Things that Pathfinder didn't fix (but should have)

[Yora]

I'm currently streamlining the rules for an alternative Core Rulebook, so learning more about these things should be quite useful.

What things did you think were bad in 3.5e and should have been adressed by Pathfinder, but still were not solved or just barely improved?

My personal canditates are grappling and the rules for falling under 1 hp. They are both so needlessly convoluted and hard to remember for barely any return benefit. I think those should have been made a lot easier.

[Starbuck_II]

I'm currently streamlining the rules for an alternative Core Rulebook, so learning more about these things should be quite useful.

What things did you think were bad in 3.5e and should have been adressed by Pathfinder, but still were not solved or just barely improved?

My personal canditates are grappling and the rules for falling under 1 hp. They are both so needlessly convoluted and hard to remember for barely any return benefit. I think those should have been made a lot easier.

Animal Companions?
Bears shrunk now (no bear above meduim exists).
Cats and Apes got better though.

[Person_Man]

My biggest gripe is that they "fixed" a lot of class abilities, Feats, spells, etc, by breaking them down into smaller and weaker abilities. For example, they broke every "Improved" Feat into multiple Feat chains, instead of just eliminating and/or consolidating pointless Feats. I personally hate keeping track of minor and situational bonuses, and enjoy "big" meaningful abilities.

[Kudaku]

Full attacks and movement would list high on my list. To me melee combat is more interesting at low levels specifically because it doesn't punish people for moving around. Movement makes combat more dynamic. Having casters be able to cast spells and move their movement speed every round is just adding insult to injury.

Grapple is still pretty convoluted.

Monks got a small leg up, but could still use some work.

Spells making skills redundant - why bother with Climb when I can levitate? Why bother with Disable Device when I can Knock? Why bother with stealth when I can turn invisible? Skill classes get lackluster as the game goes on because they get dominated by spell casters that can use trivial spell slots to outdo them at their own game.

Clerics and their way of learning spells. Playing a cleric is very intimidating for new players because their list of spells known is HUGE, and they automatically learn all of them whenever they gain access to a new spell level.

I find that wizards are too "wide", which dilutes them and makes them a bit generic. I'd break the Wizard class down into three or four different casters with different "flavours" and access to different parts of the spell list, and balance the loss of access with class abilities that highlight their strengths. The Witch would be a good template for one of these. Make something similar for an Evoker (battle mage?), a necromancer and so on. The Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, and the somewhat lackluster battlemage should point you in the right direction, all from 3.5.

[ngilop]

bears shrunk..?

looks that up.

OH MY GOD... (http://alltheragefaces.com/img/faces/large/disgusted-mother-of-god-l.png)


I love how they touched on some 'broken' spells and left other HUGE offenders alone

i hate how they 'fixed' the fighter too, while the gist of it was good im just not a fna of 'what the fighter needed was bigger numbers' Really they could have just stolen a few of teh ToB ideas and put in in with the core Fighter.

[Slipperychicken]

Mounted Combat is still weirdly-written, leaving me unsure of how the mount's actions happen in relation to the rider. Do they go on the same initiative? Do they have separate actions, or use the same actions? Can the mount use the Run action to approach a target, allowing the rider to make a Full Attack? Who knows!

TWF still requires a feat chain to be viable, while two-hand is still king of melee styles and costs almost nothing to use effectively.

Monks still have a mish-mash of non-synergistic class features, and are out-punched by the Fighter.

Unarmed combat is still a struggle just to remain relevant. Which isn't helped by AoOs, puny damage dice, not threatening, requiring a feat just to do it without committing suicide. Enchanting these to get the bonuses and abilities they need is still needlessly difficult and expensive.

Seconding grapple rules. My DM even started ad-hocing Grapple rules because they're so hard to use. You shouldn't need a flowchart to wrestle people.

[Tvtyrant]

Lack of throwing/kicking people through stuff/breaking//cutting off limbs. There are a lot of cool things I want to be able to do (dagger in the dragons eyes) which I find no support for.

Going to agree with grapple rules. Something like an opposed roll to grapple and then just hitting against their touch AC to hit inside the grapple would be fine.

[Yora]

The Grapple rules from SWSE are a lot simpler. I'll have to re-read them, but they seem like a much more practical solution.

For doing cool stuff, I like the stunts from Iron Heroes are a starting point that every group should be told off and use.

[lsfreak]

There's a whole category of flat, passive +whatever items that are incredibly boring yet something that every build uses in some form or another, like gloves of strength, rings of armor, or cloaks of resistance. To me, at least, these feel awkward attached to the magic item/treasure/gold system when they're all but necessary, and I think magic items would feel more rewarding and more unique if these "treasure taxes" were rolled straight into the leveling system in some way, freeing up treasure for unique or interesting items.

That might be too big a task, though.

[Yora]

If everyone could get an ability score bump to their main ability score, people still would want to have magic items to bump it even more.

[lsfreak]

If everyone could get an ability score bump to their main ability score, people still would want to have magic items to bump it even more.

Right, my idea would be to remove those from the normal treasure system altogether. As they level, characters get points they can spend on +Str, resistance bonuses, different kinds of bonuses to armor; something part of the character that can't be taken away and doesn't detract from their treasure (and works with a low-magic campaign and means a new DM who doesn't understand WBL doesn't accidentally screw over players). Treasure is strictly reserved for weapons, runestaves, belts of battle, shapesand... things that are interesting, not things where you make a one-time adjustment on your charsheet and then forget about.

But like I said, that's probably a rather big task, and sounds like it might be beyond the scope of what you're doing here, even if you agree.

[Acanous]

Candle of Invocation.

Barbarians are also better than any fighter, ever, since they rolled Robilar's Gambit into a Rage feature and Fighters can't take it anymore. (Come and Get Me)

[NamelessNPC]

What is this bear nonsense? Polar bears, brown bears and dire bears are large in PF

EDIT: maybe you meant the animal companions?

[Tovec]

Partially fixed, then re-broke monks.

I HATE Ki points. And there are many better/different ways monk could have gone to begin with.

Overall, there are some minor problems here and there but nothing huge I would need outright fixing or owing to a new edition/version of the game. Except for the power increase across the board, but that was impossible to avoid (wizards needed to get stronger?).

I think, due to your goal, in general the better question is probably: What are the problems with 3.5 that PF didn't resolve. Because PF fixed a lot of stuff and then of course opened up a new bag of worms.


EDIT: Oh, I dislike how cantrips/orisons current work. But I have ideas on how to fix those already and most people consider my problem with them to be a feature rather than a bug.

[Claudius Maximus]

Pathfinder did very little to address the major discrepancy between spellcasters and martial characters. I really wish they would have gone further with the spell nerfs, and sometimes it feels like they did just as many things to hurt melee as help them.

I also really don't like their approach to ability score enhancement items, which is another little thing that screws over melee - all physical enhancements are in belts, and multiple ability score boosting belts are more expensive than having the equivalent from two/three items in 3.5. So martial characters have to spend more money than ever to boost strength and con or dex and con at the same time, while wizards are fine with their one +int item and one +con item.


Right, my idea would be to remove those from the normal treasure system altogether. As they level, characters get points they can spend on +Str, resistance bonuses, different kinds of bonuses to armor; something part of the character that can't be taken away and doesn't detract from their treasure (and works with a low-magic campaign and means a new DM who doesn't understand WBL doesn't accidentally screw over players). Treasure is strictly reserved for weapons, runestaves, belts of battle, shapesand... things that are interesting, not things where you make a one-time adjustment on your charsheet and then forget about.

But like I said, that's probably a rather big task, and sounds like it might be beyond the scope of what you're doing here, even if you agree.

Something quite similar to this was implemented in Legend. I very much like how they do items. For starters, there's no mechanically relevant gold/wealth, which is actually really liberating. If you want to do items like that in a system of your own design, you could look at their approach and see what you do and don't agree with there. Legend is personally my favorite attempt at making a balanced d20 fantasy game in the vein of 3.5, so I'll also advocate that anyone interested in that sort of thing take a look at it anyway.

[Starbuck_II]

What is this bear nonsense? Polar bears, brown bears and dire bears are large in PF

EDIT: maybe you meant the animal companions?

Yes, somehow bears shrink when talked to by Paladins, Druids, and Rangers.

[JoshuaZ]

Oh, I dislike how cantrips/orisons current work. But I have ideas on how to fix those already and most people consider my problem with them to be a feature rather than a bug.

Which part do you dislike? I have a dislike in that they can be used indefinitely, which has some issues in terms of what your game world can be like (it already is difficult enough explaining why the rules haven't lead to a magical Singularity), but that's comparatively minor.

[MukkTB]

Pathfinder should have fixed balance issues but they didn't. Probably it was because the audience didn't want balance. They wanted the familiar and comfortable 3.5 feel. Its frustrating that they didn't change the core classes all that much or just cherry pick some of the more balanced 3.5 classes. What's even more frustrating is when they take nice things away from non spellcasters, like wrecking the potion throwing rogue for no good reason.

My party plays 3.P. We like pathfinder enough. But I'm bitter that they couldn't have done something useful about the imbalance inherent in the game.

[Reverent-One]

Pathfinder should have fixed balance issues but they didn't.

Do you really think that's possible without tossing out backwards compatibility pretty much entirely?

[Slipperychicken]

Pathfinder should have fixed balance issues but they didn't. Probably it was because the audience didn't want balance. They wanted the familiar and comfortable 3.5 feel.

To be fair, their main goal was to steal the market of 3.5 players who WotC abandoned. If PF wasn't so close to 3.5, many of us would have skipped it.

[lsfreak]

Do you really think that's possible without tossing out backwards compatibility pretty much entirely?

Though from what I vaguely remember, they did promised balance as well. Even ignoring the Big Issues™, they did a pisspoor job of it - really, really basic stuff like metamagic feats versus Weapon Focus.

[MukkTB]

Im not implying that the people who went to PF dislike balance. I mean to say that the customers of PF products as a whole probably did not consider balance to be a high priority.

[Arbane]

Combat Maneuvers. They need to get rid of (or at least severely limit) the AoE-provoking and the feat taxes.

[Psyren]

I agree that the melee have too many feat taxes. After all, metamagic costs the same (featwise) to get as it did in 3.5, so casters end up reaping the benefit of more feats while melee end up needing the extra to break even in many cases.

But overall, PF has far more changes I liked than changes I didn't.

[JoshuaZ]

Do you really think that's possible without tossing out backwards compatibility pretty much entirely?

Not really. They did handle some of the balance issues, but part of the issue is that they gave everyone a power boost including the T1 and T2 classes. Thus for example, the sorcerer now has class features. That's great because they've switched from being the immediate PrC out T1 to one of the last ones to PrC. Similarly, wizards who specialize can now still use their otherwise prohibited schools. This makes out of combat wizards even more flexible. And wizards get other goodies on top of that. (Although making concentration checks tougher was a small nerf to casters.)

This means that the power boost to other classes (especially the monk and fighter) does even less comparatively. In terms of balance, simply giving them a few more class features would be helpful (they gave a few but not enough). And if backwards compatibility was the primary restraint they wouldn't have effectively nerfed some combat feats. How they modified Power Attack for example didn't make it stronger (it either nerfed it or left it at about the same power depending on how you look at it) and yet it is now not very compatible. Similar remarks apply to Cleave. One of the few exceptions is Dodge which they made halfway useable.

Backwards compatibility wasn't the cause of a lot of the balance issues.

[Reverent-One]

Not really.
...
Backwards compatibility wasn't the cause of a lot of the balance issues.

...So which is it? You're contradicting yourself there.

[JoshuaZ]

...So which is it? You're contradicting yourself there.

Sorry if my point wasn't clear. The point is that many of the balance issues stem from changes they made from PF to 3.5. If they had used say just the Pathfinder version of the fighter and monk and use the 3.5 versions of wizards and sorcerers, it would be a closer to balanced game.

[Axier]

I think, what would be best is that we took a list of all of the 3.5 problems, compare them to PF, and then mark off the ones they fixed. Because frankly, most of the problems PF should have fixed where in 3.5, and they didn't really make new ones.

As far as I am concerned though, it is still a vast improvement to 3.5, and I can't wait to see what they do with the next system, because I doubt they will stop here.

Frankly, though, good luck finding a perfect RPG system that everyone will be happy with and like. Its like finding a Final Fantasy game that every Final Fantasy fan is happy with. Or finding a rock band that no rock enthusiast can find a personal problem with. Or finding a soap opera that soap opera fans everywhere love, and no one hates. Or ect. ect.

[Reverent-One]

Sorry if my point wasn't clear. The point is that many of the balance issues stem from changes they made from PF to 3.5. If they had used say just the Pathfinder version of the fighter and monk and use the 3.5 versions of wizards and sorcerers, it would be a closer to balanced game.

I have to disagree. Wizards and sorcerers have the power to break the world in 3.5, pathfinder giving them a few more class features to remove dead levels and make lower levels more fun really didn't substantially increase their power. Until the spell system is totally re-written, or melee gets something similar to spells, I don't see that changing in any significant way.

[JoshuaZ]

I have to disagree. Wizards and sorcerers have the power to break the world in 3.5, pathfinder giving them a few more class features to remove dead levels and make lower levels more fun really didn't substantially increase their power. Until the spell system is totally re-written, or melee gets something similar to spells, I don't see that changing in any significant way.

Well, you know there was a system added to make melee have nice things in 3.5, Tome of Battle worked really well. They could have done something like that.

And yes, wizards and sorcerers can break worlds, but that isn't the only issue- sheer ability to make the DM cry isn't the only issue of balance. A major part of balance is just feeling like one is contributing and that one has some choices. A fighter in PF has about as many choices in any given situation as they did in 3.5. They get a few nice abilities but they are largely passive or minor (I suppose being able to move in armor is nice). That's not balanced.

[Reverent-One]

Well, you know there was a system added to make melee have nice things in 3.5, Tome of Battle worked really well. They could have done something like that.

And yes, wizards and sorcerers can break worlds, but that isn't the only issue- sheer ability to make the DM cry isn't the only issue of balance. A major part of balance is just feeling like one is contributing and that one has some choices. A fighter in PF has about as many choices in any given situation as they did in 3.5. They get a few nice abilities but they are largely passive or minor (I suppose being able to move in armor is nice). That's not balanced.

I totally agree things aren't balanced in pathfinder, but I don't see things getting balanced without changing things so much that they'd miss their primary purpose of continuing 3.5 for those who liked it. Doing something ToB like would be a start to getting some sort of balance (falling under the "melee getting something like spells" part of my statement), but even just making their core melee classes use those sorts of mechanics would be a substantial change that could well turn off a good portion of their target audience. Fighters wouldn't play like fighters anymore, nor monks, or barbarians, ect and so on.

[Psyren]

Sorry if my point wasn't clear. The point is that many of the balance issues stem from changes they made from PF to 3.5. If they had used say just the Pathfinder version of the fighter and monk and use the 3.5 versions of wizards and sorcerers, it would be a closer to balanced game.

Not at all; the class features aren't what break wizard and sorcerer, it's the spells. Now, PF still has quadratic wizards of course, but the degree to which they can fly solo and dispense with the lesser characters at the table is reduced. No polymorphing into a pyrohydra, no casting defensively all day long... if the enemy has the right feat, casters even have trouble 5-foot stepping out of harm's way. It's not balance, but it does keep everyone at the table engaged by having a role.

[JoshuaZ]

I totally agree things aren't balanced in pathfinder, but I don't see things getting balanced without changing things so much that they'd miss their primary purpose of continuing 3.5 for those who liked it. Doing something ToB like would be a start to getting some sort of balance (falling under the "melee getting something like spells" part of my statement), but even just making their core melee classes use those sorts of mechanics would be a substantial change that could well turn off a good portion of their target audience. Fighters wouldn't play like fighters anymore, nor monks, or barbarians, ect and so on.

One wouldn't need to go all the way to ToB to add more options. Just a few to use instead of your standard action would be doable without any issues. A lot of the low level strikes that take a standard action could easily be added as feat options with no refresh type limit. Then just replace prereqs with a minimum BAB. Since one already gets tons of feats in PF this would become an effective option.

This isn't the only way to do it, but one of many.

I wonder if any disagreement here is what you mean by "backwards compatibility"- I think of that in terms of "can I take a character from system A and with minimal effort port it to system B and use it the same way" whereas you seem to be thinking of backwards compatibility as more "Will players who like A and are familiar with it but not in perfect detail be ok with switching to B". If this is correct then we're essentially in agreement.

[Answerer]

I think, what would be best is that we took a list of all of the 3.5 problems, compare them to PF, and then mark off the ones they fixed. Because frankly, most of the problems PF should have fixed where in 3.5, and they didn't really make new ones.
This is not even remotely accurate. Paizo has a poor grasp of the system, its mechanics, and its failures, and in any event was largely uninterested in catering to anyone who cared about such things (and, in fact, two of their lead developers have actually insulted people for caring). They have introduced numerous problems, in addition to the problems they did not fix.

[JoshuaZ]

This is not even remotely accurate. Paizo has a poor grasp of the system, its mechanics, and its failures, and in any event was largely uninterested in catering to anyone who cared about such things (and, in fact, two of their lead developers have actually insulted people for caring).

Do you have links/citations for this? I know that SKR has been rude to people, but I wasn't aware of outright insults.



They have introduced numerous problems, in addition to the problems they did not fix.

Which issues are you thinking of? I can only think of one off the top of my head- the weirdness with flurry of blows working like TWF.

[Reverent-One]

I wonder if any disagreement here is what you mean by "backwards compatibility"- I think of that in terms of "can I take a character from system A and with minimal effort port it to system B and use it the same way" whereas you seem to be thinking of backwards compatibility as more "Will players who like A and are familiar with it but not in perfect detail be ok with switching to B". If this is correct then we're essentially in agreement.

Hmm, I think you're right. I am mentally including something more than I normally would when I say backwards compatibility in this case. That's my fault, apologies.

[Acanous]

Item Crafting probably deserves a mention. Given that you can skip prerequisites by adding 5 to the DC of a *Skill check*, and furthermore, that everyone can take level=ranks in any skill weather it's a class skill or not, means that anybody can be an artificer.

No seriously, it works like that.

[JoshuaZ]

Item Crafting probably deserves a mention. Given that you can skip prerequisites by adding 5 to the DC of a *Skill check*, and furthermore, that everyone can take level=ranks in any skill weather it's a class skill or not, means that anybody can be an artificer.

No seriously, it works like that.

Oh right. That rule. Yeah, we completely removed that for the PF campaign I'm running now. Although I don't think it occurred to any of us that you coul actually use it in that extreme a fashion.

[Psyren]

Item Crafting probably deserves a mention. Given that you can skip prerequisites by adding 5 to the DC of a *Skill check*, and furthermore, that everyone can take level=ranks in any skill weather it's a class skill or not, means that anybody can be an artificer.

No seriously, it works like that.

You still need the spells to create scrolls, wands and potions, so not quite. But it does mean that a master blacksmith can craft magical armor without having to attend Hogwarts, so I call that a feature, not a bug.

[Answerer]

Do you have links/citations for this? I know that SKR has been rude to people, but I wasn't aware of outright insults.
I do not; I have read them but I have not retained links to them. I do not like Pathfinder and I quite strongly dislike Paizo; I'm not in the habit of bookmarking the crap they say. And I'm certainly not going to go looking for them.

By the way, you are correct with SKR; Jason Buhlmann was the other I'd seen insult those who care about balance. Possibly related to the "exotic weapons don't need to be better just because they cost a feat" fiasco?

And, ya know, let's not forget that this is the company that banned users for presenting mathematical data indicating imbalances in their system during the supposed beta test. Oddly enough, a number of those who actually were flaming at that time were not banned, while others who were perfectly civil other than refusing to ignore the evidences of imbalance did get banned.


Which issues are you thinking of? I can only think of one off the top of my head- the weirdness with flurry of blows working like TWF.
Enhancement bonuses to abilities. Splitting feats. The very-considerable power of some Sorcerer and Wizard class features. The lack thereof for mundane classes. The lack of dual-mundane-ability-score-bonuses on races. The nerf of the Spiked Chain. Tripping requiring double AoOs.

This is just off the top of my head, coming from someone who actively avoids Pathfinder. I'm not saying there are no good changes (there are quite a few), but not every problem in Pathfinder is merely an artifact of a problem from 3.5. Not even remotely.

[Kuulvheysoon]

You still need the spells to create scrolls, wands and potions, so not quite. But it does mean that a master blacksmith can craft magical armor without having to attend Hogwarts, so I call that a feature, not a bug.

Ironsoul Forgemasters and Midgard dwarves?

As usual, dwarves have the answer.

[Squirrel_Dude]

The biggest problem is that it didn't fix the problem of high level casters completely destroying the action economy with spells like time stop and summoned creatures that they control taking actions.

My friends and I recently played a 20th level game and here is the normal flow of combat.

Combat starts:
- Wizard goes first because divination specialization.
*Party: "Woo! Go Wizard, get us some buffs"
- 30 minutes later it's the monk's turn
*Monk: "I teleport in and trip the monster. Done."
- It's the sorcerers turn
*Sorcerer: "Alright, I got bored. What spells hasn't the wizard cast yet. Uh huh... alright...
- 30 minutes later it's the samurai's turn
*Samurai: "I'm not near anything, so I'll delay my action until the cleric does something
- It's the clerics turn:
* teleports the samurai, wails on a the BBEG
- Now it's the samurai's real turn
*I make a full attack. Yay I hit things.

The second problem is one of extra work for DMs. If your party is any good, the monsters listed at being appropriate for their level won't be enough. They simply aren't, especially if you have even 1 extra person in your party. As a DM, you pretty much have to boost up most monsters if you want to give you players an actual challenge.

[Psyren]

And, ya know, let's not forget that this is the company that banned users for presenting mathematical data indicating imbalances in their system during the supposed beta test. Oddly enough, a number of those who actually were flaming at that time were not banned, while others who were perfectly civil other than refusing to ignore the evidences of imbalance did get banned.

Not meaning to offend, but wouldn't it be best if you guys just moved on from this? I don't see what it still accomplishes to air your grievances from this far-flung playtest (how long ago was it? 3 years? 4?) in every single thread that even mentions paizo or its devs, regardless of actual topic.

You've got Legend now, and it plays fine. Continuing to hate on paizo at every opportunity doesn't change anything.



Enhancement bonuses to abilities. Splitting feats. The very-considerable power of some Sorcerer and Wizard class features. The lack thereof for mundane classes. The lack of dual-mundane-ability-score-bonuses on races. The nerf of the Spiked Chain. Tripping requiring double AoOs.

I don't see what's wrong with enhancement bonuses - you use the magical buffs at low levels and switch to constant-effect gear as you grow. Splitting feats I agree with you on. I don't see any wizard or sorcerer class features that are particularly bad, other than certain spells. The ability score thing seems trivial. Spiked chain was overwhelmingly favored in 3.5. Use a reach weapon with trip.

[Sylthia]

Combat at high levels can take forever, (or end instantly if the PCs are lucky.)

I wish there was a better way to handle attack progression for martial types. A hasted TWF gets 8 attacks at high levels. For those who aren't mathematically inclined, it can take ten minutes for one person's turn or worse.

I'd rather have fewer, but more powerful attacks.

Just started a level 5 campaign and combat goes so much faster.

We managed to get 3 combat encounters + a ton of RP into about 7 hours. Considering it was the first session, a good portion of that was getting everyone's character ready.

[Tovec]

Which part do you dislike? I have a dislike in that they can be used indefinitely, which has some issues in terms of what your game world can be like (it already is difficult enough explaining why the rules haven't lead to a magical Singularity), but that's comparatively minor.

The indefinitely thing is my number one issue with it. I don't find magic to be magical if it can be used constantly. I much prefer bigger blasts less frequently than smaller ones more frequently.

Like I said I know others disagree.

Oh, another thing that bugs me is having to prepare the spell slot in that case. We have (for years before PF) used it that 0's are kind of spontaneous, even for wizards/clerics. It requires so little energy and you KNOW these spells so well that it doesn't matter if you prepared light or detect magic, you want a read magic or create water or whatever that is fine. It solves a few minor issues with the 3.5 version as it was.

Also considered making 1-3's work similarly for higher level wizards but that never came into play because we consider wizards to be overly powerful to begin with.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Combat at high levels can take forever, (or end instantly if the PCs are lucky.)

I wish there was a better way to handle attack progression for martial types. A hasted TWF gets 8 attacks at high levels. For those who aren't mathematically inclined, it can take ten minutes for one person's turn or worse.It's not just that it takes a long time, it's that the winner is known by the second or third round. Once a side gets a good upper hand it's just the inevitable march of running through resources and maneuvering the fighters for the full attacks to start slowly dropping the enemies hit points.

[NamelessNPC]

Combat at high levels can take forever, (or end instantly if the PCs are lucky.)

I wish there was a better way to handle attack progression for martial types. A hasted TWF gets 8 attacks at high levels. For those who aren't mathematically inclined, it can take ten minutes for one person's turn or worse.

I'd rather have fewer, but more powerful attacks.

Just started a level 5 campaign and combat goes so much faster.

We managed to get 3 combat encounters + a ton of RP into about 7 hours. Considering it was the first session, a good portion of that was getting everyone's character ready.


I don't want to come off as rude, but how can it be so difficult to add a d20 to your attack bonus? Maybe tell your players beforehand that they shouldn't make the character with the most possible attacks if they can't add fast.

[Arbane]

I don't see what's wrong with enhancement bonuses - you use the magical buffs at low levels and switch to constant-effect gear as you grow.

Yes, but that brings about the much-hated Christmas Tree Effect, where all PCs are expected/required to have a full suite of magical gimcracks to get those all-important plusses. :smallannoyed:

Giving characters a stat boost every 4 levels was a good start, but insufficient. (Yes, I know D&D had this too. The Christmas Tree Effect was and is still a problem.)

[Squirrel_Dude]

I don't want to come off as rude, but how can it be so difficult to add a d20 to your attack bonus? Maybe tell your players beforehand that they shouldn't make the character with the most possible attacks if they can't add fast.It's not the d20. It's the

BAB with the strength and the enhancement bonus on the weapon with the bonus from haste and the penalty for soft cover and the bonus from bulls strength and the bonus from weapon focus and penalty for power attack and all the other stuff that can change from round to round.

Repeat for damage

[Baroncognito]

Item Crafting probably deserves a mention. Given that you can skip prerequisites by adding 5 to the DC of a *Skill check*, and furthermore, that everyone can take level=ranks in any skill weather it's a class skill or not, means that anybody can be an artificer.

No seriously, it works like that.

No, it actually doesn't.

You need the item creation feat. It specifically calls that out. You cannot create magic armour without having "Craft Magic Arms and Armour."

Now, go look at the prerequisites for "Craft Magic Arms and Armour." You'll notice that one of the prerequisites is "Caster level 5."

The only way for a fighter, without any caster levels, to be able to take the feat "Craft Magic Arms and Armour" is if she first takes the "Master Craftsman" feat.

What's that? You want to make a wand Ms. Fighter? Too bad, "Master Craftsman" does not allow you to use your ranks in "Craft: Stick" to count as your caster level when attempting to qualify for "Craft Wand."

[The equalizer]

They tried to fix monks by giving them more attacks. The problem is that the stat blocks of many monsters in pathfinder are alot higher than in 3.5. Some are weakened but those monsters are rare. Compare the 3.5 succubus and the pathfinder one. Both CR 7, pretty big difference though. Furthermore, they created a new problem with the monk. Tying multiple special abilities back to ki, the monk now suffers from blowing ki all to quickly. Strangely, I still prefer the 3.5 monk. Grapple mechanics in 3.5 still seem better to me. While they simplified it in pathfinder(not that it was complicated to begin with), they pushed the cmd of monsters really high, really fast. It reached the point where :smallwink:ur fighter grappler really struggles to lock in the grapple versus something of the same or slightly lower cr but doesn't hav great bab or strength or any monstrous feats improving grapple. Improving the hit die of classes like rogues and wizards but not really improving the hit die of martials like fighters and paladins. Trying to get around the weaknesses of those classes. Certain questionable feats like fast study which lets the wizard get around the weakness of not having every single spell appropriate for the upcoming suspected environment or encounter. Clerics and paladins now have to worship a single deity. Cancels out role playing options for playing a religious character devoted to a general extraplanar force or pantheon. The list goes on.

[Yora]

Pathfinder did very little to address the major discrepancy between spellcasters and martial characters. I really wish they would have gone further with the spell nerfs, and sometimes it feels like they did just as many things to hurt melee as help them.
Which spells?


I also really don't like their approach to ability score enhancement items, which is another little thing that screws over melee - all physical enhancements are in belts, and multiple ability score boosting belts are more expensive than having the equivalent from two/three items in 3.5.
Is there a rule that prevents PCs and NPCs from crafting items with a Strength bonus that are not belts?

[jedipilot24]

What I don't like about Pathfinder are all the little details that could have been fixed but weren't.
Mage Armor is still a Conjuration.
Greater Heroism is still worse than its lower-level counterpart.
Healing is still Conjuration.

Little things like that.

[Answerer]

Not meaning to offend, but wouldn't it be best if you guys just moved on from this? I don't see what it still accomplishes to air your grievances from this far-flung playtest (how long ago was it? 3 years? 4?) in every single thread that even mentions paizo or its devs, regardless of actual topic.
Every thread is a massive overstatement. I rarely go into Pathfinder-specific threads.

The time since then is meaningless: the question was what evidence I had that Paizo has no interest in balance, and denigrated those who do. That playtest was a shining example of that perspective. It was also an example of how Paizo is run by people who are both unprofessional and immature, and that it is an atrocious development company.


You've got Legend now, and it plays fine.
It does; not seeing the relevance of this point.


Continuing to hate on paizo at every opportunity doesn't change anything.
Funny, it seems to me that this is exceptionally on topic, since the thread is all about things that Paizo did badly or missed or what have you. I was directly responding to another poster's request for more information.

And I find it telling that at no point did you deny any of what I said.


I don't see what's wrong with enhancement bonuses - you use the magical buffs at low levels and switch to constant-effect gear as you grow.
The bit where mundanes cannot get bonuses to more than one ability score without paying utterly-unnecessary premiums.


Splitting feats I agree with you on. I don't see any wizard or sorcerer class features that are particularly bad, other than certain spells.
There's that Human Sorcerer thing where they gain something like twice as many spells known. That's patently absurd, especially from the perspective of Sorcerers from other races. I'll admit that this point is mostly hearsay, though; it's my understanding that some of those class features are quite powerful, despite the fact that they needed nothing. Seeing as all the Core Fighter get is a paltry few +numbers to things he already had high-enough numbers in, it wouldn't take much.


The ability score thing seems trivial.
It's symptomatic of Paizo's overall complete-and-utter failure to rebalance things re: magic and mundane. Pathfinder regularly shafts mundanes in subtle ways, and does little to most magical classes.


Spiked chain was overwhelmingly favored in 3.5.
No, it wasn't. The cost of a feat is and was huge. It was the best weapon ignoring the cost, which of course makes perfect sense considering the huge cost.


Use a reach weapon with trip.
Does not threaten, and is thus absolutely useless. Can't blame Paizo for that, but we can file that under "things that Pathfinder didn't fix (but should have)," since "attacks of opportunity" are literally the only thing a real-life bullwhip is good for in combat.

[Ernir]

Which spells?

As of two years ago or so, they had fixed about half the spells that annoyed me the most.

Explosive Runes, Shrink Item, the Planar Binding line (!), Magic Jar, Contingency, Simulacrum (!), Gate (!) and Astral Projection are still notably broken, some of them to pieces.

[Big Fau]

Do you have links/citations for this? I know that SKR has been rude to people, but I wasn't aware of outright insults.

How about banning some of the Open Beta testers?

Yes, I'm still mad about that.

[Yora]

Funny, it seems to me that this is exceptionally on topic, since the thread is all about things that Paizo did badly or missed or what have you. I was directly responding to another poster's request for more information.
No it's not. This is about what rules in the game could still be improved. I don't care the least about how the process of implementing or not implemeting happened.

[Psyren]

Every thread is a massive overstatement. I rarely go into Pathfinder-specific threads.

The time since then is meaningless: the question was what evidence I had that Paizo has no interest in balance, and denigrated those who do. That playtest was a shining example of that perspective. It was also an example of how Paizo is run by people who are both unprofessional and immature, and that it is an atrocious development company.
...
Funny, it seems to me that this is exceptionally on topic, since the thread is all about things that Paizo did badly or missed or what have you. I was directly responding to another poster's request for more information.

All I'm saying is that I see this infamous playtest continually get brought up year after year, thread after thread. But this particular thread is about Pathfinder (a game system), not Paizo, and especially not about the people who work at Paizo who may or may not have been heavy-handed on some forum somewhere years ago.

In addition, balance was not their primary concern - parity with 3.5 (from a pick-up-and-play perspective) was. The number one attribute of PF they constantly advertised was how your 3.5 material would easily work with the system; balance issues always came second to that, when they were mentioned at all.



And I find it telling that at no point did you deny any of what I said.

How could I deny or even support any of it? Apparently everyone who was involved in the incident either works at Paizo or was too outraged to save the thread. I have nothing at all to go on.



There's that Human Sorcerer thing where they gain something like twice as many spells known.

That's a favored class problem, not a sorcerer problem. Extra spells as
a favored class bonus are fine, they simply gave the Human Sorcerer too many. I would say it should have been something like +1/4 or +1/6, and that's how it will be in my games, but that doesn't damn the class itself.



Seeing as all the Core Fighter get is a paltry few +numbers to things he already had high-enough numbers in, it wouldn't take much.

Simple classes do serve a purpose. Fighter is there for a newer player to just pick something up and play, something that indeed just has a few "paltry +numbers" to make it straightforward, while they figure out what they're even doing at the table. Hand a character sheet - even a simple one like a first-level fighter's - to someone who's never played an RPG and watch their reaction - it's probably going to look like so many runes and sigils to them. Then they have to figure out these weirdly-shaped dice they've never seen before. These barriers to entry are bad enough without having a nice, simple vehicle they can ride on while getting the tour.

Once they have some system mastery they can graduate to things like Magus or Alchemist. Heck, even Barbarian or Samurai can be daunting for a brand new player.



It's symptomatic of Paizo's overall complete-and-utter failure to rebalance things re: magic and mundane. Pathfinder regularly shafts mundanes in subtle ways, and does little to most magical classes.

I would say the concentration change and shapeshifting nerfs were a pretty big shaft to magic classes. Magic is indeed still capable of more (a fact I have no problems with) but the opportunity cost to a mage of trying to usurp the melee's role is now higher - high enough in fact that they are better off sticking to their own job.



No, it wasn't. The cost of a feat is and was huge. It was the best weapon ignoring the cost, which of course makes perfect sense considering the huge cost.

And yet, even with that "huge" cost it was (and is) the number one recommended weapon in all of 3.5. Certainly it was the number one
recommended for core-only or core-primary games. Nothing wrong with stirring the pot a little.



Does not threaten, and is thus absolutely useless. Can't blame Paizo for that, but we can file that under "things that Pathfinder didn't fix (but should have)," since "attacks of opportunity" are literally the only thing a real-life bullwhip is good for in combat.


Huh? A whip isn't the only weapon with trip and reach.



The bit where mundanes cannot get bonuses to more than one ability score without paying utterly-unnecessary premiums.



I also really don't like their approach to ability score enhancement items, which is another little thing that screws over melee - all physical enhancements are in belts, and multiple ability score boosting belts are more expensive than having the equivalent from two/three items in 3.5. So martial characters have to spend more money than ever to boost strength and con or dex and con at the same time, while wizards are fine with their one +int item and one +con item.

I'll address these two together because they're related. Of course the belts are more expensive, because X bonuses in 1 slot is better than X bonuses in X slots. Having Dex in the belt too frees up your gloves slot. That explains the premium.

[Answerer]

All I'm saying is that I see this infamous playtest continually get brought up year after year, thread after thread. But this particular thread is about Pathfinder (a game system), not Paizo, and especially not about the people who work at Paizo who may or may not have been heavy-handed on some forum somewhere years ago.
Again, that was brought up by someone questioning whether or not I had any evidence for my claim that Paizo has no interest in balance and denigrates those who do, which came up in rebuttal to someone who claimed that Paizo had not introduced new problems.


In addition, balance was not their primary concern - parity with 3.5 (from a pick-up-and-play perspective) was. The number one attribute of PF they constantly advertised was how your 3.5 material would easily work with the system; balance issues always came second to that, when they were mentioned at all.
It was an advertised feature of the system, whether it was primary or not, and not only did they fail to deliver it, they generally made things worse.

Again, I was responding to the claim that all problems in Pathfinder are holdovers from 3.5 and Paizo did not introduce any. This statement was false.


How could I deny or even support any of it? Apparently everyone who was involved in the incident either works at Paizo or was too outraged to save the thread. I have nothing at all to go on.
Well, pretty sure Paizo deleted most if not all of it, so there's that too. But if you're interested, you can spend your time looking. Already Paizo has wasted far more of my time than I ever should have let them.


That's a favored class problem, not a sorcerer problem.
...a Favored Class: Sorcerer problem. The point is that it's a feature that powers up Sorcerers tremendously – can you name anything that Paizo gave to the Fighter, Monk, or Paladin that's as good?


Simple classes do serve a purpose. Fighter is there for a newer player to just pick something up and play, something that indeed just has a few "paltry +numbers" to make it straightforward, while they figure out what they're even doing at the table. Hand a character sheet - even a simple one like a first-level fighter's - to someone who's never played an RPG and watch their reaction - it's probably going to look like so many runes and sigils to them. Then they have to figure out these weirdly-shaped dice they've never seen before. These barriers to entry are bad enough without having a nice, simple vehicle they can ride on while getting the tour.
Your argument would work so much better if Paizo had actually succeeded in making the Fighter "pick-up-and-play." Except it doesn't work nearly as well as advertised, and doesn't get any class features that could allow it to do so.


And yet, even with that "huge" cost it was (and is) the number one recommended weapon in all of 3.5. Certainly it was the number one recommended for core-only or core-primary games.
Even the Horizon Tripper doesn't recommend it. Outside of Core, there are tons of better ways to spend your feats. Yes, it's the best weapon: but it's not really worth a feat. The Guisarme still gets used more often.


Nothing wrong with stirring the pot a little.
Oh, stirring the pot? "Let's make an already-bad feat even worse, so that it is 100%-strictly a trap for players to fall in, and let's refuse to replace an honestly-useful feat with absolutely nothing at all so mundanes are that much worse off," is "stirring the pot"?

Funny, that's what I call atrocious and ignorant system design.


Huh? A whip isn't the only weapon with trip and reach.
Weird, I totally misread what you said. Anyway, point on the whip stands. And yes, use a Guisarme or Heavy Flail. Never, ever take Exotic Weapon Proficiency. This is good design? The Spiked Chain actually had unique capabilities that made it worth a feat. Now none of them are.


I'll address these two together because they're related. Of course the belts are more expensive, because X bonuses in 1 slot is better than X bonuses in X slots. Having Dex in the belt too frees up your gloves slot. That explains the premium.
Except that the gloves no longer exist. You cannot get +X Enhancement bonus to Dexterity from any slot but waist.

[Psyren]

It was an advertised feature of the system, whether it was primary or not, and not only did they fail to deliver it, they generally made things worse.

I disagree - the polymorph and concentration changes were significant improvements and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Many other spells were toned down to no longer be auto-win, e.g. Grease, Glitterdust, Solid Fog, Forcecage etc.



Again, I was responding to the claim that all problems in Pathfinder are holdovers from 3.5 and Paizo did not introduce any. This statement was false.

I actually agree with you here, but again, bashing Paizo or the long-ago playtest isn't relevant to a simple comparison between systems today.



Well, pretty sure Paizo deleted most if not all of it, so there's that too. But if you're interested, you can spend your time looking.

Why should I go and substantiate your claims? :smallconfused: Even if paizo's treatment of the playtesters was on topic, you are the one making the positive claim here ("Paizo did X.")



...a Favored Class: Sorcerer problem. The point is that it's a feature that powers up Sorcerers tremendously – can you name anything that Paizo gave to the Fighter, Monk, or Paladin that's as good?

Again, the base concept (favored class bonus = more spells) isn't at fault, just the sheer amount they got.

And honestly, it's a boost to sorcerers but it doesn't raise them much higher than they were. It's not like a sorcerer without this can't handle level-appropriate challenges. Even if it did raise them to T1 (it doesn't), the difference between T2 and T1 is a lot smaller than the difference between T2 and T3. But Monks and Paladins got plenty of features/archetypes that raise them 1-2 tiers from where they were in 3.5, including the unmodified base class in the Paladin's case. (Fighter I'm less familiar with, but even if it wasn't raised very far, that's still a feature - Fighter is again meant to be the entry class starting out and be used for training dips later.)



Your argument would work so much better if Paizo had actually succeeded in making the Fighter "pick-up-and-play." Except it doesn't work nearly as well as advertised, and doesn't get any class features that could allow it to do so.

I disagree here too. Fighter teaches you all the basics, and thanks to the caster changes I mentioned above they (or a similar frontliner) are more needed at the gaming table.

Horizon Tripper is not an entry-level build and so isn't relevant to my point.



Oh, stirring the pot? "Let's make an already-bad feat even worse
...
Weird, I totally misread what you said. Anyway, point on the whip stands. And yes, use a Guisarme or Heavy Flail. Never, ever take Exotic Weapon Proficiency. This is good design? The Spiked Chain actually had unique capabilities that made it worth a feat. Now none of them are.


The feat I was referring to was EWP Spiked Chain (not sure if that's what you were also referring to.) It's really only a "trap" to people who thought the spiked chain was identical to 3.5, and honestly, anyone who was using one of those things knows the system well enough to check on their favorite toys before burning a feat unnecessarily.



Except that the gloves no longer exist. You cannot get +X Enhancement bonus to Dexterity from any slot but waist.

So what? You can still wear other gloves and get a Dex bonus - something you couldn't do in 3.5. That's my point. And not only that, but you can now get Dex, Str and Con out of the same slot without needing special item improvement rules to do it. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

[Raimun]

I'll be frank. I don't like the way some classes were... "nerfed" (geez, I hate language like this but it makes the point come across).

Instead of subtracting from full casters, they should have instead left them as they were (spells included) and just added more stuff to other classes. Sure, they did that but they did not go to the 11.

Fighters with more skill points and Bonus Feats for every level. Monks who can move and flurry, w/full BAB. 6 levels of spells for Paladins and Rangers. "Favored enemy"-like feature that let Rogues sneak attack additional enemies who are normally immune. Power Attack+Leap attack+Shock Trooper 2.0.. Save-or-Die-Special attacks for martial classes. Perhaps even take a leaf out of ToB but only for higher level characters.

That kind of things. In addition to all the stuff they already have in Pathfinder.

Edit: And yes, there are no good Exotic Weapons in Pathfinder. There doesn't need to be another Spiked Chain but still, c'mon?

[lsfreak]

So what? You can still wear other gloves and get a Dex bonus - something you couldn't do in 3.5. That's my point. And not only that, but you can now get Dex, Str and Con out of the same slot without needing special item improvement rules to do it. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

You can, at zero extra cost, add the ability score boosters to a relevant slot in 3.5e. A belt of battle + a belt of giant's strength is perfectly legal as a single item, and you don't have to spend any extra money to do it.

[Stouts]

You can, at zero extra cost, add the ability score boosters to a relevant slot in 3.5e. A belt of battle + a belt of giant's strength is perfectly legal as a single item, and you don't have to spend any extra money to do it.

That's not necessarily 100% true - it depends on how you interpret "multiple different abilities (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Creating_Magic_Items#Table:_Estimating_Magic_I tem_Gold_Piece_Values)" for custom magic item pricing. Paizo's combo-belts that add to multiple stats are priced at this rate (1x + 1.5x), and I think it's reasonable to think that they'd have the same price under 3.5 with DM oversight.

[Yora]

In D&D you can just get yourself bracers or a necklace of dexterity and boots of strength. And I don't see any reason why you couldn't in PF.

[Starbuck_II]

In D&D you can just get yourself bracers or a necklace of dexterity and boots of strength. And I don't see any reason why you couldn't in PF.

You should go to the PF forums and ask that, you'll get yelled at for being a munchkin. :smallsigh:

[NoldorForce]

That's not necessarily 100% true - it depends on how you interpret "multiple different abilities (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Creating_Magic_Items#Table:_Estimating_Magic_I tem_Gold_Piece_Values)" for custom magic item pricing. Paizo's combo-belts that add to multiple stats are priced at this rate (1x + 1.5x), and I think it's reasonable to think that they'd have the same price under 3.5 with DM oversight.lsfreak is probably thinking of the MIC rules, which have a full-page chart (234) of common stat bonuses and where to slot them in without incurring a cost multiplier. Plus, though it's costly if you don't need bonuses to all six ability scores, the Miniatures Handbook features multiple levels of the Belt of Magnificence, none of which cost as much as the standard 1.5x for "multiple different abilities" would suggest.

(Also, beware of using links from DandWiki - that site has a fair bit of homebrew mixed in with official rules, and it's not always easy to distinguish the two. Better to use d20SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/).)

[Axier]

I think maybe we should develop some sort of consensus on what a problem is, because it also seems like everyone has their own opinion on what was wrong with this system, as well as the last.

[Yora]

You should go to the PF forums and ask that, you'll get yelled at for being a munchkin. :smallsigh:
There are rules for making custom items. So you are supposed to make custom items.

[Psyren]

You can, at zero extra cost, add the ability score boosters to a relevant slot in 3.5e. A belt of battle + a belt of giant's strength is perfectly legal as a single item, and you don't have to spend any extra money to do it.

The PF Dex+Con belt has the advantage of being pre-made. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/wondrousItems.html#_belt-of-physical-perfection) Not all DMs like custom items; some use loot tables, or may allow crafting but like to stick to what is printed. Some adventures have time limits, hazardous environments, or other situations that don't allow for crafting. And for sanctioned play like PFS, custom items have very heavy restrictions (when they are allowed at all.) Assuming parity between them - that custom items will always be available for creation or purchase in every game - is fallacious.

[Tovec]

Again, that was brought up by someone questioning whether or not I had any evidence for my claim that Paizo has no interest in balance and denigrates those who do, which came up in rebuttal to someone who claimed that Paizo had not introduced new problems.
All we can speculate for sure about is that Paizo explicitly said they wanted it to be backward comparable. They made no such claims or outward intentions toward saying they would make Pathfinder balanced. They can cannot fail at a goal they didn't specify. You can say they failed to meet your standards but that is a completely different issue to address and honestly who should try to answer your standards. My own system certainly won't (or even try).


It was an advertised feature of the system, whether it was primary or not, and not only did they fail to deliver it, they generally made things worse.
Wow, that is strong and unsupported.

They did MUCH to improve many different classes, several class features of the martial classes were much better than their 3.5 counterparts. They reduced the SOD problem in many (if not most) spells. They reduced the problems associated with spells like polymorph. They did not generally make things worse.

As I said in my first post, they improved many things but then due to the nature of change they also created new problems. I think in general for the purpose of this discussion we should focus on the areas of 3.5 that were broken, and where PF failed to fix them.


Again, I was responding to the claim that all problems in Pathfinder are holdovers from 3.5 and Paizo did not introduce any. This statement was false.
Agreed. However, the problems you brought up in the post prior to the one I am currently quoting were almost all universally issues of 3.5 that were not addressed with PF. They were not however problems of Paizo or Pathfinder in general.


...a Favored Class: Sorcerer problem. The point is that it's a feature that powers up Sorcerers tremendously – can you name anything that Paizo gave to the Fighter, Monk, or Paladin that's as good?
I could try looking blindly for this but I have no experience or recollection of FC: Sorcerer (for human) allowing extra spells. Where is that from - I'll take a book ref or a PF SRD link. I'm just curious, I can't really comment on this issue until I read it.


Your argument would work so much better if Paizo had actually succeeded in making the Fighter "pick-up-and-play." Except it doesn't work nearly as well as advertised, and doesn't get any class features that could allow it to do so.
Again, this is a problem with 3.5 not with Paizo. And by your seeming correlation of company = system, that makes it WotC's fault. You should hate them forever now. Whenever someone comments on the issues of PF you have to say how WotC sucks, okay?


Even the Horizon Tripper doesn't recommend it. Outside of Core, there are tons of better ways to spend your feats. Yes, it's the best weapon: but it's not really worth a feat. The Guisarme still gets used more often.
I've been playing DnD since about 2003 (3e,3.5,then PF) and I've seen 1 Guisarme used. On the other hand I've seen about 8 spiked chains. I don't know what your experience is, it could quite possibly be different, but my point here is that your label of "X is still more used" is unfounded.


Except that the gloves no longer exist. You cannot get +X Enhancement bonus to Dexterity from any slot but waist.
Actually you can. It is an increased cost but you absolutely can. And magic item creation has become easier. And this was intentional to allow you to have gloves of archery AND glovesbelt of DEX. You can get the benefit of both now in PF. It is a consolidation.

Again, though, this is my point about starting from 3.5. You don't like the change PF made (though it made things cleaner) and I consider it a feature. So when working on a fix for 3.5 then perhaps we can take the good and ignore the bad from PF. So maybe have gloves of dex and belts of dex (and strength and con).


I'll be frank. I don't like the way some classes were... "nerfed" (geez, I hate language like this but it makes the point come across).

Instead of subtracting from full casters, they should have instead left them as they were (spells included) and just added more stuff to other classes. Sure, they did that but they did not go to the 11.

Fighters with more skill points and Bonus Feats for every level. Monks who can move and flurry, w/full BAB. 6 levels of spells for Paladins and Rangers. "Favored enemy"-like feature that let Rogues sneak attack additional enemies who are normally immune. Power Attack+Leap attack+Shock Trooper 2.0.. Save-or-Die-Special attacks for martial classes. Perhaps even take a leaf out of ToB but only for higher level characters.

That kind of things. In addition to all the stuff they already have in Pathfinder.

Edit: And yes, there are no good Exotic Weapons in Pathfinder. There doesn't need to be another Spiked Chain but still, c'mon?

MANY of us dislike TOB. It didn't solve the problem. It didn't fix it either. If you like TOB classes and the un-nerfed 3.5 casters, then 3.5 is exactly what I recommend playing.

As far as the root issue, which I would love to address elsewhere but has nothing to do with the goal of this thread, I don't agree at all that keeping casters un-nerfed and raising fighters (and the rest) to their level was the right way to go. I've seen the argument before and I'm glad PF tried at least partially to fix casters and then raise non-casters up a little without making everyone super-powered to begin with.

[Reverent-One]

I could try looking blindly for this but I have no experience or recollection of FC: Sorcerer (for human) allowing extra spells. Where is that from - I'll take a book ref or a PF SRD link. I'm just curious, I can't really comment on this issue until I read it.

It's from the APG, you can see it here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/core-races/human). They actually do the same with a number of the other spellcasting classes too. They seem to undervalue spells known.

[Answerer]

I disagree - the polymorph and concentration changes were significant improvements and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Many other spells were toned down to no longer be auto-win, e.g. Grease, Glitterdust, Solid Fog, Forcecage etc.
Who's dismissing them? They exist and don't matter because the casters still have auto-win buttons. It doesn't matter that the buttons have changed, only that the buttons still exist.


I actually agree with you here, but again, bashing Paizo or the long-ago playtest isn't relevant to a simple comparison between systems today.
It's a damn good reason to ignore anything Paizo ever puts out.


Why should I go and substantiate your claims? :smallconfused: Even if paizo's treatment of the playtesters was on topic, you are the one making the positive claim here ("Paizo did X.")
I don't really care if you do; most of the community is aware of the history and so far no one has actively disputed it.


Again, the base concept (favored class bonus = more spells) isn't at fault, just the sheer amount they got.
So? It's still poorly done, regardless of where the fault lies.


But Monks and Paladins got plenty of features/archetypes that raise them 1-2 tiers from where they were in 3.5,
I have never heard anyone so much as suggest this, nor have I ever seen any evidence of it, particularly for the Monk.


including the unmodified base class in the Paladin's case.
No. At best, it raises them from an already-high-tier-5 to a low-to-middling tier 4. Smite Evil is much improved, but still crap. Their spellcasting is based off Cha, but they still get too few spells too late. Their Caster Level is no longer half their character level, but it still takes a -3 penalty for no justifiable reason. Mercies are cute but they only get six of them and they're purely reactive. And so on.


Fighter is again meant to be the entry class starting out and be used for training dips later.
You seem to think this is an excuse for bad design. I could not conceivably disagree more strongly. The beginner class is the one that it is most important to get right.


I disagree here too. Fighter teaches you all the basics, and thanks to the caster changes I mentioned above they (or a similar frontliner) are more needed at the gaming table.
Disagree on both points. Fighter is a bad beginner class because feat choices are so critical and inflexible, and so easy to screw up. Your points about casters are just wrong; Concentration was never the reason why they could dispense with a frontliner, spells were. Casters are more mobile than fighters, and shouldn't really be in threatened range without potent defenses up anyway.


Horizon Tripper is not an entry-level build and so isn't relevant to my point.
I only brought up the Horizon Tripper with respect to your claim that the Spiked Chain was the number one recommended weapon despite the feat tax.


The feat I was referring to was EWP Spiked Chain (not sure if that's what you were also referring to.) It's really only a "trap" to people who thought the spiked chain was identical to 3.5, and honestly, anyone who was using one of those things knows the system well enough to check on their favorite toys before burning a feat unnecessarily.
No, it's a trap for anyone who thought they were gaining some kind of advantage for spending their feat in that manner.


So what? You can still wear other gloves and get a Dex bonus - something you couldn't do in 3.5. That's my point. And not only that, but you can now get Dex, Str and Con out of the same slot without needing special item improvement rules to do it. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Enhancement bonuses to ability scores, as well as a few other types of bonuses (e.g. resistance bonuses to saving throws) can be added on to any other magical item at no surcharge, and bonuses to Dexterity can go on slots other than gloves. This is just 100% wrong.

[The Random NPC]

It's a damn good reason to ignore anything Paizo ever puts out.
No it isn't, it is a good reason to be careful of things that they put out, but not to outright ignore it.


I don't really care if you do; most of the community is aware of the history and so far no one has actively disputed it.
You should still provide proof, I would like to beleive you, but I won't until proof is presented.

[Acanous]

No, it actually doesn't.

You need the item creation feat. It specifically calls that out. You cannot create magic armour without having "Craft Magic Arms and Armour."

Now, go look at the prerequisites for "Craft Magic Arms and Armour." You'll notice that one of the prerequisites is "Caster level 5."

The only way for a fighter, without any caster levels, to be able to take the feat "Craft Magic Arms and Armour" is if she first takes the "Master Craftsman" feat.

What's that? You want to make a wand Ms. Fighter? Too bad, "Master Craftsman" does not allow you to use your ranks in "Craft: Stick" to count as your caster level when attempting to qualify for "Craft Wand."

Unless you're a Gnome, Tiefling, Aasimar, or any other race where it says somewhere in the race description "Treat your HD as Caster Level". Then it works just fine. Craft Wonderous at lv 3, plus you get a natural CHA bonus on top? Wheeeeee~

[Psyren]

Who's dismissing them? They exist and don't matter because the casters still have auto-win buttons. It doesn't matter that the buttons have changed, only that the buttons still exist.

I find that in actual play, the vast majority of these "auto-win" buttons are due to lazy DMs as much as anything else. If binding Efreet is as risk-free as summoning mephits in your games then you have only yourself to blame when things break.



It's a damn good reason to ignore anything Paizo ever puts out.
...
I don't really care if you do; most of the community is aware of the history and so far no one has actively disputed it.

I have to wonder why you're here then. The folks who like Pathfinder aren't going to be turned against it by a 4-year-old forum banning, and the folks that hate it are most likely already playing Legend. So I still don't see what you're trying to accomplish by exhuming these grievances.

All we ever hear is your side of the story; of course you're going to paint yourselves as totally reasonable, noble, and unjustly wronged.


And few people actively dispute the location of Jimmy Hoffa's body either - that doesn't mean he's there.



I have never heard anyone so much as suggest this, nor have I ever seen any evidence of it, particularly for the Monk.

So Zen Archer, Qinggong, MoMs, Hungry Ghost etc. are all T5 still?



No. At best, it raises them from an already-high-tier-5 to a low-to-middling tier 4. Smite Evil is much improved, but still crap. Their spellcasting is based off Cha, but they still get too few spells too late. Their Caster Level is no longer half their character level, but it still takes a -3 penalty for no justifiable reason. Mercies are cute but they only get six of them and they're purely reactive. And so on.

You're grossly undervaluing all of these. Nor have you mentioned Divine Hunter, Sacred Servant, Empyreal Knight etc.



You seem to think this is an excuse for bad design. I could not conceivably disagree more strongly. The beginner class is the one that it is most important to get right.

"Bad design" is subjective; we can go back and forth on it all day long without getting anywhere. (So is "getting it right" - I think they did, you disagree, we're at an impasse.)



Disagree on both points. Fighter is a bad beginner class because feat choices are so critical and inflexible, and so easy to screw up. Your points about casters are just wrong; Concentration was never the reason why they could dispense with a frontliner, spells were. Casters are more mobile than fighters, and shouldn't really be in threatened range without potent defenses up anyway.

Unless you're PvPing all the time, casters aren't fighting "fighters." They're fighting monsters. And many monsters are just as mobile as any caster (if they're not just plain casters themselves) while generally being a hell of a lot more dangerous in melee. Frontliners are needed because that's one less suite of buffs to burn (and worry about being dispelled) before there's nothing being in between you and grapply/toothy/tentacly death.



No, it's a trap for anyone who thought they were gaining some kind of advantage for spending their feat in that manner.

Most new players don't even know what a spiked chain is - they think fantasy and think shining longswords and burnished shields, maybe with lances. If you have enough system mastery to know a spiked chain was good in 3.5, you have enough to crack open the book and see what changed.



Enhancement bonuses to ability scores, as well as a few other types of bonuses (e.g. resistance bonuses to saving throws) can be added on to any other magical item at no surcharge, and bonuses to Dexterity can go on slots other than gloves. This is just 100% wrong.

Custom items are DM-dependent and shouldn't be assumed in all games. I'm talking about items that are printed in the book.


Unless you're a Gnome, Tiefling, Aasimar, or any other race where it says somewhere in the race description "Treat your HD as Caster Level". Then it works just fine. Craft Wonderous at lv 3, plus you get a natural CHA bonus on top? Wheeeeee~

You still can't craft wands/scrolls/potions without having the actual spell. The statement that "everyone is an artificer in PF" is patently false.

[Baroncognito]

Unless you're a Gnome, Tiefling, Aasimar, or any other race where it says somewhere in the race description "Treat your HD as Caster Level". Then it works just fine. Craft Wonderous at lv 3, plus you get a natural CHA bonus on top? Wheeeeee~

Except none of those races have the ability to treat their level as caster level.

There are a number of races that get the ability to cast certain spells as if their class levels were caster levels, but they don't get to treat their class levels as caster levels for the purposes of feats.

Unless you're deliberately misreading racial traits.

[TopCheese]

One of the biggest problems paizo did with pathfinder is the Fighter.

The Barbarian and Rogue now get options outside of feats (which are better than feats) in the form of rage powers and ...err whatever they call rogue tricks (skills??).

Why didn't they do this with the fighter? Why not sit down and give the fighter its own set of toys that no one else gets so that the fighter doesn't have to rely on nerfed feats.

On this note they could really boost a lot of the Barbarian/Rogue abilities to make them as powerful as spells (well close) so that it helps the class get to that sweet spot of high tier 4/low tier 3 no matter what options you pick.

When Pathfinder was coming out and I saw the "balanced 3.5" talk, I was excited. Then the product made me want to cry for being told a bold face lie and believing it.

Pathfinder is a set of decent houserules, but can be made better.

I would love to see an initiative to take Pathfinder and actually balance it, call it Path.5 and steal WoTC and Paizo's customers :p... Now that is something I would help fund on kickstarter.

But back on topic....

I have a huge problem with feats. A mage can learn to bend reality and get a feat (2 if human) but a Fighter only gets 1 feat. Sure he gets to use it all day (though cantrips are too) but it is usually so weak that it pales in comparrison to spells.

Why Paizo didn't fixe the feats and give the fighter more (with options of retraining) I have no clue.

Also the Fighter is a CORE class and not a starter class. People shouldn't try to hide the fact that it is horrid with the concept of "oh, it allows people to learn the game!".

[Baroncognito]

Why didn't they do this with the fighter? Why not sit down and give the fighter its own set of toys that no one else gets so that the fighter doesn't have to rely on nerfed feats.

But they did. Fighters get Bravery, Armour Training, and Weapon Training.

[Ashtagon]

But they did. Fighters get Bravery, Armour Training, and Weapon Training.

Fighter is still BMX Bandit.

[Baroncognito]

Fighter is still BMX Bandit.

Yes, but much less likely to ask the Sorcerer to end the fly spell.

[TopCheese]

But they did. Fighters get Bravery, Armour Training, and Weapon Training.

Those are numbers not options.


Options are like the Rogue (Tricks or whatever) that allow the rogue to roll twice on bluff checks and take the better result OR pick up a combat feat OR...

The fighter gets numbers to specific weapons, which means that he is limited to what his numbers actually can be used for.

Bravery is a joke.

[Baroncognito]

Those are numbers not options.


Options are like the Rogue (Tricks or whatever) that allow the rogue to roll twice on bluff checks and take the better result OR pick up a combat feat OR...

The fighter gets numbers to specific weapons, which means that he is limited to what his numbers actually can be used for.

Bravery is a joke.

You can say that the options they get are limited and they should have more choices. I'll agree with you on that.

You can say they need more class specific choices. I'll agree with that.

But saying they have nothing unique to the fighter class is entirely inaccurate.

[TopCheese]

You can say that the options they get are limited and they should have more choices. I'll agree with you on that.

You can say they need more class specific choices. I'll agree with that.

But saying they have nothing unique to the fighter class is entirely inaccurate.

Oh they are unique! In the same way as Windows 95 is a unique operating system compared to Mac and Windows 7.....

[T.G. Oskar]

I agree on the idea that Pathfinder nerfed somewhat the chains of feats as a "balancing point" (to mention the notion I seem to get from it) to getting more feats. It's great that all classes have more feats than their 3.5 counterparts, but it hurts that you have to wait almost exactly the same amount of time to get better at tripping.

For starters, tripping changed a bit, though if for better or for worse I'll leave to a different topic: the effect is now a roll against a fixed DC (fixed as in "it won't change unless you gain a bonus to CMD on the fly), where, all things equal, you need a 10 or higher on your score to succeed (all things equal being tripper's STR modifier being equal to target's STR or DEX modifier, equal size, and no other modifiers). That means trip, all things equal, has a 50% chance of success to make a target prone, which has its advantages (-4 on melee attacks, melee AC, +4 bonus on ranged AC) which are exactly the same as those on 3.5. You're still liable to an Attack of Opportunity if you make a trip attempt.

In 3.5, traditionally 5th level was the moment where trip began to lose steam as a basic tactic, unless you had Imp. Trip, a reach weapon or a way to enable difficult terrain (because Tumble got more reliable, casters could fly, monsters got better Strength scores, etc.). In PF, CMD for CR 5-6 creatures gravitates around 18-23, with some particularly brutal exceptions (basilisks with CMD 31 against trip!?). Against two monsters you might want to have your casters away (say, bearded devil and cyclops), you need to have a CMB of +13 just to ensure that 50% chance: with a BAB of 5 and...say, a Str of 18, that means you need an extra +4 bonus. That could have been easy with 3.5 Improved Trip, but PF Improved Trip grants...a +2 bonus. That already leaves you at a disadvantage, reducing your chances of a successful trip. Much like in 3.5, you still depend on Int 13 and two feats (Combat Expertise, Imp. Trip) to make it worthwhile; however, in 3.5, you get the effect that requires another PF feat to complete (Greater Trip), AND the remaining part of the bonus, as well. Oh, but that's at 6th level, which means the 3.5 Fighter is superior in terms of tripping to the PF Fighter, even considering they might be fighting the same monster, all things in all places equal (as in, 3.5 Fighter gets Str 18 and Imp. Trip; PF Fighter gets Str 18, Imp. Trip and Greater Trip), around that level. The important thing I wanted to address, though, was the feat cost: a 3.5 Fighter (any race) would have 5-6 feats at level 5, 6-7 feats at level 6; a PF Fighter (the same race) would have 1 extra feat at every level, but with the extra feat cost, the net feat amount is exactly the same. On the other hand, other feats weren't suitably altered as the combat feats (case in point: Empower Spell and Maximize Spell are identical in almost every way to their 3.5 counterparts, including the amount of higher-level spell slots you need to use). In that regard, warrior classes got roughly the same amount of feats as before, while other classes got more feats.

This also reflects in the quality of the feats. Using the example of trip, two feats got most of what you needed with trip; a reach weapon granted you the rest. However, to make proper use of trip, you needed something else, which required more feats. 3.5 has the likes of Knockdown (free trip attempt when making 10 points of damage or more), Robilar's Gambit or Karmic Strike ( enable attacks of opportunity when attacked), Stand Still (make an attack of opportunity to prevent enemy from moving; can be used as part of the Imp. Trip attempt). PF has, on the other hand...Fury's Fall (use Dex instead of Str for tripping), Net Maneuvering (enables you to trip using a net...which already requires another feat slot), Riptide Attack (allows you to drag an opponent...which is another combat maneuver, which probably means you need to spend feats on it to make it worthwhile), and the likes. The main hassle in that regard is that I perceive a lack of synergy between those feats, whereas in 3.5 you were so feat-starved, it became important to find feats with good synergy. This is taking from the wealth of 3.5 and PF, by the way.

Regarding enhancement bonus to ability scores and slots: a) mental ability scores have the same problem, all going to the head slot; b) mentioning that "adventures have time limits" implies there is no downtime, ever, and that PFS-sanctioned games are more restrictive than Living Greyhawk/FR/Eberron, which also had specific rules that have to be followed; c) the MIC's rules were designed in a way because they recognized the need for characters to get alternative slots for their items, as they did when they made stuff like the vest of resistance, or the hair shirt of suffering (which grants +1 enhancement bonus to NA), or the crown of flames (+2 enh. bonus to Charisma on the head), or the gauntlets of destruction (a better version of the gauntlets of ogre power, BTW).

A) is mentioned in order to provide equality to the discussion: in theory, mages should be as screwed as melees because they can't have a periapt of Wisdom and a cloak of Charisma and a headband of intellect, instead having to choose between all of them; that said, melee characters need good Strength and Constitution, and sneaks (such as rogues and ninjas) also need good Dexterity, so it actively hampers them, as their enhancement scores don't progress as fast as those of the monsters.
B) is mentioned because it involves assuming that more than 50% of the players plays the same way; in essence, it deals with both sides of the game (those tables who have several years worth of downtime, and those tables where downtime is an illusion, and everything in between). Sooner or later, the tables will have some downtime (to sell their loot, unless the DM is stingy enough not to provide them any loot either), which involves a character that has decided to become a crafter to practice its...craft. If you have a campaign where downtime pretty much doesn't exist, then it's the DM's prerogative to mention "don't try to make crafters, because there'll be no downtime for any kind of craft to be followed", or else you're screwing a legitimate build. As for how PFS works, it would be nice to explain those restrictions on custom items (only 1 custom item? Items from X books are considered custom? What do PFS defines by "custom"?), because while assuming that custom items and no risk at binding efreeti is fallacious (it's really depending on how the DM interprets it, so there's a chance it's not entirely as fallacious), stating a point and not really explaining how it affects the rules of the game is ambiguous, which can be worse.
C), finally, involves mostly late 3.5 item design philosophy: they had to recognize the importance of magic items, and how many players gravitated to some of them. They realized that they did better at defining the item slots (which they started with Magic of Incarnum), and decided that they could make some items that seemed of lesser worth more useful if the most common item effects were allowed a fixed price, rather than forcing them to tack extra modifiers to price and make it artificially more expensive than it should, particularly when it's something that makes sense (say, why not add Dex to boots? That say, why belts instead of gloves or boots? And if belts are fair game, why not vests?). Since this is mostly the direction that 3.5 magic item design philosophy took, it isn't relevant to apply in a purely PF design session; however, when comparing both design philosophies, PF seems a rollback to a poorer design philosophy. That said, there might be an increment in net wealth so as to reduce the impact of that increase in price and specific limitations.

Regarding Monk: I see that the main argument for Monks is that they're better because their archetypes are better. I find, on the other hand, that it's an empty argument: the archetypes are better, but 3.5 has no archetypes. However, if you compare the PF Monk alongside its archetypes with 3.5's Monk and its ACFs/variant classes (like the combat styles from UA), PF gets only mildly ahead because of Qinggong Monk. I can't say the same of Hungry Ghost, because on it's own is not that hot: Hungry Ghost is applied to Qinggong Monk to provide greater fuel, as you get reasonably large amounts of ki so as long as you can get several critical hits flying around. The other benefits of Hungry Ghost are: a bull-rushing kick (that's basically Punishing Kick for you) usable more times per day as a free feat, healing HP if you deal a killing critical blow to a creature, and temporary hit points. Every time I hear the argument "Monks are better than their 3.5 counterparts because of Qinggong Monk", all I hear is "we've found PF's Tashalatora", because it's pretty much identical as dipping 2 levels in Monk and then going all Psychic Warrior afterwards. I don't see that as an improvement to Monk: equaling the Monk with the Fighter in terms of combat maneuvers, immunity to supernatural and magical diseases, more uses of Wholeness of Body, Abundant Soul and Empty Body, Quivering Palm used daily instead of weekly, Perfect Self giving DR 10/chaotic (which means it has more chances of being used)...that I can see as an improvement. Otherwise, it still has some of the core troubles of the 3.5 Monk (works good as a skirmisher but flurry has no synergy, slow fall still sucks, still mind remains sucking, flying creatures are still the bane of the Monk, etc.), which is the core concern of people who decry the Monk.

Regarding Fighter: again, adding a bonus to saves vs. fear and free Weapon Focus/Specialization doesn't make for exciting class features for them. Looking at it from the perspective of a homebrewer, those feats don't help the core troubles of the Fighter, as they still are unable to act outside of combat. One of the TRUE improvements I've seen is adding Perception as a class skill and increasing their skill points per level, because that adds to their out of combat utility. Armor Training is so-so; it's good when it allows you to move in heavy armor at your speed, but otherwise it's kinda bland. With feat chains now larger, the Fighter improved so little, it might as well feel like it improved nothing.

Regarding Paladin: now HERE I can claim there's a vast improvement. I have some qualms, but those are mostly semantic, though some are of worth. For starters, I absolutely loathe the idea of calling their new daily maneuver for dealing extra damage "Smite" Evil. I refuse to call it that way; fortunately, that's basically semantics, because I can just call it "Seal of Iomedae's Judgment" and it'll work wonders (and if my DM ever says "so you're using Smite--", I will LOUDLY interrupt him and say "I use the SEAL OF IOMEDAE'S JUDGMENT, thank you very much", with loud and deep moaning sound). I'm at odds with Mercies, because they replace a class feature I abhor (Remove Disease) but I find the effects really don't blend with the Paladin. And my biggest qualm is with their spell list: they've improved spellcasting so much, I see it as an insult that their spells suck so much, compared to the beauties I've seen in Spell Compendium and elsewhere in Eberron splats. That I find cringe-worthy, because the new PF spells for Paladins feel so uninspired. OH, and then there's Bestow Grace of a Champion, which I personally find an insult because it means anyone can become a temporary Paladin by succeeding on a UMD check with a scroll. Really, if the idea was to make Paladins awesome, why you have a spell that pretty much replicates that effect? Why, for all that's good and sacred, WHY!?

I guess that's one of the many qualms I have on PF. I really don't [B]HATE it per se, but I loathe most of the things it has done, and really don't feel any interest in playing it. I feel fine just by homebrewing from a 3.5 perspective, and I agree with the poster that says that PF is basically a set of houserules, because that's what it feels to me. It's horizontally wider (offers more options), but not vertically balanced (all options you get are worthy).

[Felyndiira]

It's a bit off topic (since it's an overfix rather than something they didn't fix), but what they did with Cloistered Clerics was one of the major annoyances I had. Sure, 3.5 CC was powerful, but PF CC was...absolutely terrible for one of my favorite cleric archetypes in the game.

Plus, there's that entire thread where SKR did his traditional 'screw you, I'm right' against anyone who tried to argue that the class was severely crippled.

[Answerer]

I have to wonder why you're here then.
A statement was made that was incorrect; I corrected it. Evidence for my correction was requested; I provided it.

Anyway, point is, those posts were on topic, my first response to your attack on them was probably defensible, but this is getting further and further from the topic and I care less and less. I'm not going to respond except to point out the really obvious.


You're grossly undervaluing all of these. Nor have you mentioned Divine Hunter, Sacred Servant, Empyreal Knight etc.
I was referring entirely to your statement that in the case of the Paladin, there was a 1-2 tier jump just from the Core changes. That is simply not true. It's better but still not anything like good.


"Bad design" is subjective; we can go back and forth on it all day long without getting anywhere. (So is "getting it right" - I think they did, you disagree, we're at an impasse.)
Somewhat, but not nearly as much as you think. Certainly is far more than a matter of personal preference. There are undeniable, mathematically provable imbalances in the system, which is littered with traps (both newly introduced and unfixed from 3.5) and broken abilities.


Most new players don't even know what a spiked chain is - they think fantasy and think shining longswords and burnished shields, maybe with lances. If you have enough system mastery to know a spiked chain was good in 3.5, you have enough to crack open the book and see what changed.
It does not matter what changed.

What matters is that they take a feat, a rare, valuable resource, and get absolutely nothing for it. They would be better off using a Heavy Flail. That is the definition of a trap. And it is atrocious for the game, particularly where new players are involved. And look at that, which class's bonus feat list does Exotic Weapon Proficiency appear on?


Custom items are DM-dependent and shouldn't be assumed in all games. I'm talking about items that are printed in the book.
Magic Item Compendium explicitly states that every character in every campaign should almost always have exactly the enhancement bonuses to any ability scores they like provided they can fit them in WBL, without any surcharge. RAW, you are wrong. They aren't custom items, just WBL taxes.

[Reverent-One]

In 3.5, traditionally 5th level was the moment where trip began to lose steam as a basic tactic, unless you had Imp. Trip, a reach weapon or a way to enable difficult terrain (because Tumble got more reliable, casters could fly, monsters got better Strength scores, etc.). In PF, CMD for CR 5-6 creatures gravitates around 18-23, with some particularly brutal exceptions (basilisks with CMD 31 against trip!?). Against two monsters you might want to have your casters away (say, bearded devil and cyclops), you need to have a CMB of +13 just to ensure that 50% chance: with a BAB of 5 and...say, a Str of 18, that means you need an extra +4 bonus. That could have been easy with 3.5 Improved Trip, but PF Improved Trip grants...a +2 bonus. That already leaves you at a disadvantage, reducing your chances of a successful trip.

Except in PF, that "disadvantage" can be made up by flanking or having some combination of a Masterwork/+1 weapon, the fighter weapon training bonus, weapon focus, a buff spell like bless or haste, bard song, ect. These can combine to give the PF fighter a far better bonus than a 3.5 fighter.


The important thing I wanted to address, though, was the feat cost: a 3.5 Fighter (any race) would have 5-6 feats at level 5, 6-7 feats at level 6; a PF Fighter (the same race) would have 1 extra feat at every level, but with the extra feat cost, the net feat amount is exactly the same. On the other hand, other feats weren't suitably altered as the combat feats (case in point: Empower Spell and Maximize Spell are identical in almost every way to their 3.5 counterparts, including the amount of higher-level spell slots you need to use). In that regard, warrior classes got roughly the same amount of feats as before, while other classes got more feats.

The problem here is that you're using Imp Trip as an example when it's more the exception. Few feats got split up in the switch to PF, other than Trip and Bull Rush the Greater Imp X feats grant abilities that you otherwise wouldn't get from Imp X in 3.5. So while at level 6, a Fighter going the Trip route might effectively have an equivalent number of feats, one that doesn't has more and the tripping fighter will gain the lead in feats back the very next level.

[Elricaltovilla]

Three things for me that I'd like to see:

1. More stackable bonuses. Why should a Bear's Endurance Spell become completely useless the level after a wizard/bard/whatever learns it because the fighter got a shiny new belt? If they stacked, everyone would benefit. Casters would have fewer useless spells, and melee characters would get more bonuses that they could use to bring their fighting potential in line with Casters.

2. Movement and full attacks. A caster can move and cast a spell every round, one that will typically do more damage than a fighter's single attack. But if a melee class could move and deliver their iterative attacks, that would do a lot to bring balance to the classes.

3. Fewer feat chains. You only get a feat every other level (not counting bonus feats), so their bonuses should reflect that you've essentially "spent" that amount of experience on said feat.

[Starbuck_II]

I agree on the idea that Pathfinder nerfed somewhat the chains of feats as a "balancing point" (to mention the notion I seem to get from it) to getting more feats. It's great that all classes have more feats than their 3.5 counterparts, but it hurts that you have to wait almost exactly the same amount of time to get better at tripping.

Speaking of tripping:
They also gave out trip immunity to all flying creatures in PF. In 3.5, you could trip flying creatures so they stalled and fell that round. Now, they are immune in PF.

That weakens tripping.

[Psyren]

A statement was made that was incorrect; I corrected it. Evidence for my correction was requested; I provided it.

You've provided no evidence at all, just asserted your version of events and stated that nobody has proof to the contrary. I definitely believe that you (or several other people) were banned from their forums during the playtest; what I have yet to see conclusive evidence of is the reason why.



I was referring entirely to your statement that in the case of the Paladin, there was a 1-2 tier jump just from the Core changes.

I said no such thing.



Somewhat, but not nearly as much as you think. Certainly is far more than a matter of personal preference. There are undeniable, mathematically provable imbalances in the system, which is littered with traps (both newly introduced and unfixed from 3.5) and broken abilities.

And there are undeniable, mathematically provable improvements as well. Mind Blank no longer shuts off an entire school of magic; three creature types no longer get blanket immunity to sneak attack; The larger creature no longer practically auto-wins grapples etc. An unbiased, empirical analysis would evaluate both sides.




It does not matter what changed.

What matters is that they take a feat, a rare, valuable resource, and get absolutely nothing for it. They would be better off using a Heavy Flail. That is the definition of a trap. And it is atrocious for the game, particularly where new players are involved. And look at that, which class's bonus feat list does Exotic Weapon Proficiency appear on?

Again, subpar options reward system mastery. And the game's still in print - there'll likely be plenty more exotic weapons printed, changing the feat's value.



Magic Item Compendium explicitly states that every character in every campaign should almost always have exactly the enhancement bonuses to any ability scores they like provided they can fit them in WBL, without any surcharge. RAW, you are wrong.

That guideline still says nothing about requiring DMs to okay custom items in every campaign. Having the enhancement bonuses is necessary, but allowing them to be added onto other magic items - instead of using the default items those bonuses come attached to - is not.


Speaking of tripping:
They also gave out trip immunity to all flying creatures in PF. In 3.5, you could trip flying creatures so they stalled and fell that round. Now, they are immune in PF.

That weakens tripping.

You can "trip" winged fliers simply by damaging them now though (which forces a Fly check to lose altitude.)

[Starbuck_II]

You can "trip" winged fliers simply by damaging them now though (which forces a Fly check to lose altitude.)

It is a DC 10 check... Not DC damage or DC 10+ damage
You can't fail (unless a PC).
Even then you only lose 10 ft of altitude.

You have to fail by 5 to fall and take damage.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/fly

Seriously, it is never going to work.

[Scow2]

What's even more frustrating is when they take nice things away from non spellcasters, like wrecking the potion throwing rogue for no good reason.

The potion-throwing rogue is stupid (Seriously, who the hell, when they think "Rogue" thinks a guy who blinks in and out of thin air intermittently while throwing bottles at people? - and from a mechanical standpoint, why should attacks that are inherently imprecise (Grenades and full-body-effecting spells) benefit from "precision" damage?) - but they tried curing a "symptom" of the problem - the problem being that rogues are otherwise irrelevant.


TWF still requires a feat chain to be viable, while two-hand is still king of melee styles and costs almost nothing to use effectively.
And sword-and-board was made painfully feat-intensive, and even then, it encourages Board+Board over Sword+Board because it makes the shield much better than the sword.

It also nerfed reasonable antimagic counters (Cleave doesn't work on Mirror image? WHAT THE HECK WERE THEY SMOKING?!)

And - while "core" features for melee characters were improved, they made martial classes completely inferior to spellcasting classes by destroying the viability of martial feats.

[Starbuck_II]

The potion-throwing rogue is stupid (Seriously, who the hell, when they think "Rogue" thinks a guy who blinks in and out of thin air intermittently while throwing bottles at people? - and from a mechanical standpoint, why should attacks that are inherently imprecise (Grenades and full-body-effecting spells) benefit from "precision" damage?) - but they tried curing a "symptom" of the problem - the problem being that rogues are otherwise irrelevant.


Yeah, they caused rogues to be weaker by banning methods of sneak attack. Regardless of what you thought about the tactic, it made them relevant.

[Zherog]

Except in PF, that "disadvantage" can be made up by flanking or having some combination of a Masterwork/+1 weapon, the fighter weapon training bonus, weapon focus, a buff spell like bless or haste, bard song, ect. These can combine to give the PF fighter a far better bonus than a 3.5 fighter.

I prefer PF over 3.5, but this is a poor argument, because the 3.5 fighter can also have a masterwork/+1 weapon, can also flank, can also take Weapon Focus, can also benefit from bless, haste or a bard's song, and so forth.

The only item here that is unique to PF is the weapon training bonus. Which isn't enough to make up for the net -2 difference at the level being discussed (though it closes it down to a net -1 difference).

[Reverent-One]

It also nerfed reasonable antimagic counters (Cleave doesn't work on Mirror image? WHAT THE HECK WERE THEY SMOKING?!)

It worked on Mirror Image in 3.5? :smallconfused:


I prefer PF over 3.5, but this is a poor argument, because the 3.5 fighter can also have a masterwork/+1 weapon, can also flank, can also take Weapon Focus, can also benefit from bless, haste or a bard's song, and so forth.

Ah, but he can't. Or, more accurately, they'll help on the touch attack to intiate a trip, but do absolutely nothing on the opposed strength check, the part that really matters. Most combat maneuvers checks aren't attack rolls in 3.5.

[Starbuck_II]

It worked on Mirror Image in 3.5? :smallconfused:


Yes, there was even a FAQ about for 3.5. Images counted as creatures in 3.5. Magic missile also can target each image.

[Zherog]

Ah, but he can't. Or, more accurately, they'll help on the touch attack to intiate a trip, but do absolutely nothing on the opposed strength check, the part that really matters. Most combat maneuvers checks aren't attack rolls in 3.5.

Fair 'nuff. Been so long since I've done anything with 3.5, I forgot how it worked... :smallredface:

[Reverent-One]

Yes, there was even a FAQ about for 3.5. Images counted as creatures in 3.5. Magic missile also can target each image.

Huh, learn something new everyday. Though looking at Mirror Image and Cleave in PF, I would think by RAW you still could do that...if not for SKR saying you can't in an FAQ. *Shakes fist in SKR's general direction*

[Spuddles]

I have played a PF/3.5 hybrid campaign from level 1 to 6. Players are rogue, paladin, cleric, druid, and sorcerer.

Now, part of the problem is player based- the paladin and rogue are played by... not the brightest folk, I guess?

However, as a sorcerer with the new skill system, I am the party face. And as a human, I get a lot more spells known. I easily contribute the most to the party. But I also optimize the most. The spell nerfs are HIGHLY impacting- I didn't bother picking up glitterdust or web, as they are no longer auto win buttons. Summon Monster is more like Summon Badger and Summon Slightly Stronger Badger. Alter Self/Polymorph are interesting but ultimately balanced. A huge nerf.

Don't get me wrong, tiers 1&2 still are tiers 1&2, and they didn't fix gate and stuff. But how much casters shape the battlefield has been greatly reduced, given the changes in CMD (monsters resist web, etc. easier) and slight buffs to martial classes (when you have an enemy fighter and so forth). Of course, flight and teleporting are still squarely in the purview of casters, which gives them an edge that fighters can never match. But the polymorph nerfs mean it takes a stupid amount of work just to be decent at swinging a stick.

Oh, d6 HD at low levels is AMAZING. You can actually cop a hit with an arcane caster now.

The druid is a new player and she is shy, but in combat she has flaming sphere out, a wolf in armor, and a long bow. Her action advantage alone means she is wrecking face. Combine with stuff like entangle, and she's almost as good as druid in 3.5. Trip doesn't work as often, but with codified feats for animal companio s and animal companions startin with 2HD, still a very effective class feature.

The cleric is VoP, but is a combat monster. Typical Clericzilla stuff. And the turning mechanic means it actually gets used. Very useful at low level vs undead.

The paladin changes are awesome. Easily T3 now. Anyone who says paladins are still T4 has no idea why ToB classes are good or why they are put in T3.

Rogue still sucks. The tumble changes are almost unforgivable.

[Clericzilla]

The paladin changes are awesome. Easily T3 now. Anyone who says paladins are still T4 has no idea why ToB classes are good or why they are put in T3.


Wait what? When did the Paladin gain ToB stuff in Pathfinder? :smallconfused:

[TopCheese]

Size is another thing I wished Pathfinder fixed.

Oh keep the dragons that are literally the size of castles but for simplicity they should have made 3 size categories.

Small: (small size bonuses/penalities)
Medium: (no size bonuses/penalties)
Large: (large size bonuses/penalties)

Think of it like this, if the strongest man in the world pushed on an elephant or a water buffalo which animal will move? Neither, unless the animal wants to move and even though they are different sizes once you get to a point it doesn't matter and you can lump their resistance to push as the same thing.

Sooo much easier to explain in person...

But the current size rules puts everything under a microscope instead of using generalities.

[Arbane]

Think of it like this, if the strongest man in the world pushed on an elephant or a water buffalo which animal will move?

Oh, you just HAD to drag 'realism' into this. What did those catgirls ever do to you?

When you say 'strongest man in the world', are we talking Zydrunas Savickas, or Heracles? Because it does make a difference.


Yeah, they caused rogues to be weaker by banning methods of sneak attack. Regardless of what you thought about the tactic, it made them relevant.

Hey, at least rogues still have all those incredibly useful skill poiBWAHAHAHAHA sorry I tried.

Edit to add: And PF added a few more types of enemies that can be sneak-attacked, so there's that. Did D&D have Rogue Tricks? I think that's new...

[T.G. Oskar]

Except in PF, that "disadvantage" can be made up by flanking or having some combination of a Masterwork/+1 weapon, the fighter weapon training bonus, weapon focus, a buff spell like bless or haste, bard song, ect. These can combine to give the PF fighter a far better bonus than a 3.5 fighter.

Unless the target at hand has circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane and sacred bonuses to AC. In essence, it's an attack roll against touch AC, except the size modifiers are inverted to determine your defenses. Outsiders alone, at least the higher level ones, will have deflection bonuses (often based on their Charisma modifier), so that's basically three ability score modifiers against it. Flanking or otherwise denying their Dex bonus to AC involves attempting to strike their flat-footed "AC" as well, but if the creature has little defense, or if it has Uncanny Dodge, that effort is also wasted. It's not so much of an advantage when you have to depend on outside factors other than your scores, feats and any magic item you wield to surpass the CMD of your opponent (with the exception of Enlarge Person, because size increases matter more in 3.5)


The problem here is that you're using Imp Trip as an example when it's more the exception. Few feats got split up in the switch to PF, other than Trip and Bull Rush the Greater Imp X feats grant abilities that you otherwise wouldn't get from Imp X in 3.5. So while at level 6, a Fighter going the Trip route might effectively have an equivalent number of feats, one that doesn't has more and the tripping fighter will gain the lead in feats back the very next level.

I'm not sold on grapple. Improved Grapple technically does the same, and Greater Grapple...allows you to keep the grapple as a move action. 3.5 grapple doesn't have that restriction; you only need to move into the opponent's space to keep the grapple, so you need a feat in PF to do what a grappler in 3.5 can do from scratch.

Disarm doesn't surprise me either. Improved Disarm works just like the 3.5 version; PF's Greater Disarm simply lets you throw the item 15 ft. away. For what it's worth, you want to tempt the opponent into grabbing its weapon, because it provokes an Attack of Opportunity, rather than have it throw the weapon away because then you end up with the enemy potentially pulling away from you. Trying to take another item other than a weapon involves a penalty to the defender in 3.5, while the PF version allows you to potentially disarm the opponent of two items.

That leaves, along the maneuvers you mentioned, essentially Feint and Sunder as improved maneuvers. Then again, the effect of Sunder only applies if you choose to take the weapon to nearly 0 HP and you do damage overflow; otherwise, all the damage is absorbed by the weapon, so if you don't do enough damage to break it in 1 turn, sunder is relatively useless. I have no caveats with feint, because the Greater Feint effect is a superb debuff, excellent if used by a Fighter so that the Rogue can deliver as many sneak attacks as possible. Greater Overrun is also pretty good, except that overrun still takes a standard action (which is not exactly a reason why you'd waste a turn on overrun, anyways). Shield Bash almost forces you to take TWF in order to be effective, which still requires you to have a Dex of 15; any warrior wearing heavy armor would think it twice before taking TWF in addition to shield bashing, and much less the people you might expect using them (Paladins, mostly, which get three extra feats just like everybody else). You need about 5 feats just to use your shield alongside another weapon as part of a full attack, something that should have come before or parallel with allowing free bull rushes. It's an advantage that you can add the shield's enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls, though, but it feels definitely odd to deny you to make shield bash attacks just by using TWF, and that you need three more feats just to enable the option.

If anything, the one maneuver I'd say "take it up to Greater X; it's a worthwhile investment" is Dirty Trick. Here I can claim that they delivered a superb option, because giving a fighter the ability to blind, entangle or sicken (or allow a creature to be frightened in 2 turns, and perfectly set up for panicked) makes for a must-use maneuver. The only qualm is requiring a standard action to use it, instead of "it can replace one of your melee attacks during the round", which means you can use dirty tricks as AoOs and thus give your martial combatants real options. But, aside from that? The combat maneuvers don't surprise me that much, and of those, only two really surprise me (Feint and Dirty Trick).

[Reverent-One]

Unless the target at hand has circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane and sacred bonuses to AC.

How many of those do you commonly run into at level 5 (the point you were trying to compare the math between the two)? And when those become more common, how useful does the 3.5 tripper remain in comparison?


In essence, it's an attack roll against touch AC, except the size modifiers are inverted to determine your defenses. Outsiders alone, at least the higher level ones, will have deflection bonuses (often based on their Charisma modifier), so that's basically three ability score modifiers against it. Flanking or otherwise denying their Dex bonus to AC involves attempting to strike their flat-footed "AC" as well, but if the creature has little defense, or if it has Uncanny Dodge, that effort is also wasted. It's not so much of an advantage when you have to depend on outside factors other than your scores, feats and any magic item you wield to surpass the CMD of your opponent (with the exception of Enlarge Person, because size increases matter more in 3.5)

First off, flanking gives a flat bonus to the attack roll, so the only time it's not helpful is if they have uncanny dodge (which will certainly happen from time to time, but not everyone has it), how much or little defense the monster has has nothing to do with it. Nearly all of what I mentioned that was a character stat or something the character can control (getting flanking is a result of tactical choices on a player's part), the only thing that wasn't was buffing (whether through spells or bard song or whatever), and while yes that's an outside factor, in a cooperative game like D&D, getting something on that front is fairly common. You can't just handwave all of those additional factors away.


*Long analysis about combat manuvers*

You took the wrong point from me there. I'm not saying that all the manuevers are super-special awesome because of the Greater X feats, merely that with a couple of exceptions, you're not paying double the feat cost to do the same thing as in you would in 3.5. Whether or not they're worth taking anyway is another matter entirely. The takeaway point is that warrior classes do generally have more feats than before.

[Spuddles]

Wait what? When did the Paladin gain ToB stuff in Pathfinder? :smallconfused:

They are on par with a ToB class. They are powerful, durable melee fighters, and have a handful of minor uses outside of combat. Just like Crusader or Warblade.

[T.G. Oskar]

How many of those do you commonly run into at level 5 (the point you were trying to compare the math between the two)? And when those become more common, how useful does the 3.5 tripper remain in comparison?

Deflection: Shield of Faith, Shield Other. Against evil creatures, you can add Protection from Evil and Magic Circle against evil.
Dodge: the Dodge feat can be accessed right at 1st level. Fighting defensively provides a +2 dodge bonus to AC (though it reduces your CMB in exchange). Total Defense provides a +4 dodge bonus to AC.

That's basically going off the core books. You might also stretch a dusty rose ioun stone (+1 insight bonus to AC; the cost might be prohibitive, tho), and if you consider psionics as accessible to your world, you can add another source of insight bonuses (the Precognition power, a 1st level power).


First off, flanking gives a flat bonus to the attack roll, so the only time it's not helpful is if they have uncanny dodge (which will certainly happen from time to time, but not everyone has it), how much or little defense the monster has has nothing to do with it. Nearly all of what I mentioned that was a character stat or something the character can control (getting flanking is a result of tactical choices on a player's part), the only thing that wasn't was buffing (whether through spells or bard song or whatever), and while yes that's an outside factor, in a cooperative game like D&D, getting something on that front is fairly common. You can't just handwave all of those additional factors away.

Well, recall that, despite being a cooperative game; it's also a game that has limited resources at low levels. Usually, you'll want the best way to use those resources rather than place them at will just for one thing. Bless is a good example: since it affects attack rolls and saving throws against fear, you'll have a higher chance to use the spell because it affects everyone (or at least, up to 3/4ths of a group if the cleric chooses to fight in melee and the group is composed of a typical 4-man party; i.e. Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard). If the group is not composed of the typical group, or if there's a better thing to do than attempt to use a combat maneuver against the opponent, then it's better to aim for that. Take Inspire Courage, for example: will you use it for a CMB, or for the extra damage? If the extra damage is more useful, you'll use it for the damage. Sure, you'll have the CMB if you need it, but you'll probably think whether taking the enemy in one blow is better than wasting the turn in tripping or disarming the opponent. Note that this is different than, say, tripping the enemy so that the Rogue, who goes next, enters your turn, flanks and delivers a Sneak Attack, causing your opponent to risk taking two AoOs with boosted damage or try to take their opponents from prone. Saying it's a cooperative game and thus you're entitled to those bonus isn't entirely correct; saying that you can expect them if tactics allow them is. I can understand flanking because it's a tactic you'll expect, mostly because it's one of the few ways the Rogue can deliver SA.


You took the wrong point from me there. I'm not saying that all the manuevers are super-special awesome because of the Greater X feats, merely that with a couple of exceptions, you're not paying double the feat cost to do the same thing as in you would in 3.5. Whether or not they're worth taking anyway is another matter entirely. The takeaway point is that warrior classes do generally have more feats than before.

I think that TL;DR feat was imparing. You need two feats to be almost as good as a 3.5 grappler, because the Greater Grapple bonus enables you to maintain a grapple as a move action, whereas a 3.5 grappler may keep without requiring an action at all (it's the enemy that must make an action to free itself); however, you're not placing grapple in the same regard as bull rush or trip. I simply expanded from there: I compared the combat maneuvers and their respective improvement feats as a whole. And, technically, you still need both feats to gain the full bonus you'd gain from one in 3.5, so in essence, you still need to expend both feats. It's just that, with how the bonuses apply, you might ignore the second one; they're not as attractive as you'd want them to, aside from the already mentioned ones.

[Reverent-One]

Deflection: Shield of Faith, Shield Other. Against evil creatures, you can add Protection from Evil and Magic Circle against evil.
Dodge: the Dodge feat can be accessed right at 1st level. Fighting defensively provides a +2 dodge bonus to AC (though it reduces your CMB in exchange). Total Defense provides a +4 dodge bonus to AC.

That's basically going off the core books. You might also stretch a dusty rose ioun stone (+1 insight bonus to AC; the cost might be prohibitive, tho), and if you consider psionics as accessible to your world, you can add another source of insight bonuses (the Precognition power, a 1st level power).

So why weren't those included in the average CMD numbers you were using when trying to prove that a PF tripper was inferior? Because the monsters you were looking at didn't have them perhaps?


Well, recall that, despite being a cooperative game; it's also a game that has limited resources at low levels. Usually, you'll want the best way to use those resources rather than place them at will just for one thing. Bless is a good example: since it affects attack rolls and saving throws against fear, you'll have a higher chance to use the spell because it affects everyone (or at least, up to 3/4ths of a group if the cleric chooses to fight in melee and the group is composed of a typical 4-man party; i.e. Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard). If the group is not composed of the typical group, or if there's a better thing to do than attempt to use a combat maneuver against the opponent, then it's better to aim for that. Take Inspire Courage, for example: will you use it for a CMB, or for the extra damage? If the extra damage is more useful, you'll use it for the damage. Sure, you'll have the CMB if you need it, but you'll probably think whether taking the enemy in one blow is better than wasting the turn in tripping or disarming the opponent. Note that this is different than, say, tripping the enemy so that the Rogue, who goes next, enters your turn, flanks and delivers a Sneak Attack, causing your opponent to risk taking two AoOs with boosted damage or try to take their opponents from prone. Saying it's a cooperative game and thus you're entitled to those bonus isn't entirely correct; saying that you can expect them if tactics allow them is. I can understand flanking because it's a tactic you'll expect, mostly because it's one of the few ways the Rogue can deliver SA.

I'm not saying you're entitled to those buffs, merely that you can't assume someone will never have them as you were doing when not including any mention of them in the comparison between trippers.


I think that TL;DR feat was imparing. You need two feats to be almost as good as a 3.5 grappler, because the Greater Grapple bonus enables you to maintain a grapple as a move action, whereas a 3.5 grappler may keep without requiring an action at all (it's the enemy that must make an action to free itself); however, you're not placing grapple in the same regard as bull rush or trip. I simply expanded from there: I compared the combat maneuvers and their respective improvement feats as a whole. And, technically, you still need both feats to gain the full bonus you'd gain from one in 3.5, so in essence, you still need to expend both feats. It's just that, with how the bonuses apply, you might ignore the second one; they're not as attractive as you'd want them to, aside from the already mentioned ones.

Technically, spending two feats as a grappler makes you better than a 3.5 grappler, since as part of the move action to sustain the grapple, you can damage/pin/move the opponent as well, something that would require a standard/attack action in 3.5.

Still, even if we counted improve grapple, that makes 3 feats that require double the feat cost for equivalent abilities as in 3.5. That's not really enough to make the claim warriors don't gain any feats in the switch to PF because they're spending double the feats regularly.

[Quorothorn]

You're grossly undervaluing all of these. Nor have you mentioned Divine Hunter, Sacred Servant, Empyreal Knight etc.

Okay, so this is pretty minor and I could be missing a few things, but Empyreal Knight as something particularly great? It trades Divine Grace for the ability to speak Celestial. Celestial Heart is an amazing defensive ability, of course, definitely considerably stronger than Mercies over the course of a progression...but wow, that first "trade" is one of the worst I can remember seeing.

[Psyren]

Okay, so this is pretty minor and I could be missing a few things, but Empyreal Knight as something particularly great? It trades Divine Grace for the ability to speak Celestial. Celestial Heart is an amazing defensive ability, of course, definitely considerably stronger than Mercies over the course of a progression...but wow, that first "trade" is one of the worst I can remember seeing.

You can get Divine Grace back easily; even in PF-only, you can just cast Bestow Grace on yourself.

[Quorothorn]

You can get Divine Grace back easily; even in PF-only, you can just cast Bestow Grace on yourself.

So I was "missing" something, then. ...Though the spell apparently only has a duration of 1 min/CL and is second-level, which means you'd be obliged to wait until 7th class level instead of 2nd and devote a spell slot(s) to it each day.

[T.G. Oskar]

So why weren't those included in the average CMD numbers you were using when trying to prove that a PF tripper was inferior? Because the monsters you were looking at didn't have them perhaps?

I didn't add them because I was focusing on what was at hand, which didn't include all other buffs either. I believe I was fair on both sides of the board, but here, you're assuming that the player is entitled to the masterwork bonuses, to +1 weapons, to bless, to inspire courage, to Weapon Focus, while no monster will EVER fight defensively or use a total defense action to increase its AC, or have drunk a potion of Shield of Faith because it's table doesn't indicate that. Basically, I can be led to imply that the PCs will act smarter than the monsters. I can't say the monsters WILL act smarter than the PCs, but that doesn't mean the DM isn't entitled to a curve every now and then.

The question, however, was pretty simple: which of the modifiers I mentioned were available before 5th level? Those are modifiers available. I limited myself to answer THAT question. In the same way, when I made a comparison, I went with roughly fair values for both: the tripper wouldn't have a friendly ally flanking with him, but the monster wouldn't be fighting defensively either. They're roughly using the same kind of tactics. If I added those, then I'd be bashed because I was customizing monsters and leaving PCs unable to use any trick, whereas as stated each side has very specific benefits. In fact, if I were to go raw tripping capabilities, I wouldn't have allowed Improved Trip or Greater Trip, but I did because that expects you to use trip more than once.


I'm not saying you're entitled to those buffs, merely that you can't assume someone will never have them as you were doing when not including any mention of them in the comparison between trippers.

Funny: you can't assume a monster will stop playing dumb and surprise a martial character either. Monsters are entitled to be tweaked in the same way as PCs do, but it's up to the DM to decide whether it's necessary to do so, and if the tweak is necessary for the challenge. Again: at least fighting defensively and total defense ARE options that are open to both characters and monsters, so not entitling them to those while entitling PCs to the other benefits seems a bit unfair, and may lead to entitlement.


Technically, spending two feats as a grappler makes you better than a 3.5 grappler, since as part of the move action to sustain the grapple, you can damage/pin/move the opponent as well, something that would require a standard/attack action in 3.5.

Still, even if we counted improve grapple, that makes 3 feats that require double the feat cost for equivalent abilities as in 3.5. That's not really enough to make the claim warriors don't gain any feats in the switch to PF because they're spending double the feats regularly.

I also mentioned what it takes for a shield user to attack with its shield, compared to 3.5. That's defining a WHOLE FIGHTING STYLE (Sword & Board). If a Paladin wishes to make its shield be worthwhile, it requires at least five feats, as I mentioned (Imp. Shield Bash, Shield Focus, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, Shield Mastery). 3.5 requires only three feats, and doesn't require a Dexterity of 15 to make SnB somewhat viable. Three of the feats are essentially identical to their 3.5 counterparts, another one grants an entirely new benefit so the gain/loss trait becomes a net zero, but you STILL need to invest in TWF. Of the three feats a Paladin gains from the switch from 3.5 to PF, if it used the Agile Shield Fighter feat, it has to lose two of those feats acquired. This comes from a class that it's definitely feat-starved in 3.5; at most, it will have one extra feat to work with.

But, let's give you that one: if going simply for the bull rush, grapple, trip and shield bash boosting feats, that's only four instances of feats that cost more to achieve what you can do in 3.5 for less. Would you consider those feats nerfed? Would you consider the expanded feat chains for the other combat maneuvers that PF shares with 3.5 really boosted (as in, they make said choices much more viable than before)? Would you consider feat chains that once granted a lot more (such as the Power Attack line, or Combat Expertise + Imp. Combat Expertise) nerfed? The reason I mention this is because this deals with "quality over quantity", which I consider one of the key flaws of PF; are the feats you get of the same quality as those from 3.5? Are the good feats of PF comparable in worth with those from PF? Are the bad feats of PF better than the bad feats at 3.5? Otherwise, the complaint I issued takes on a whole new perspective.

[Reverent-One]

I didn't add them because I was focusing on what was at hand, which didn't include all other buffs either.

So your math was totally off on both sides then. That doesn't make for very accurate results in a comparison.


I believe I was fair on both sides of the board, but here, you're assuming that the player is entitled to the masterwork bonuses, to +1 weapons,

Sure, the game assumes that the players will get those sorts of items.


to bless, to inspire courage,

Again, no. But those sorts of things must be accounted for in some way, otherwise you're proving nothing with incomplete data.


to Weapon Focus,

If they want it, sure.


while no monster will EVER fight defensively or use a total defense action to increase its AC, or have drunk a potion of Shield of Faith because it's table doesn't indicate that. Basically, I can be led to imply that the PCs will act smarter than the monsters. I can't say the monsters WILL act smarter than the PCs, but that doesn't mean the DM isn't entitled to a curve every now and then.

Subpar tactics like Fighting defensively or total defense are "acting smart" now?


The question, however, was pretty simple: which of the modifiers I mentioned were available before 5th level? Those are modifiers available. I limited myself to answer THAT question. In the same way, when I made a comparison, I went with roughly fair values for both: the tripper wouldn't have a friendly ally flanking with him, but the monster wouldn't be fighting defensively either. They're roughly using the same kind of tactics. If I added those, then I'd be bashed because I was customizing monsters and leaving PCs unable to use any trick, whereas as stated each side has very specific benefits. In fact, if I were to go raw tripping capabilities, I wouldn't have allowed Improved Trip or Greater Trip, but I did because that expects you to use trip more than once.

Sorry, handwaving potentially significant modifiers on both sides isn't being "fair", if you think the two sets of modifiers should offset, then demonstrate it, don't just say they do.


Funny: you can't assume a monster will stop playing dumb and surprise a martial character either. Monsters are entitled to be tweaked in the same way as PCs do, but it's up to the DM to decide whether it's necessary to do so, and if the tweak is necessary for the challenge. Again: at least fighting defensively and total defense ARE options that are open to both characters and monsters, so not entitling them to those while entitling PCs to the other benefits seems a bit unfair, and may lead to entitlement.

Monsters can be tweaked, certainly, but tweak them too much and you change the CR. And you have to account for what tweaks make sense for a monster, a wild animal or beast for example isn't going to drinking a potion under normal circumstances. Again, if you're going to argue for it, then just make sure to demonstrate it in your math.


I also mentioned what it takes for a shield user to attack with its shield, compared to 3.5. That's defining a WHOLE FIGHTING STYLE (Sword & Board). If a Paladin wishes to make its shield be worthwhile, it requires at least five feats, as I mentioned (Imp. Shield Bash, Shield Focus, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, Shield Mastery). 3.5 requires only three feats, and doesn't require a Dexterity of 15 to make SnB somewhat viable. Three of the feats are essentially identical to their 3.5 counterparts, another one grants an entirely new benefit so the gain/loss trait becomes a net zero, but you STILL need to invest in TWF. Of the three feats a Paladin gains from the switch from 3.5 to PF, if it used the Agile Shield Fighter feat, it has to lose two of those feats acquired. This comes from a class that it's definitely feat-starved in 3.5; at most, it will have one extra feat to work with.

Actually, you haven't explained how PF requires more feats for shield bashing than 3.5. From what I see, what needs three feats in 3.5 needs 2 in PF plus a stat pre-req. There are other feats you can take, but those aren't exactly needed.


But, let's give you that one: if going simply for the bull rush, grapple, trip and shield bash boosting feats, that's only four instances of feats that cost more to achieve what you can do in 3.5 for less. Would you consider those feats nerfed? Would you consider the expanded feat chains for the other combat maneuvers that PF shares with 3.5 really boosted (as in, they make said choices much more viable than before)? Would you consider feat chains that once granted a lot more (such as the Power Attack line, or Combat Expertise + Imp. Combat Expertise) nerfed? The reason I mention this is because this deals with "quality over quantity", which I consider one of the key flaws of PF; are the feats you get of the same quality as those from 3.5? Are the good feats of PF comparable in worth with those from PF? Are the bad feats of PF better than the bad feats at 3.5? Otherwise, the complaint I issued takes on a whole new perspective.

Sure, I can agree some feats were weakened, some unnecessarily so. By the same token, some feats were improved.

[T.G. Oskar]

So your math was totally off on both sides then. That doesn't make for very accurate results in a comparison.

I wouldn't say it was totally off. Nor that it was totally inaccurate. Quite the contrary: by going to basics, to what can be directly cancelled, you can then determine how much you can add from one side or the other.

But...


Sure, the game assumes that the players will get those sorts of items.

And it also assumes monsters won't get any upgrades in account to "it may change their CR, as you mention below.


Monsters can be tweaked, certainly, but tweak them too much and you change the CR. And you have to account for what tweaks make sense for a monster, a wild animal or beast for example isn't going to drinking a potion under normal circumstances. Again, if you're going to argue for it, then just make sure to demonstrate it in your math.

Got it.

But...


Again, no. But those sorts of things must be accounted for in some way, otherwise you're proving nothing with incomplete data.

So you're also assuming that clerics will buff, but that monsters won't have anyone to buff them, because you'll always be fighting solo monsters, not groups of them. Got it.

But...


If they want it, sure.

So, kitchen sink as well. Sure, why not?

But...


Sorry, handwaving potentially significant modifiers on both sides isn't being "fair", if you think the two sets of modifiers should offset, then demonstrate it, don't just say they do.

Here's what seems to be provoking. You actually want ALL sets of numbers, right? Good.

Assuming the same 5th level fighter as before, with feats Combat Expertise, Imp. Trip, an Int of 13, a Strength of 18. That's 5 feats left. Now, since you want to add a bit more, let's assume the fighter chose a guisarme, because it has reach. The guisarme is a +1 guisarme, so its enhancement bonus gets added; that'd be a +1, because those effects won't stack. Let's go a bit further and say that the guy specialized in polearms, because weapon training ALSO adds to attack rolls. To go even further, he's adding Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, so that's another +1 to attack rolls. Let's just say he travels with a rogue, a cleric, a wizard and a bard (because you explicitly mentioned inspire courage was in, right?). The Cleric buffs the party with Bard, the Wizard prepared Bull's Strength just for the Fighter, and the bard goes and sings: that's a +1 from Bless, a +2 from the increase in Strength, and a +1 from the song. The rogue flanks, and that adds a +2 (because you explicitly mentioned flanking, and because the rogue wants the enemy to fall in order to get SA damage with the AoO and the extra bonus to attack rolls), AND feints, and the rogue has Improved and Greater Feint because it's eager to make its SA in case the Fighter fails.

So, with all the bonuses added, that's +6 (Str 22) + 2 (Imp. Trip) + 1 (enh. bonus from guisarme) +1 (weapon training, polearms) +1 (Weapon Focus - guisarme) + 1 (morale bonus, Bless) + 1 (competence bonus, Inspire Courage) + 2 (flanking). That's 15 total on a single round, unless I'm forgetting something. That's +2 over the required chance to land 50% of the times a trip against CMD 23, which is what we were looking for. So far, so good. With a CMD of 18, all you need to do is not land a 2; excellent!

The monster...only has its CMD. No, really. Since...


Subpar tactics like Fighting defensively or total defense are "acting smart" now?

This smart-aleck speech implies a monster is too haughty for Fighting Defensively, that means it will refuse to use it. Really, it will, even if it provides a +2 dodge bonus to AC, which boosts its CMD by 2, for a loss of -4 to attack rolls, which means it'll hit less. And of course, it's a solo fight, so might as well imply there's no other allies around. But, since we're supposed to add everything, the monster is actually fighting defensively, so that's a +2 to its CMD. The lower range gets boosted to 20, so you need to succeed on a 5 or higher; that's a 1 in 4 chance of success. The higher range gets boosted to 25, Right over the 50% chance of success. Had it gone with total defense instead, it would have forfeited its turn, but it would have gained a +4 boost, which means a CMD of 22-27; the lower end monsters would still be a challenge, while the higher-end monsters would have caused the Fighter to still have less than a 50% chance of success.

Oh, and the rogue feinted. Thus, the monster can't apply its Dex bonus to its CMD, so that might lower it even more.

Of course, since the monster is going solo and cannot use potions, it can't use Shield of Faith (+2 deflection bonus to AC, so that'd be CMD 22-27), nor has psionic potential (thus no Precognition, thus no +1 insight bonus to AC or higher, which would have implied a further increase). No friendly monsters around means no Haste, and no other bonuses to AC. Heck, probably not even an aid another to boost its AC!

BTW, the basilisk has a CMB of 31 agianst trip attacks. With ALL those boosts, you still can't get a 50% chance of success.

Now, that same fighter deals somewhere around 14-21 points of damage (2d4 base +6 from Strength x 1.5 for a two-handed weapon, +1 from enhancement bonus, +2 from Weapon Specialization, +1 from Weapon Training). Tell me: considering that you're playing a cooperative game, and that you probably don't need ALL those buffs to AC, wouldn't it be better to hit that darn thing and let the rogue finish it off? The damage can punch in DR pretty easily (and with Penetrating Strike, if you have access to it, you can ignore it!) That could have easily saved the Cleric's Bless spell, and probably the Bard's Inspire Courage as well, since you'll probably hit as well. That's also being cooperative (the Fighter does its job, thus it finishes the job faster; if it can't, the Fighter set up the monster so that the Rogue can finish the job), and it can be considered more effective.

In 3.5, on the other hand...
The same individual would have Str 18, Improved Trip, the same Guisarme, Medium size. That's a +4 to Strength, and a +4 for Imp. Trip for a total of +8 to trip attempts. The creature I used for comparison was the Bearded Devil, the Barbazu. Since both are opposed trip attempts, it's the +8 from the Fighter vs. the +2 from the Barbazu; that means the Barbazu has to roll 6 points higher than the Fighter to avoid being tripped. That's far, far easier than adding all those bonuses, and the Fighter clearly has the advantage in here. The basilisk, the one that causes so many problems to the PF Fighter? Str 15, Dex 8; using Strength, and accounting for its stability which adds a +4 to opposed trip checks to prevent being tripped? The basilisk needs only to draw 2 points higher than the Fighter. The 3.5 Fighter still has the advantage. Hill giant is the usual trip-beater, though, because with Str 25 and Large size, that's a +11 on opposed trip checks.

As for the CR: I'm quite sure that replacing one feat for Dodge won't suddenly add a +1 to its CR. Adding a HD would increase its CR. Boosting its ability scores entails an increase to its CR. Giving it a Potion of Shield of Faith, as far as I understand the CR mechanic, does not entail an increase to CR, because the effect can be dispelled and only lasts for a brief amount of time. Certainly it might make the battle a bit harder, but not as entirely hard as if the deflection bonus was permanent; likewise, the boons can counteract each other.


Actually, you haven't explained how PF requires more feats for shield bashing than 3.5. From what I see, what needs three feats in 3.5 needs 2 in PF plus a stat pre-req. There are other feats you can take, but those aren't exactly needed.

You know, if you notice a mistake, it's the polite thing to point it out.

I re-read the rules, and I noticed that all you need is Imp. Shield Bash and TWF, plus the Dex of 15. Shield Master is only to ignore the -2 to attack rolls from the shield and add the shield's enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls. Fair enough.

The Dex 15 requirement? Not so fair, particularly on a class that's already MAD (the Paladin lost its Wis requirement, but Dex 15 is still too much Dex for them, particularly if they go for heavy armor). 3.5's three feats allowed you to use shield bash regardless of Dex, which made it viable.

But again: the tone we're using isn't apparently conductive to pointing mistakes, other than "go look for it yourself". Again, it's the polite thing to point the mistake.


Sure, I can agree some feats were weakened, some unnecessarily so. By the same token, some feats were improved.

Here's the moment to mention which ones. Go ahead. I pointed out some good feats, such as Greater Feint's effect; however, I'd like to see which other feats got improved. For what I've seen, it's mostly nerfs rather than buffs, with the whole thing mostly remaining the same.

I might suspect some of the feats that provide bonuses to skills, if only because one skill in PF might count as two or three in 3.5; however, I still find them just the same.

[Wonton]

Lack of throwing/kicking people through stuff/breaking//cutting off limbs. There are a lot of cool things I want to be able to do (dagger in the dragons eyes) which I find no support for.

Called shots from Ultimate Combat (yes I know they existed in earlier editions, don't give me any flak) are actually pretty good. It allows all that cool stuff like disembowelment or severed limbs without actually making combat "the first one to roll a 20 wins" since it needs to be a crit AND a debilitating blow to have huge effects like that.

[Reverent-One]

*Long section with math, snipped for length*

That's better, in that it acknowledges the more situational bonuses, though you still seem to be under the impression that I think we should assume that those bonuses all apply all the time rather than making some if...then statements that cover the multiple circumstances.

Further, there is a pretty major math problem in that section though, you're not including BaB in the fighter's trip bonus, which would mean that in that situation he has a +20 rather than a +15. So when heavily buffed, the PF fighter actually only fails on the lower end of unmodified average CMDs you gave on a 1 (and then only because by the rules it automatically fails, not because the bonus isn't technically high enough), and the higher end of the range on a 3! Giving them a potion of shield or making them fight defensively wouldn't change the lower end at all, and the higher end shifts slightly but is still significantly in the fighters favor. The Hill Giant that would give a 3.5 fighter trouble, the PF fighter only needs a 4, and even with the significant improvements to the Basilisks CMD vs trip in PF, he has a 50% chance to do so.

Still, in that scenario, the fighter has some significant buffs, which isn't terribly unlikely (my PF group at level 5 recently had an encounter with a Bullete that we were similarly buffed in), but is certainly not a sure thing. So let's cut down the situational bonuses (flanking/external buffs) down by 2/3s. The cleric casts Bless and the bard still performs, but you're saving the second level spell and you haven't gotten around to flanking perhaps (alternatively, no magical buffs, but flanking instead). At +16, you're looking at just needed 2-7 for the unmodified range of CMDs (4-9 given a minor buff or two as well), which looks as a whole pretty even with the 3.5 fighter as a whole, worse on some (Barbazu, Basilisk), better on others (hill giant, shambling mound), and without the significant uncertainty factor of having opposed rolls, since even a 4-8 point lead in opposed rolls can be worth nothing on a good roll by your opponent. And I should note that this a fighter that doesn't try to invest a lot in tripping, as there's a number of other options to increase your CMB further in PF, but those require additional investment in some way (a trait, a feat, ect), while in this case the different fighters have similar levels of investment in tripping.


Now, that same fighter deals somewhere around 14-21 points of damage (2d4 base +6 from Strength x 1.5 for a two-handed weapon, +1 from enhancement bonus, +2 from Weapon Specialization, +1 from Weapon Training). Tell me: considering that you're playing a cooperative game, and that you probably don't need ALL those buffs to AC, wouldn't it be better to hit that darn thing and let the rogue finish it off? The damage can punch in DR pretty easily (and with Penetrating Strike, if you have access to it, you can ignore it!) That could have easily saved the Cleric's Bless spell, and probably the Bard's Inspire Courage as well, since you'll probably hit as well. That's also being cooperative (the Fighter does its job, thus it finishes the job faster; if it can't, the Fighter set up the monster so that the Rogue can finish the job), and it can be considered more effective.

Given that it's no guarantee to hit and do enough damage that the rogue can finish it off (or that the rogue will hit and finish the job), you can make the argument that tripping is more effective. While you don't immediately do damage, if the monster stands up, you get the same damage that you would have done on your turn had you attacked and a higher attack bonus, as well as giving an additional attack to the rogue (also with a higher attack bonus thanks to it being prone), as well as keeping it from full attacking that round. If it doesn't stand up, than you're significantly buffed yours and other melee allies chances to hit it, debuffed it's attacking abilities, and crippled it's movement capabilities.



You know, if you notice a mistake, it's the polite thing to point it out.

I re-read the rules, and I noticed that all you need is Imp. Shield Bash and TWF, plus the Dex of 15. Shield Master is only to ignore the -2 to attack rolls from the shield and add the shield's enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls. Fair enough.

The Dex 15 requirement? Not so fair, particularly on a class that's already MAD (the Paladin lost its Wis requirement, but Dex 15 is still too much Dex for them, particularly if they go for heavy armor). 3.5's three feats allowed you to use shield bash regardless of Dex, which made it viable.

But again: the tone we're using isn't apparently conductive to pointing mistakes, other than "go look for it yourself". Again, it's the polite thing to point the mistake.

To be fair, you had been a bit unspecific as well about which feats needed replacing in pathfinder, but fair enough. Also, as Agile Shield Figher hasn't been changed in PF nor has any rule changed to make it unusable, unless you're banning all 3.5 material in a PF game (and PF to my understanding is meant for you to be able to include it), that feat is still an option. If you do ban all 3.5 material though, I would agree that you're worse off (just like in a 3.5 game where no one has the PHBII or doesn't include it in allowed materials).


Here's the moment to mention which ones. Go ahead. I pointed out some good feats, such as Greater Feint's effect; however, I'd like to see which other feats got improved. For what I've seen, it's mostly nerfs rather than buffs, with the whole thing mostly remaining the same.

I might suspect some of the feats that provide bonuses to skills, if only because one skill in PF might count as two or three in 3.5; however, I still find them just the same.

Toughness and dodge are some examples, and now that you mention it, the skill feats are better not just because that they potentially apply to what were multiple skills in 3.5, but because the bonus doubles when you have 10 ranks in the related skill (if only more feats offered scaling bonuses). And I know this will be a controversial position, but I'd take PF power attack over 3.5 Power Attack, better trade off bonus (especially for a TWFer/light weapon wielder, for whom 3.5 power attack says "HA! You suck.") and easier to use. It nerfs Shock Trooper as you can no longer dump your defense ridiculously but not care since you're just going to kill the creature you're attacking (Yay for rocket tag :smallsigh:) but that's another matter. Cleave's an interesting case, at lower levels I'd prefer PF's, though at higher levels it may be worse off (on the other hand, even at higher levels you're not always going to be able to full attack, so it may still be better simply by having a bit more control over using it).

[TopCheese]

They are on par with a ToB class. They are powerful, durable melee fighters, and have a handful of minor uses outside of combat. Just like Crusader or Warblade.

Hmm no not really. The PF paladin is stronger than the base paladin from 3.5 but it doesn't get the options that ToB gets.

PF Pathfinder = High Tier 4 to Low Tier 3
ToB = Mid to High Tier 3

However I do need to throw in my hat for the "Why didn't they rip off ToB too" crowd. If you are going to copy another game you should take the best parts!

Actually where is Incarnum? Hmmm

[Elderand]

Yeah why didn't paizo copy tome of battle for pathfinder, how dare they not do something illegal by reproducing content that isn't OGL ! the nerve !! Paizo suck and pathfinder is stupid !!!

[AuraTwilight]

You can't copyright game mechanics, bro. Make a similar system that satisfies the same goals, call it something else. There y'go.

[Yora]

Doesn't mean you should. The rules creep in PF is already bad enough as it is.

[Starbuck_II]

However I do need to throw in my hat for the "Why didn't they rip off ToB too" crowd. If you are going to copy another game you should take the best parts!

Actually where is Incarnum? Hmmm

They did: read Snake style feat now compare to ToB Baffling derfense maneuver. Notice they are exactly the same.

They didn't add much ToB but they did add a little bit.

[Geoff]

What things did you think were bad in 3.5e and should have been adressed by Pathfinder, but still were not solved or just barely improved?Gee, ah.. class balance, vancian casting, skills, CR...

...if you're not happy with 3.5 or Pathfinder, there are lots of other games. d20 games, retro-clones, Savage Worlds, 4e and there's 5e and 13th Age on the horizon...

[Spuddles]

Hmm no not really.

Yah really.

ToB is pretty overrated, as far as T3 goes. It just comes out of the box optimized, but the optimization ceiling isn't very high. I mean a crusader's out of combat options are virtually the same set as a fighter with an adamantine weapon. With traits & PF skill system, skills are much easier to pick up, too, which means that the edge warblades have with regard to classic melee isn't as great in PF.

[MukkTB]

All we can speculate for sure about is that Paizo explicitly said they wanted it to be backward comparable. They made no such claims or outward intentions toward saying they would make Pathfinder balanced. They can cannot fail at a goal they didn't specify.

They didn't do a hot job of making things backwards compatible either. I play 3.P all the time. Anytime I come to old material that deals with something that pathfinder changed I just kind of have to eyeball it and make the best guess I can about how to convert it, maybe consulting the DM for his particular opinion when I'm not the DM. There is no page in the rulebook where they talk about how to use old material. So for all their talk about being backwards compatible it comes down to the players to try to make the compatibility happen.

For example how would a PF Bard use Snowflake Wardance? Would they have access to it at level 3 or level 6? Would it use up a round of bardic music? Would it use up a round of bardic music per round you were using it? Could you use it for a number of rounds equal to your rank or your rank + 3? I just have to make a guess or something. There is not a single guideline for me to follow.

[Squirrel_Dude]

They didn't do a hot job of making things backwards compatible either. I play 3.P all the time. Anytime I come to old material that deals with something that pathfinder changed I just kind of have to eyeball it and make the best guess I can about how to convert it, maybe consulting the DM for his particular opinion when I'm not the DM. There is no page in the rulebook where they talk about how to use old material. So for all their talk about being backwards compatible it comes down to the players to try to make the compatibility happen.

For example how would a PF Bard use Snowflake Wardance? Would they have access to it at level 3 or level 6? Would it use up a round of bardic music? Would it use up a round of bardic music per round you were using it? Could you use it for a number of rounds equal to your rank or your rank + 3? I just have to make a guess or something. There is not a single guideline for me to follow.Honestly, I think that's better. Convert what you want to, in the way you and your players can agree on. Instead of trying to come up with what would probably be terrible rules for such a massive amount of material, they leave it up those playing to decide how to implement older material.

E.G.
- How frost/fire/etc. elves are implemented. If you're players that care about and enjoy Golarion's setting how they are implemented in the game matters more to you than players with their own setting who can more easily find a sensible way for them to exist in the setting.

As for the snowflake wardance, i would take a cue from the Battle Dance ability of the Dervish Dancer archetype and say that it cost a round of music use for every round it was active. It would only require 3 ranks, as that is the minimum level it is available in 3.5

You don't need a guideline for that.

[Psyren]

You can't copyright game mechanics, bro. Make a similar system that satisfies the same goals, call it something else. There y'go.

Knowing how sue-happy WotC (or perhaps more accurately, their corporate overlords) can be, and given the fact that Paizo was more directly going after the big dog in the room than any other competitor before them, they can be forgiven for wanting to play it safe and stay as far inside the bounds of the OGL as possible. If they had come up with a ToB-like system and been forced to defend it in court - and even if they were right - the legal battle to prove it would still have bled them dry; meanwhile, WotC's Magic-fed legal team would have no qualms dragging the proceedings out as long as possible to ensure Paizo's demise.

TL;DR "Not-ToB" could have caused way more problems than it solved, even with significant time/money spent up front trying to differentiate their version.

[Yora]

Gee, ah.. class balance, vancian casting, skills, CR...

...if you're not happy with 3.5 or Pathfinder, there are lots of other games. d20 games, retro-clones, Savage Worlds, 4e and there's 5e and 13th Age on the horizon...

I hate those even more... :smallamused:

[AuraTwilight]

Knowing how sue-happy WotC (or perhaps more accurately, their corporate overlords) can be, and given the fact that Paizo was more directly going after the big dog in the room than any other competitor before them, they can be forgiven for wanting to play it safe and stay as far inside the bounds of the OGL as possible. If they had come up with a ToB-like system and been forced to defend it in court - and even if they were right - the legal battle to prove it would still have bled them dry; meanwhile, WotC's Magic-fed legal team would have no qualms dragging the proceedings out as long as possible to ensure Paizo's demise.

TL;DR "Not-ToB" could have caused way more problems than it solved, even with significant time/money spent up front trying to differentiate their version.

I don't disagree the slightest bit; just saying that Paizo technically wouldn't be in the wrong there, like the other guy was implying. That being said, I personally prefer that Pathfinder grow to be as different as possible, because their failure to be my ideal 3.5 fix is aggravating and I'd rather accept it as it's own thing.

[Yora]

Do you think increasing hit dice for d4 and d6 classes was a good idea?

Now rogues are even a bit more capable at combat, which really is a shame.

[Psyren]

Do you think increasing hit dice for d4 and d6 classes was a good idea?

Now rogues are even a bit more capable at combat, which really is a shame.

Yes. Being able to one-shot a level 1 wizard with a magic missile because he didn't prepare shield that morning was always unfortunate to me.

What's wrong with rogues being a bit more sturdy?

[Squirrel_Dude]

Do you think increasing hit dice for d4 and d6 classes was a good idea?I've waffled on this recently, but yes for the most part.


Now rogues are even a bit more capable at combat, which really is a shame.Not sure if sarcasm.

[Spuddles]

Do you think increasing hit dice for d4 and d6 classes was a good idea?

Now rogues are even a bit more capable at combat, which really is a shame.

It makes for much more durable casters. I like it, as I play a lot of low level stuff, and accidental deaths are always kinda lame.

I also really like the new bleed-out rules. In 3.x, it felt like a bad hold over from 2e, where everyone has exactly the same chance and you are using a d100.

[MarchiMcFly]

Our party went Pathfinde recently and we like it a LOT. Only issue are Prestige Classes, i liked the idea back when 3.0 came out but I think they fail as a RP tool and became just a way to make combos and gain abilities. I love class archetypes instead, which give you much more in the way of customization.
Point is, a lot of people seems to think to a Prestige Class when they create a character and then play said char to achieve the PC, but it should really be the other way around.

The unbalancing thing also, but for now we are managing it.

Ps english not being my language, I hope I was clear!

[Stouts]

Our party went Pathfinde recently and we like it a LOT. Only issue are Prestige Classes, i liked the idea back when 3.0 came out but I think they fail as a RP tool and became just a way to make combos and gain abilities. I love class archetypes instead, which give you much more in the way of customization.
Point is, a lot of people seems to think to a Prestige Class when they create a character and then play said char to achieve the PC, but it should really be the other way around.

The unbalancing thing also, but for now we are managing it.

Ps english not being my language, I hope I was clear!

I agree that Pathfinder dropped the ball on Prestige Classes for the most part (though I'm actually kind of on the opposite end of the spectrum, where I start with interesting mechanics and then figure out what kind of character would have gotten themself into that situation).

But for both types of players, the vast majority of PF PrCs are just so incredibly... meh. They're pretty much only willing to give out power or flavor under circumstances so restraining that they're basically pointless. I don't think this falls into a 'fixed' / 'not fixed' category, but it is definitely a great example in how not to handle the topic.