but rather what will happen IF it's chosen when compared to other choices.

You seem to think I'm saying something I'm not. Please tell me where in the post you quoted I talked about the system being balanced/more balanced due to the nerfed spells. I explained how those nerfs can be helpful for certain groups (and also not helpful for other groups), not anything about the system's balance as a whole.

[turkishproverb]

Pathfinder really did nuke melee in so much as melee had any use in 3.5, at any rate.

Frankly, I knew there would be trouble like this when Paizo started banning people from the playtest for saying things that needed to be done to casters.

[obryn]

Hmm. I'm getting flashbacks to how Arcana Evolved "fixed" spellcasters...

-O

[Lycar]

As for flurry...it ends up with more total attacks than in 3E, but all but 1 of them are iteratives and not at highest BAB like 3E.
:smalleek: Opps, now that you mention it, they do indeed only get 2 attacks at the full BAB instead of 3. I totally overlooked that. I can only guess they really want to hammer home 'FoB is just TWFing with fists' or something. :smallsigh:



Their MAD limits them, their still-medium BAB puts off the Greater Maneuver feats, and other classes like fighter got straight up buffs to attack rolls, and are thus better at it. They can't really use reach weapons and flurry, either (splats might have given them a monk reach weapon, though, I don't recall). Trip and disarm have AoO usage practically as their foundation. They can be ok at combat maneuvers, but they're still definitely not the best.
I should sure hope they aren't the best at using maneuver. Why else have a class that can get more of the required feat then any other. :smallamused:

But the point is that they are as good as any other martial class that is not STR-SAD. Like a barbarian for example. Except that one has other feats to look forward too then combat maneuvers.

On the other hand, monks have Style feats to look into. Except that those who require high WIS usually also would really really work well with a higher to-hit stat too. I suppose monks still only work well if you roll stats and roll well.


I think you're confused. The Pathfinder Rogue is a 1-level dip class, because having it as a class skill just once is good enough in that system. In 3E, 1-level dip would let you have max ranks of 3 + HD, sure. But you'd be paying 2x skill points for each of those ranks on non-rogue levels, so it was still prohibitively expensive.
Ugh, yes, I got that the other way around. But suffice to say that the Able Learner feat is such a nice way to say 'come on, you know you want to play a human'... :smalltongue:



Sorc needs Cha, Con, and Dex. He can easily afford a 12-14 Int with that. And every sorcerer will be human, due to how insanely awesome their alt. Favored class option is, so that's another +1 skill point/level. :)
I wouldn't know about the 12-14 Int for some type of... err... Stat Distribution Philosophy but the extra feat and skill point are the mayor selling points for playing a human for me. Did I mention the extra feat? :smallbiggrin:


He'll have plenty for UMD, Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate if he wants all 4.
As for overlapping being helpful...sure it is. Having a second or backup anything is better than having nothing. But if one guy can already scout well and the party lacks a good pokedex (knowledge guy) or survival expert, or whatever...it's much more useful to have a class that is great in those areas than someone to double up on stuff that's covered.
And don't sneeze at the 'Aid Another' bonus either. Okay, that is pretty much DM discretion when it comes to knowledge skills but still... if it is those two points that make the next 5 point mark you will be happy about it.

And never forget that there could always be a situation where your primary sneak/walking library/whatever is indisposed.



That may be the intent (which is still bs, it's basically Improved Uncanny Dodge as a level 1 feat for the “massive inconvenience” of needing to try and kill your enemy), but that is NOT what the rules for it state.

“Benefit: Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies.”

It's a feat with NO pre-reqs that completely shuts down an entire class without any save to resist, just by hitting them in melee. It doesn't even require dealing damage! Show me any other such 1st level feat that utterly shuts down a class. I see stuff like Disruptive, which requires 6 levels in a specific class and even then just increases a DC, not auto-shut-down. Flanking Foil is unique in it's screw-you-over-ocity. Unique and horrible.
Well then don't use it? Just because it has been printed doesn't mean it has to appear in the actual game. There are more then 1000 monsters. How many of those are PCs actually going to encounter in a given campaign?

Orb spells exist. In printing. Some people think they are unclean and outright ban them. If you think Flanking Foil is that horrible, put the mark on it and done. But it is a nice thing for a PC to consider. Especially for one who opts to make himself a mook blender.


But it is my problem with PF. PF made the problem much worse. In 3E, a caster had to actually spend spells to make the rogue useless. Now he can just take the skill points directly. In 3E a bard did not get more skill points than a rogue (via versatile performance). In 3E a bard did not get a high level class skill to take 10 on EVERY skill, compared to rogue's high level Skill Mastery, which is just 3+Int skills, arguably doesn't work w/ UMD, and doesn't even retroactively add more to the list if you later increase your int. Not to mention the tremendous lessening of value of “class skill” in general. These are ALL pathfinder-created problems, and it should be blamed for them.
Okay now why should a primary caster do that unless he A) has to fill out a hole in the party skill set or B) is a horrible person who wants to be a jerk to the Rogue player? Just because you can do a bad thing doesn't mean you should actually do it. Because of the whole 'bad thing' bit.

As for the Bard and his Versatile Performance, don't forget that all the Perform (Wind, String, Percussion etc) still need to be taken individually. It is not that bad. And just 3 + INT skills is a bit theatric, don't you think? I mean, how many skills do you need for that? Disable Device, Perception (maybe), Tumble and Bluff.

Lore Master only works for Know. skills. If any it should be the resident INT-based caster who should feel his toes stepped on by that. And by 19th level being able to take 10 on any skill ever pales in comparison what other classes are doing since a few levels ago. Granted, not the melee classes but still. :smallamused:

The Rogue meanwhile got to pick nifty abilities beginning at level 2. As for skill-monkeying they can:

- Stealth at full speed without penalty
- Balance along narrow surfaces (tightrope anyone?) at full speed non-flat-footed
- Can Disable a Device at half the time any other class needs
- Can get an automatic check to detect a trap just by getting close

And that is just the Core Rulebook. He may not have the biggest skill modifier in Stealth or Disable Device or Acrobatics but he can still do things others can't. That is a matter of quality over quantity. Rogues can do it better. :smallcool:


(Grease no longer making people flat-footed)
So it didn't help the rogue's survivability much, just neutered his offense.
Yeah well that is just the thing: I do not consider this 'neutering' the Rogue. While I am all for teamplay (and the caster using his spells to enable the other party members is a great thing), the automatic nature of the Grease giving Sneak Attack was always a bit annoying. Or the way making Tumble checks to avoid AoOs became a non-issue trivially.

Now you have to work a bit harder to get a SA going and it is actually a bit sad that this way of cooperation between magic and melee was hit with the nerf hammer but I personally believe is is more rewarding to have a clever move pay off then just having a spell cast and... well, YMMV and all that. :smallannoyed:


Well, they could have at the very least not widened the gap. Is that so much to ask for?
Look, I off all people certainly hoped that PF would do something to get magic and melee, if not onto the same level, at least into the same building. They didn't really do that and you can rest assured that that left me deeply disappointed.

But what they did do was give warrior and skill types nice thing and eliminating some of the stuff that invalidated so many character concepts (Leaping Power Attack Shock Trooper or you aren't worthy existing for example). They didn't close the gap or bridge it, but they didn't really widen it either. Casters are now more fun at lower levels because they always still can cast a cantrip or two. And because Sorcs are now getting at least some theme-appropriate spells shoved down their throat. :smallamused:



You...don't get it. As long as there's at least one or two good spells at each level to win with, casters will remain uber. Nerfing “a bunch of them” does nothing for balance. It just makes the spell selection less interesting and varied.
So Wizard/Cleric/Druid are still the top dogs in the magic world. What else is new? PF didn't change that but it isn't any worse then it was in 3.x.

Remember the Anklet of Translocation? So some casters get it as a class feature instead of having to buy it. Big deal. If anything it is a reward for taking a certain specialization over another. And if the MiC isn't in play, well, then it is actually a nice thing. Not that casters needed any more nice things but I don't begrudge casters their stuff as long as they allow the muggles to co-exist within the party.

One f the most powerful types of casters is the Batman/GOD type. I don't have a problem with this type per se because at it's heart it is an enabler: It helps the other party members do their thing.

It is really a matter of attitude: Is the wizened old wizard using his command of the arcane mysteries to help the party succeed in their epic quest? Will he keep the mad Lichs' foul magics at bay until his Fighter/Cleric/Rogue buddy managed to shave off its hit points?

Or do you have some megalomanic jerk who casts some spells, then tells his henchmen to 'Do the mop-up while I stand here and gloat.'?


Or call up any combat feat you qualify for as a swift at level 8 to gain on the spot?
Coming to think of it, maybe that is another reason why they split up the Combat Maneuver feats?

'Sure you can dabble at maneuvers but you will never be as good as a real Fighter! Muahahahah!' :smalltongue:


* Nothing. *
Uh, except for the 'save a die roll for later' thing I didn't see anything that they couldn't do in 3.x already. Especially Mr. I-don't-need-physical-stats-because-I'm-a-Dire-bear-all-day-long Druid. :smallsigh:


Like I said, PF casters still cast win spells. Their selection is just smaller, so playing them is less interesting and more cookie-cutter-y. It neither helps nor hurts the pursuit of balance much either way.
Then PF just failed to close the gap (which is sad and deeply regretted) but they didn't exactly break the game even more.

But they did some good things, especially giving warrior types more options, mostly by making sure that two-handed power attacking is no longer the fighting style to rule them all.

As for using Traits to get class skills: Hooray for character versatility! Roguish Fighter with all Fighter levels? Needs high INT but can be done now!

In closing: I do feel the pain about PF failing to reign in full casters but they did some good things. Take what they did right, scorn (and ignore) the bits that are... not so good and rejoice that someone made an effort. WotC certainly didn't. :smallfrown: