Pathfinder vs 3.5 D&D [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

AmberVael

2013-05-11, 06:58 PM

The two are largely very, very similar. In basic mechanical underpinnings, you will not find much difference. Most of the major differences comes in specific content- that is, classes, feats, and spells.

Before I go into further detail, it's worth noting that I know far more about 3.5 than Pathfinder. So, take anything I say about Pathfinder with a grain of salt, and maybe assume someone else is right if they say something contradictory to me.

Pathfinder has made a few changes to skills, which I like. They basically eliminated the poor investment and slow progression of cross class skills, as well as the odd difference between skill ranks and character level. They also folded a few skills together, which was a welcome change.
In Pathfinder, you also gain more feats, which I approve of. They've not changed the progression by a large amount, but more feats means more character customization and diversity.

The largest change in Pathfinder is in class content. Pathfinder has tweaked most of the classes, adding in enough minor perks and features to at least make it so that classes don't have massive dead spaces. They further expanded to give classes several archetypes which can differentiate even the class features of characters in the same class.

However, by distancing itself from many of the supplemental books in 3.5, I find that Pathfinder has also greatly lessened class diversity at the same time, and in a way that I feel loses more than was gained. Most of the classes in Pathfinder work on far more similar frameworks, gaining abilities that grant them a few per day bonuses or spell uses, eschewing the subsystems that offered some truly unique experiences. Pathfinder offers no Warlock, Binder, Incarnum, Factotum, or Initiator type classes, or even classes I have found comparable to them. There are a few things that stand out, but not enough to really gain my attention.

To get a bit more specific, I find that Pathfinder is very married to 'per day' based mechanics, and to a degree that negatively impacts the game. It can be very miserly in handing out uses, and in fact reduces some things to rounds per day, which makes them limited indeed. It's hard to feel you have a special ability when you can only use it one or two times before it vanishes until you sleep for eight hours, and any benefit or differentiation it provides is sharply reduced.

Honestly though, it's not too hard to port the benefits of one system to the other, if you know what you're doing.

Sylthia

2013-05-11, 07:00 PM

kiryoku

2013-05-11, 07:20 PM

I like the skill thing. I house ruled cross-class skills are not there. Because who says the fighter couldn't have the same skill in lock picking. Maybe its a hobby from his youth. I found it kind just like a do not cross this line well because i say so kind of thing more then it added flavor. Plus you can't throw anything at a party of just one type of class. because of the do not pass line cross class put in. I hate the dailies that some games use so that is a huge turn off for me. as for the feats that sounds nice it always seems like your just one feat short of making something cool in the game. So one or two more wouldn't mess up the game too much. Most of the overpowered spells. i house rule to make them not such game breakers. Wizards can't do anything they want just because Raw lets them. Raw is just silly anyway. I like a little bit of reason in the game. mind you not real life reason just reasonable in the terms the world has magic.

RFLS

2013-05-11, 07:50 PM

PF core has more toys for mundanes, there are less dead levels.

You can make more powerful builds using the myriad supplements for 3rd ed, but Pathfinder is easier to pick-up and play, and make a usable character in a mid-optimization environment.

This is a generally accurate statement, except for the first sentence, which would also be true if it weren't for the existence of Tome of Battle.

Sylthia

2013-05-11, 08:10 PM

This is a generally accurate statement, except for the first sentence, which would also be true if it weren't for the existence of Tome of Battle.

I meant PF core compared to 3.5 core. The thing I didn't like about having dozens of supplements need to make a good build was you either had to dish out $30-40 dollars or pirate the stuff off line. There are legitimate ways to get both, now but I like to make my comparisons to core vs core, because there's always going to be some obscure 3rd party stuff made that is better. I know ToB isn't obscure, but I've played in quite a few core-only campaigns, because it's often easy if everything you need is in the big 3 books.

StreamOfTheSky

2013-05-11, 08:19 PM

Why must everyone compare PF core to 3E core as if PF wasn't a direct adaptation of 3E that came years later w/ the benefit of learning from 3E's mistakes?

kiryoku

2013-05-11, 08:20 PM

Well to be more clear I mean as a whole all of pathfinder and all the 3.x books.

137beth

2013-05-11, 08:27 PM

Also, ToB uses a very specific subsystem mechanic, and saying that all good mundane characters have to use that particular subsystem is really limiting. If you go completely RAW in 3.5, you are kind of stuck with it, which is unfortunate. You can homebrew mundane classes with no fancy subsystems which are tier 3 (or higher), but WotC never did it. So if you want strong mundane builds in 3.5, you have to either
a) homebrew a good class (or use a homebrewed fix from the homebrew forums...), or
b) use a specific subsystem. ToB is balanced, yes, but it never felt like true martial classes to me. Just "magic using a different magic system which we are calling mundane", or

Now, PF did buff a lot of the martial classes (not when compared to the buffs they gave magic classes, but enough so that they are comparable to T3-4 classes, and, more importantly, more fun to play). Could they have done a better job? Yes. They completely screwed over the rogue, for example. But you can at least get marginally decent martial classes (for free) that aren't just magic classes in different cloth. I wouldn't say that this is necessarily a good reason to switch to PF, since most martial classes are still underpowered, but it is still technically a reason...

kiryoku

2013-05-11, 08:31 PM

navar100

2013-05-11, 08:37 PM

kiryoku

2013-05-11, 08:39 PM

137beth

2013-05-11, 08:39 PM

These are all good solid reasons your giving me for both for and against it. I like getting nice thought out answers. makes understanding the points your making much easier on me. I do like ToB but its more like why wouldn't fighters use a little magic in a world so full of it. o-o That is like thinking bombs wouldn't become magical or grenades. -cough- alchemists fire. -cough.-

Yea, I think there should be primarily martial characters who get some magic. I just would like for pure martial characters to be viable as well (I mean, full casters don't have to use any martial class features...)
That's what ToB felt like. It was a "hey, so martial characters aren't so great, and we don't want to make them stronger, so instead, let's add some magical warrior-type characters who can do everything the martial characters can do but better!"

EDIT: I'm also going to say that I love the flavor of the PF Witch. It feels somewhat like the Warlock, except that 3.5 Warlock was really weak, and the witch is a full caster. But the flavor is really nice.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-05-11, 08:42 PM

Personally, I like Pathfinder's fluff and world more than I like D&D's. I also prefer the skill system, favored class system, and some of the redone classes. I'm a biggest fan of the changes to sorcerer, paladin, and bard. I'm also a very large fan of the archetype system.

Also the gunslinger :trollface:

kiryoku

2013-05-11, 08:43 PM

Well for reasons that make more sense from a world view stand point. pure physical characters are going to suck. its like saying a common foot solider would stand up against a guy in powered armor with a mini-gun in his hands. its just not gonna happen. The armor gives him the protection from almsot everything and lets him have the str to carry the massively over sized weapon for most. magic plays a big part in the world. try and distance yourself from it and your only hurting yourself.

Chained Birds

2013-05-11, 09:12 PM

Sounds fun yet kinda on the low end of it unless their is more to it? o-o you really didn't give the reasons that would be cooler then say a fighter with craft alchemy and feats put into making the bombs better.

The Alchemist class does more than just throw a fire bomb. The class has explosives of all types (even sonic and force later on) and has access to Mutagens which transform the normally passive and well mannered alchemist into a fighting monstrosity at the cost of their mentality.
They can also create vestigial wings and arms, potions and oils that can be reused and empowered far beyond their normal capabilities, accelerate and strengthen poisons, clone themself, and even implant explosives in their willing (or unconscious) subjects.
They also have access to some of the best buff spells in the game, and can create them in a potion-like state so they can spread the love (buff) onto others.

So ya, Alchemist's should not be taken lightly. :smallamused:

kiryoku

2013-05-11, 09:18 PM

That sounds a hell of a lot cooler then said before. XD I knew I wasn't getting the full picture. one of my players might want to snag that.

Carth

2013-05-11, 09:19 PM

PF core has more toys for mundanes, there are less dead levels.

This is only half true. There were a lot of upgrades given to base classes, and so at the simple level most are more powerful. However, as mentioned, you can't mix and match archetypes nearly as easily as you could ACFs in 3.5. Because of this restrictiveness there are a lot of situations, both high and low op, where PF is a net loss for mundanes. Feat taxes also continue to hurt mundanes greatly, as while you get more feats now, a lot of feats mundanes depended on in 3.5 were either nerfed, eliminated, or split into two feats.

Snowbluff

2013-05-11, 09:26 PM

1. PF greatly consolidated the skill system and dropping the CC skill system made it easier for non-skill monkeys to contribute outside of combat.Pathfinder made skill monkeys less useful.

2. PF dropped many (not all) of the problematic SoS/SoD spells.Pathfinder pretended to provide spell balance. While really doing thing.

3. PF added new class features and expanded on the usage of other abilities. Many more base classes are actually viable to play to level 20.Pathfinder pretended to add versatility to all classes, but only ended up buffing casters more.

4. Certain tactics are much more difficult to pull off in PF, such as Tumbling now that the DC scales based on the enemy. Mundanes also have a more difficult time reaching the absurd numbers since feats like Power Attack are more restrictive.Mundanes nerfed. 'nuff said.

5. Archetypes in PF are more restrictive as they come bundled together unlike the 3.5 ACFs and Racial Substitution levels.
ACF replacement failed.

That is a rather broad question. Answering it fully would require a very long response, but I'll cover some of the basics.TL;DR Pathfinder isn't doing so hot in my eyes.

Don't get me started on gunslinger. It should not be a class.

kiryoku

2013-05-11, 09:27 PM

So its sorta lop sided like normal D&D just in a different way. though some of it sounds like they just gave out powers trying to fix it and ended up making another mess of it in the same go.

Edit: or more so. I might take snipets from pathfinder. But I think I might stick with most of the 3.5/3.0 stuff I have. Plus I house ruled away most of the problems I felt were killing the groups ability to have fun or just seemed to kill what ever had said spell.

Waker

2013-05-11, 09:38 PM

Pathfinder made skill monkeys less useful.
I wouldn't quite agree with that. While they did reduce the amount of skill points overall, removing the CC skill and granting the bonus to class skills, it encouraged characters to generalize a bit more and prevented the specializing as much. While anyone can use any skills, the monkeys still have the most skill points.

Pathfinder pretended to provide spell balance. While really doing thing.
Can't speak extensively on this one since I refuse to wade through the descriptions of hundreds of spells.

Pathfinder pretended to add versatility to all classes, but only ended up buffing casters more.
While I will agree that certain casters got buffed, like Sorcerers getting class features and the Wizard School Specialization, others did not. Cleric Channel Energy is not quite as impressive as Turn/Rebuke Undead. Druids can't auto-dump stats by turning into any creature they want.

Mundanes nerfed. 'nuff said.
Rogues are better, even if the Tumble skill was changed. More talents and sneak attack can work on more enemies. Monk is better (though not great).

ACF replacement failed.
I do wish that archetypes were more flexible.

Don't get me started on gunslinger. It should not be a class.
I don't have any opinion on the class.

Snowbluff

2013-05-11, 09:49 PM

Rogues are better, even if the Tumble skill was changed. More talents and sneak attack can work on more enemies. Monk is better (though not great).

1) Sneak Attack did not Tier rogue.

2) SA immunity penetration was cheap in 3.5

3) Rogues were good thanks to skill monkeying. Now that everyone has better skills, Rogue is weaker by comparison.

Monks. I do not like monks. They will never be good, AFAIC. :smalltongue:

137beth

2013-05-11, 09:53 PM

This is only half true. There were a lot of upgrades given to base classes, and so at the simple level most are more powerful. However, as mentioned, you can't mix and match archetypes nearly as easily as you could ACFs in 3.5. Because of this restrictiveness there are a lot of situations, both high and low op, where PF is a net loss for mundanes. Feat taxes also continue to hurt mundanes greatly, as while you get more feats now, a lot of feats mundanes depended on in 3.5 were either nerfed, eliminated, or split into two feats.

With regards to the archentype vs ACF deal,
A lot of ACFs were "optional" rules, so they may not count for forum-optimization comparisons. In a real game, on the other hand, it really isn't that hard to house-rule (some of) the archentypes into ACFs, unless you have a rules-lawyery DM. In which case, PF is still better because a rules-lawyery DM may well not have allowed ACFs to begin with.

Waker

2013-05-11, 09:59 PM

1) Sneak Attack did not Tier rogue.
No, but it is still a useful tool. Ambush feats gave you more options in 3.5. PF has talents that do some ailment type effects, like Slow Reactions or Distracting Attack. Amazing? No. Useful? Yes.

2) SA immunity penetration was cheap in 3.5
Free is better than cheap.

3) Rogues were good thanks to skill monkeying. Now that everyone has better skills, Rogue is weaker by comparison. True. Though the relevance of Talents and some Archetypes, not to mention skill points, still make Rogues one of the best at Skill usage. In PF there aren't many that could compete with a Rogue when it comes to Intimidation or Disable Device and so on.

Monks. I do not like monks. They will never be good, AFAIC. :smalltongue:
They are ok I guess, but I'm not gonna defend them.

Snowbluff

2013-05-11, 10:14 PM

No, but it is still a useful tool. Ambush feats gave you more options in 3.5. PF has talents that do some ailment type effects, like Slow Reactions or Distracting Attack. Amazing? No. Useful? Yes.

Free is better than cheap. THe issue would be reading your DM's mind to know how many talents you need to avoid immunities in your game so you can have some left for the good ones.

True. Though the relevance of Talents and some Archetypes, not to mention skill points, still make Rogues one of the best at Skill usage. In PF there aren't many that could compete with a Rogue when it comes to Intimidation or Disable Device and so on.
Intimidation is crappy in PF, without 3.5 option, IIRC.

They are ok I guess, but I'm not gonna defend them.
Yeah, we have another thread for that. :smallsmile:

RFLS

2013-05-11, 10:25 PM

Also, ToB uses a very specific subsystem mechanic, and saying that all good mundane characters have to use that particular subsystem is really limiting.

What I was responding to was "PF provides more toys." It demonstrably does not.

b) use a specific subsystem. ToB is balanced, yes, but it never felt like true martial classes to me. Just "magic using a different magic system which we are calling mundane", or

I'm assuming you're not aware of this, but it is entirely possible to build an entirely non magical character with any of the three initiator classes.

If your issue here is that they use similar mechanics to spells...then you should probably reread maneuvers in general. That particular complaint is a product of the limitations of the system.

Snowbluff

2013-05-11, 10:46 PM

Warblade is free. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2)

Chained Birds

2013-05-11, 10:46 PM

Monks. I do not like monks. They will never be good, AFAIC. :smalltongue:

I know you don't like some of the limitations on rogues and hate monks (in general) and gunslingers, but how do you feel about the other PF exclusive classes?

In 3.5/3.0, my favorite class was the Artificer.

In PF, my favorite class is the Alchemist.

Though I never really hated any particular class in either game. I even thought Truenamer and Samurai (CW) were good examples of the lowest of the low, and never felt upset over what they ended up as.

137beth

2013-05-11, 10:47 PM

What I was responding to was "PF provides more toys." It demonstrably does not.

I'm assuming you're not aware of this, but it is entirely possible to build an entirely non magical character with any of the three initiator classes.

If your issue here is that they use similar mechanics to spells...then you should probably reread maneuvers in general. That particular complaint is a product of the limitations of the system.

I am familiar with ToB. And yes, I think the maneuver system is too magic-like for my tastes. The mechanic would work fine as an alternate magic system. No, it isn't explicitly called magic, but neither is psionics, and I don't see anyone calling the psion a martial class. If I wanted everyone to have magic-like per-encounter powers, I would play 4e. No, once again, this is not a limitation of the system in general. It is perfectly possible to design a complex martial class, it just happens that WotC failed miserably at their class design. Take a look at the fighter-fixes (or monk fixes) in the homebrew section. The weakness of martial characters in 3.5 has nothing to do with the system, and everything to do with poor class design. Of course, this isn't really a PF vs 3.5 debate, since PF didn't really do much to help martial characters (they did a lot to help partial casters like paladins or rangers, but not much for the pure martials).

And really, if what you cared about was giving melee characters a boost (rather than martial melee characters specifically), you do not need ToB. Just play a wizard or cleric with buff spells. Or heck, a druid. ToB added virtually nothing that couldn't be accomplished with the core rules. It was a very well written book--it added some nice and complex tier 3 classes, and was fun to use. But holding it up as some must-have-cure-all that you absolutely need to make certain character types possible is absurd.

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but you seemed to be implying that you thought I didn't understand/know the ToB rules, purely because I didn't like them. I don't think you actually meant this, but it sorta sounded like that.

Snowbluff

2013-05-11, 10:58 PM

I know you don't like some of the limitations on rogues and hate monks (in general) and gunslingers, but how do you feel about the other PF exclusive classes?

In 3.5/3.0, my favorite class was the Artificer.

Um, I'll give the run down from what I remember.

Witch was a Wizard rehash. I don't think we needed it. We already had Wizards with Class Features, due to the PF changes.

Gunslingers weren't bad, I just think the idea was more of an archetype/ACF than a class. It seems 5 levels long, at best.

I wish Alchemist was Warlock. Why aren't bombs at-will? Best used after 5 levels of Gunslinger.

Summoner is Druid 2.0. Make melee obsolete with pet and summons. Synthesist made it rather ridiculous.

Oracle is Favored Soul. Nothing new here. I guess the system needed spontaneous divine caster. Channel (Turn Undead) would make it better than favored soul... if Divine feats were still a thing.

Cavalier didn't leave an impact. I guess that makes it like Knight in the way I can't remember what it's for. Same for Inquisitor. :smalltongue:

olentu

2013-05-11, 11:14 PM

While I do not favor pathfinder for both the reasons professed in this thread and, among other things, the fact that I find their design vision quite poor in many cases. However I will say that the systems are sufficiently similar that if you are already familiar with one you can probably stick with that and cherry pick anything that seems interesting from the other. There might be some work porting things but It does not look especially difficult. Additionally this will avoid getting caught by minor changes between systems that you did not notice.

RFLS

2013-05-11, 11:23 PM

I am familiar with ToB. And yes, I think the maneuver system is too magic-like for my tastes. The mechanic would work fine as an alternate magic system. No, it isn't explicitly called magic, but neither is psionics, and I don't see anyone calling the psion a martial class.

That might be because the Psion was never intended to run around smacking people with swords. Additionally, psionics is called out in numerous places as directly equivalent to magic. Maneuvers, meanwhile, seem to focus on hitting someone really hard in a way they don't appreciate.

If I wanted everyone to have magic-like per-encounter powers, I would play 4e.

This says to me that you're not overly familiar with the subsystem. The only class in Tome of Battle that is even close to per-encounter powers is the Swordsage. The other two take little-to-no effort to refresh a maneuver.

No, once again, this is not a limitation of the system in general. It is perfectly possible to design a complex martial class, it just happens that WotC failed miserably at their class design. Take a look at the fighter-fixes (or monk fixes) in the homebrew section. The weakness of martial characters in 3.5 has nothing to do with the system, and everything to do with poor class design. Of course, this isn't really a PF vs 3.5 debate, since PF didn't really do much to help martial characters (they did a lot to help partial casters like paladins or rangers, but not much for the pure martials).

The limitation of the system (3.5) that I was referring to is that it forces many things into similar formats. That's a common limitation, though. However, your complaint is leveled directly against it by pointing out that many maneuvers have effects that are similar to spells, or that target defenses other than AC. You completely ignore the fluff provided within the maneuvers in favor of this interpretation.

And really, if what you cared about was giving melee characters a boost (rather than martial melee characters specifically), you do not need ToB. Just play a wizard or cleric with buff spells. Or heck, a druid. ToB added virtually nothing that couldn't be accomplished with the core rules.

....oookay then. Disregarding the really, really obvious misrepresentation of what Tome of Battle is for, I'd like to point out that your argument has gone like this.

Melee should have nice things.
Those things should not be spells.
Tome of Battle looks like spells.
Tome of Battle doesn't do its job very well.
Don't use ToB for a mundane character.
To give mundanes nice things, use caster classes.

But holding it up as some must-have-cure-all that you absolutely need to make certain character types possible is absurd.

Literally all I said was that it gave more toys to mundanes than PF did.

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but you seemed to be implying that you thought I didn't understand/know the ToB rules, purely because I didn't like them. I don't think you actually meant this, but it sorta sounded like that.

You're right. I was implying that you didn't understand or read the fluff surrounding the rules.

kiryoku

2013-05-11, 11:30 PM

I am going to agree with him you didn't read the fluff. while they look like spells most of them do not act like spells few of them go beyond a few feet. most help with healing/hitting things/protecting yourelf. like all good meat shield should have. o-o some help you move faster others jumping giving them a few uses outside combat. they become able to scout and get to places much earilier then the other classes. do respectable damage and use the world as it is to help themselves. Instead of the fighter who fights like hes in our world almost. I would point you to GURPS if you want that. Trust me its gritty you die fast for silly mistakes and it makes melee very useful. Now D&D like it has been said is set in a way that mundane people are just that mundane. o-o They lack the magic that impowers the others around them so they fall behind.

StreamOfTheSky

2013-05-11, 11:33 PM

Ok, I'm sick of posting lengthy explanations of this crap, I feel like I've been doing it a lot lately, so I will just state:

- Rogues were nerfed in PF
- Monks were nerfed in PF
- All noncasters lost options, had them nerfed badly, or were forced to wait till higher levels and/or pay more feats to get those options
- Casters were buffed, blatantly, and the removal of *some* win spells but not *all* win spells did diddly squat, further eroded by the fact that paizo adds more back in with every single splat they put out

And leave it at that. No more long paragraphs, my fingers hurt and I'm starting to get the feeling people will endlessly say things like "rogues are better in PF!" no matter how much you try and demonstrate otherwise to them.

navar100

2013-05-11, 11:50 PM

Snowbluff

2013-05-11, 11:52 PM

Your tastes are not other people's tastes. Your angst is not their angst. What you consider a problem others consider a feature or are indifferent. People enjoy playing Pathfinder despite your problems with it and don't need your approval.

Excuse me.

1) "That's an opinion. You may not have those."

2) It's PF vs. DnD 3.5. What Stream has is a comparison of the 2. He is in the right.

3) Whether or not people enjoy Pathfinder, ignoring the issues is not helping anyone.

Sylthia

2013-05-11, 11:56 PM

Whatever came of that contest a few weeks back where someone was trying to see if a rogue could successfully see if he could survive a campaign where the DM was stacking the deck against him?

RFLS

2013-05-11, 11:58 PM

Your tastes are not other people's tastes. Your angst is not their angst. What you consider a problem others consider a feature or are indifferent. People enjoy playing Pathfinder despite your problems with it and don't need your approval.

He...was addressing the OP. He might be biased, but if you read some of his explanations, he has valid points (although I disagree with him about the Monk nerf).

Frosty

2013-05-12, 12:16 AM

Um, I'll give the run down from what I remember.

Witch was a Wizard rehash. I don't think we needed it. We already had Wizards with Class Features, due to the PF changes.

Gunslingers weren't bad, I just think the idea was more of an archetype/ACF than a class. It seems 5 levels long, at best.

I wish Alchemist was Warlock. Why aren't bombs at-will? Best used after 5 levels of Gunslinger.

Summoner is Druid 2.0. Make melee obsolete with pet and summons. Synthesist made it rather ridiculous.

Oracle is Favored Soul. Nothing new here. I guess the system needed spontaneous divine caster. Channel (Turn Undead) would make it better than favored soul... if Divine feats were still a thing.

Cavalier didn't leave an impact. I guess that makes it like Knight in the way I can't remember what it's for. Same for Inquisitor. :smalltongue:
Witches are awesome, as are Hexes. Wizards do not have this, and didn't have this even back in 3.5.

Gunslinger needs a lot more love. Right now all they do is shoot things. Eh. I pretty much agree with your views on this.

Same with Summoner. except they're not as powerful as Druids. Synthesist is kind of like old Wild Shape in that you can dump physical stats, but then you don't have a Companion out like the druid does. Plus you don't have 9th level casting.

Cavalier also needs a buff, true, but some of their order abilities are neat. I think Challenge needs a buff. They need a way to draw aggro like the Knight in 3.5. They should also get more Tactical feats for free.

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 12:20 AM

Witches are awesome, as are Hexes. Wizards do not have this, and didn't have this even back in 3.5. Class features. This is a class feature. For a class that has casting and a familiar. It's a wizard archetype.

Gunslinger needs a lot more love. Right now all they do is shoot things. Eh. I pretty much agree with your views on this.
Stop agreeing with me, RD. :smalltongue:

Same with Summoner. except they're not as powerful as Druids. Synthesist is kind of like old Wild Shape in that you can dump physical stats, but then you don't have a Companion out like the druid does. Plus you don't have 9th level casting.They get SM IX. They should do fine ruining everything for the monks.

Frosty

2013-05-12, 12:36 AM

Class features. This is a class feature. For a class that has casting and a familiar. It's a wizard archetype.
Stop agreeing with me, RD. :smalltongue:
They get SM IX. They should do fine ruining everything for the monks.
Except the Witch fluff and flavor s just so different compared to that of a Wizard, and their spell list so different. It's really just easier to make Witches a separate class. I see nothing *wrong* with Witches being its own class.

And yeah, Summoners ruin things for Monks. So do half the classes in the game. It's not exactly a high bar here...and Summoners ruin things for monks less hard than 3.5 Druids ruined things.

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 12:42 AM

Except the Witch fluff and flavor s just so different compared to that of a Wizard, and their spell list so different. It's really just easier to make Witches a separate class. I see nothing *wrong* with Witches being its own class.I am rating these classes and their development. If the class just ended up being a straight up clone of another class, please don't call it something else. The good news is not everyone got suckered into paying money for this one.

Archetypes can have their own fluff. Fluff is mutable. Witch is an archetype.

And yeah, Summoners ruin things for Monks. So do half the classes in the game. It's not exactly a high bar here...and Summoners ruin things for monks less hard than 3.5 Druids ruined things.
And Paladins.
And Fighters.
And Barbarians.
:smalltongue:

Chained Birds

2013-05-12, 01:03 AM

Hmm, I'm really not sure what Pathfinder could have done differently besides doing a complete overhaul on certain classes and maybe nerfing magic in general. Though I believe that those changes would cause an equal amount of backlash as what we have now.

I'm not as informed as many on this site, but I have heard the majority of people's arguments about everything related to PF. Though I am glad that people are positive about the game, or at least see it as a continuation of 3.5 but with certain major Homebrews placed everywhere.

Personal PF vs 3.5 Class perspective
Rogue was never the ultimate class. I never really saw people take more than maybe 3 levels in it, before going to another class for some Multi-class. It became even more obsolete as a way to gain sneak attack for prestige and feat prerequisites once ToB came out... So people going at least 4 levels in Rouge (Scout) seems like an improvement.

Full Casters... I really don't know what to do, other than make them 4e or 5e now. I hear people complain about them and their buffs in PF, but I don't hear much about what they could have done to avoid the high leveling casting other than removing it from existence by playing E6/E7. I would really like to hear some change so I might implement it in some of my games, but most of the suggestion are to change magic entirely... Which I'm not smart enough to come up with anything...

Gunslingers were originally a Fighter Archetype (I believe) that grew into its own class, so I'll always see them as a Fighter. In that regard, going 5 levels of Gunslinger seems a heck of a lot better for the class than 1-2 level dips into Fighter. Though I am aware of the 1 level dip of Gunslinger (mysterious stranger), and the larger Fighter (Lore Warden) and Fighter (Brawler) dips out there that can go longer.

I like what they did to Druids and Polymorph in general. Druid was way too good. I know it is still Tier 1, but I'm glad they can't literally do everything with even the most minimum of stats (19 Wisdom by level 20). Though I haven't played one in a long time, so perhaps I'm forgetting other exploits they can now use in PF that they couldn't use in 3.5.

Monk, got improved, though PF really should have done more for the class other than listening to Monk day people spouting about how Monk is OP... Because he was never OP and probably never will (Though I heard some good things in 4e and in some of the earliest editions).

Wizards/Sorcerers were boring. I know spells were everything, but I always saw a blank screen whenever I looked at either of these guys' character sheets. At least PF made them look a bit more interesting and gave more individuality other than Spontaneous VS Prepared.

-----

Well, those are my thoughts for now...

To the OP, try a few games of PF and discover for yourself if the game is fun for you or not. It is really hard to make your own opinion over something you have never tried before. :smallwink:

Carth

2013-05-12, 01:42 AM

With regards to the archentype vs ACF deal,
A lot of ACFs were "optional" rules, so they may not count for forum-optimization comparisons ... In which case, PF is still better because a rules-lawyery DM may well not have allowed ACFs to begin with.

What? That's not my experience at all, I'm curious how many people have experienced a DM who would allow an archetype but not a 3.5 ACF. In terms of acceptability I don't see at all how archetypes are different than ACFs, both are optional, there's nothing more official about one or the other.

Spuddles

2013-05-12, 02:12 AM

I've found that the most vocal PF haters aren't particularly familiar with PF and tend to be rather hyperbolic.

Sub level 10, the tiers are much much closer in power. T1 spells got nerfed pretty hard, and the skill system buff moves everyone up about a half tier.

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 02:26 AM

Sub level 10, the tiers are much much closer in power. T1 spells got nerfed pretty hard, and the skill system buff moves everyone up about a half tier.
Wizards are now quite good skills users, with their better than average int, and the changes to the skills. :smalltongue:

Spuddles

2013-05-12, 03:13 AM

Wizards are now quite good skills users, with their better than average int, and the changes to the skills. :smalltongue:

With the spell nerfs and loss of horribly thought out splat material, wizards lost far more than they gained.

Carth

2013-05-12, 03:15 AM

Eh, that's true, but at the same time, most of the stuff they lost was banned by any sane DM anyway. So in TO they lost a lot, but in practice they're not far off from where they were.

olentu

2013-05-12, 03:27 AM

Eh, that's true, but at the same time, most of the stuff they lost was banned by any sane DM anyway. So in TO they lost a lot, but in practice they're not far off from where they were.

Not to mention the rather large amount of stuff that more mundane classes lost through the loss of splat books.

Spuddles

2013-05-12, 03:44 AM

Eh, that's true, but at the same time, most of the stuff they lost was banned by any sane DM anyway. So in TO they lost a lot, but in practice they're not far off from where they were.

Not entirely. I've been playing a sorc, druid, and cleric in a PF/3.5 game. Staples like war trained riding dog animal companions, grease, or Divine Power have been substantially nerfed. GOD wizards are virtually non-existent. You may as well play a fighter with trip.

Here's what I've noticed, just going up to 4th level spells.

The following spells either aren't available or have been nerfed to the point that they're no longer worthwhile spells:

Spells
1st level
Grease
Power Word: Pain
Guidance of the Avatar

2nd level
Glitterdust
Ray of Stupidity
Web
Alter Self
Heart of Air
Wing of Cover

3rd level
Shivering Touch
Heart of Water
Anticipate Teleportation
Permeable Form

4th level
Assay Spell Resistance
Black Tentacles
Solid Fog
Polymorph
Divine Power
Orb of Non magic Magic
Ruin Delver's Fortune
Heart of Earth
Wings of Flurry

Feats that no longer exist
Persistent Spell
Divine Metamagic
Arcane Thesis
Mindsight
Cheese of Mystra
Sculpt Spell
Chain Spell
Searing Spell

Prestige classes that no longer exist
Initiate of 7fold Fabulousness
Incantatrix
Spelldancer
Killer gnome
Mindbender
All the good ones, etc.

What Pathfinder has given/kept for spellcasters:
Wayang Spell Hunter
Magical Lineage
Dazing Spell

No xp costs on spells & the Blood Money spell

Simulacrum, Wish, Miracle and Gate are all still there, and even better with Blood Money.

The Create Pit spells are the only good battlefield control spells left, and they only work on things that can't fly or climb.

Frankly, if you think giving sorc a couple more spells per day or letting specialist wizards cast from banned schools is worth the loss of Grease, Alter Self, Web, Assay Spell Resistance, Orb of Fire, Searing Spell, Riding Dog animal companions, and metamagic reduction, then you either don't understand D&D as well as you think you do, or you've got a PF hatin' agenda.

olentu

2013-05-12, 03:59 AM

Frankly, if you think giving sorc a couple more spells per day or letting specialist wizards cast from banned schools is worth the loss of Grease, Alter Self, Web, Assay Spell Resistance, Orb of Fire, Searing Spell, Riding Dog animal companions, and metamagic reduction, then you either don't understand D&D as well as you think you do, or you've got a PF hatin' agenda.

Look, in terms of absolute power loss spellcasters did lose some rather powerful things. But in terms of relevant power being able to "break the game" in 20 ways is about the same as being able to "break the game" in 10 ways for practical purposes.

Carth

2013-05-12, 04:02 AM

You're being quite stingy with the list of things PF added for casters. If you want to get down to the nuts and bolts I'm sure other people will indulge you, but the bottom line is when I play PF, it's still easy to dominate with T1s, and T4/T5s still require a good amount of work to be noticed, regardless of which DM I'm playing with. People can banter about whether the final result is an overall nerf on paper if they want, but in the big picture nothing has really changed at tables that I've experienced.

As PF continues to accumulate a good amount of splat material, it has helped alleviate the problems of T4s/T5s, to the extent that they're better than they were before - in a vacuum. Unfortunately they're not in a vacuum, and just like in 3.5 splats have served T1s more than T4s/T5s. For instance, PF recently brought back an orb equivalent with the snowball spell, and it's arguably better than the orb spells as it's a level 1 spell now (it's potential is obviously less without access to 3.5 feats, and so forth). So now a rime blooded sorcerer with the 2 metamagic reduction traits can throw around intensified staggering (fort negates, part of the spell out of the box) entangling (no save, rime spell) slowing (rime blooded arcana, separate fort save negates) snowballs as a level 1 spell, and at level 1 if they're a human (though they wouldn't get any use out of intensify yet, but whatever). Among other things. Oh yeah, and then there's the geysermancer sorcerer at the high op end of things, who can throw around dazing geysers (no attack roll, no SR, 2 DC 44 will saves required to negate) that no published monster has a reasonable chance of getting out of.

Spuddles

2013-05-12, 04:15 AM

Look, in terms of absolute power loss spellcasters did lose some rather powerful things. But in terms of relevant power being able to "break the game" in 20 ways is about the same as being able to "break the game" in 10 ways for practical purposes.

You may as well argue that tiers 1, 2 and 3 are all basically the same, then. But casters lost waaaaay more than they gained. By a very wide margin. Paizo pretty much killed the GOD wizard and metamagic abuse.

You're being quite stingy with the list of things PF added for casters. If you want to get down to the nuts and bolts I'm sure other people will indulge you, but the bottom line is when I play PF, it's still easy to dominate with T1s, and T4/T5s still require a good amount of work to be noticed, regardless of which DM I'm playing with. People can banter about whether the final result is an overall nerf on paper if they want, but in the big picture nothing has really changed at tables that I've experienced.

As PF continues to accumulate a good amount of splat material, it has helped alleviate the problems of T4s/T5s, to the extent that they're better than they were before - in a vacuum. Unfortunately they're not in a vacuum, and just like in 3.5 splats have served T1s more than T4s/T5s. For instance, PF recently brought back an orb equivalent with the snowball spell, and it's arguably better than the orb spells as it's a level 1 spell now (it's potential is obviously less without access to 3.5 feats, and so forth). So now a rime blooded sorcerer with the 2 metamagic reduction traits can throw around intensified staggering (fort negates, part of the spell out of the box) entangling (no save, rime spell) slowing (rime blooded arcana, separate fort save negates) snowballs as a level 1 spell, and at level 1 if they're a human (though they wouldn't get any use out of intensify yet, but whatever). Among other things.

Inner Sea Magic has magic guilds, which offer some really busted benefits. I expect an errata soon. But hey, cool, you found a way to get some damage out of a sorcerer. You can do the same thing with spirited charge & a lance, or a well put together Alchemist. It's just damage, and rather mediocre damage at that. And it's on a T2 chassis, which means you may be forgoing things like Arcane Eye, Overland Flight, or Phantom Steed.

You can also use the cantrips ability and the two metamagic reducing traits to get unlimited casting of a 1st or 2nd level spell.

But regardless, that's still not persistent Permeable Form, or Reach Shivering Touch. Hell, other than archmage or a specific sorcerer bloodline, PF doesn't even have a way for you to change your spell's damage type.

Carth

2013-05-12, 04:22 AM

You may as well argue that tiers 1, 2 and 3 are all basically the same, then. But casters lost waaaaay more than they gained. By a very wide margin. Paizo pretty much killed the GOD wizard and metamagic abuse.

Inner Sea Magic has magic guilds, which offer some really busted benefits. I expect an errata soon. But hey, cool, you found a way to get some damage out of a sorcerer. You can do the same thing with spirited charge & a lance, or a well put together Alchemist. It's just damage, and rather mediocre damage at that. And it's on a T2 chassis, which means you may be forgoing things like Arcane Eye, Overland Flight, or Phantom Steed.

You can also use the cantrips ability and the two metamagic reducing traits to get unlimited casting of a 1st or 2nd level spell.

But regardless, that's still not persistent Permeable Form, or Reach Shivering Touch. Hell, other than archmage or a specific sorcerer bloodline, PF doesn't even have a way for you to change your spell's damage type.

I'm greatly amused you chose mounted combat as a counter example, which is highly terrain dependent. Snowball, on the other hand, can be done anywhere. And it's on just about all spellcasting class lists, so the only thing a non-sorcerer loses is the slowing, the entanglement is still has no save. You can also put rime spell on lots of other stuff for no save entanglement, using any class that gets damaging cold spells at level 1, even just a simple ray of frost. No save entanglement is better than any damage dealing trick mundanes have.

olentu

2013-05-12, 04:37 AM

You may as well argue that tiers 1, 2 and 3 are all basically the same, then. But casters lost waaaaay more than they gained. By a very wide margin. Paizo pretty much killed the GOD wizard and metamagic abuse.

Sure, sure, but like I said that loss is not really that important. If I ban initiate of the 7 fold veil, incantatrix, and spelldancer in my 3.5 game the relative power levels of classes remain basically the same despite the fact that the spellcasters lost abilities mundane classes can only dream about.

Also, as I recall, the god role in the GOD wizard concept was used to mean those casters that focus on helping their weaker allies do better. If that was actually killed off, well yeah.

Spuddles

2013-05-12, 04:44 AM

Sure, sure, but like I said that loss is not really that important. If I ban initiate of the 7 fold veil, incantatrix, and spelldancer in my 3.5 game the relative power levels of classes remain basically the same despite the fact that the spellcasters lost abilities mundane classes can only dream about.

Also, as I recall, the god role in the GOD wizard concept was used to mean those casters that focus on helping their weaker allies do better. If that was actually killed off, well yeah.

Grease, Alter Self, Web, Solid Fog, Polymorph, Black Tentacles are no longer auto-win spells. Neither are Divine Power & Wild Shape. CoDzilla basically doesn't exist any more.

It used to be that a properly prepared wizard could always win a combat with a generic load out (or ez bake) with like a success rate of 70 to 95% (depending on touch AC). Those methods are now no longer so overwhelmingly successful (see grease, web), nerfed beyond recognition (polymorph, alter self), or simply don't exist (power word: pain, ray of stupidity).

Sure, command undead is still there to turn that CR 8 t-rex skeleton into a pet. But that's hardly a gain. +1 damage per die on fire spells is hardly a buff when you need more than one spell to end an encounter now and you have to cast more than one spell a day to keep yourself safe.

Wizards et al are still stronger than fighters, sure, but most of the buffs to T1 & T2 have been "do a little more damage today" rather than "gain immunity to grapple and metal objects."

It greatly amuses me that the loudest whiners about PF are all "buut the wizard can do more damage without optmizing!! brokzorz!" without realizing that the actual good spells that wizards use are gone. It's like they haven't paid attention to the past ten years of 3.5....

Keneth

2013-05-12, 04:45 AM

I've been playing Pathfinder for about 4 years now and I gotta say, I don't miss 3.5 one bit. The vast majority of changes were good, but all I keep hearing is "boohoo, I can't autotrip or deal 3000 damage per hit with my melee build anymore," or "I can't pounce at lvl 2 anymore," as if pouncing with a manufactured weapon has ever made sense and wasn't just a workaround to an underlying problem that can be easily fixed with a houserule. The simple fact is, the meta still works exactly as it did in 3.5, none of the dynamics have actually changed. Melee classes still can't have nice things, and casters are gonna dominate the game past mid-levels, healers are still a wasted role, and even wizards still need a barbarian to do their cleanup. Not to mention that virtually all 3.5 content is compatible with Pathfinder, so if you want to play a warblade, because a magus just isn't doing it for you, most DMs aren't gonna say no.

Carth

2013-05-12, 04:47 AM

loudest whiners about PF

I have no idea who you're talking about, but you continue to do yourself a great disservice by throwing around things like this. Most of the people in this thread aren't hating on PF, they're having an academic discussion about how it functions. I suspect you're reading emotion into a lot of posts that isn't actually there.

Spuddles

2013-05-12, 04:49 AM

I have no idea who you're talking about, but you continue to do yourself a great disservice by throwing around things like this. Most of the people aren't this thread aren't hating on PF, they're having an academic discussion about how it functions. I suspect you're reading emotion into a lot of posts that isn't actually there.

Brilliant Gameologists. Holy cow do they wank themselves silly over 3.5, yet malign the hell out of PF. It doesn't even make sense.

Carth

2013-05-12, 04:51 AM

Brilliant Gameologists. Holy cow do they wank themselves silly over 3.5, yet malign the hell out of PF. It doesn't even make sense.

Yeah, I don't really understand a lot of the posting over there. I guess since they're focused more on pinnacle levels of optimization, the nerfs in PF turned them off the most. The rest of us don't care much that incantatrix and arcane thesis are gone. :D

Eldest

2013-05-12, 05:05 AM

Whatever came of that contest a few weeks back where someone was trying to see if a rogue could successfully see if he could survive a campaign where the DM was stacking the deck against him?

I was going to be the rogue, the guy who was arguing that rogues were awful stopped responding to the thread we had for it. But that was entirely for 3.5, nothing to do with comparing that to PF. The guy was arguing that rogues were not tier 4. So doesn't apply as much to this thread.

olentu

2013-05-12, 05:26 AM

Grease, Alter Self, Web, Solid Fog, Polymorph, Black Tentacles are no longer auto-win spells. Neither are Divine Power & Wild Shape. CoDzilla basically doesn't exist any more.

It used to be that a properly prepared wizard could always win a combat with a generic load out (or ez bake) with like a success rate of 70 to 95% (depending on touch AC). Those methods are now no longer so overwhelmingly successful (see grease, web), nerfed beyond recognition (polymorph, alter self), or simply don't exist (power word: pain, ray of stupidity).

Sure, command undead is still there to turn that CR 8 t-rex skeleton into a pet. But that's hardly a gain. +1 damage per die on fire spells is hardly a buff when you need more than one spell to end an encounter now and you have to cast more than one spell a day to keep yourself safe.

Wizards et al are still stronger than fighters, sure, but most of the buffs to T1 & T2 have been "do a little more damage today" rather than "gain immunity to grapple and metal objects."

It greatly amuses me that the loudest whiners about PF are all "buut the wizard can do more damage without optmizing!! brokzorz!" without realizing that the actual good spells that wizards use are gone. It's like they haven't paid attention to the past ten years of 3.5....

I honestly have no idea what you even mean to be getting at here. I'll take a second look at this again when I am less tired but it would probably help if you would try rephrasing this in the meantime as I really don't know what this has to do with things.

Curious

2013-05-12, 06:37 AM

I'll toss my opinion in:

Pathfinder is an improvement over 3.5; this is because most of the changes to the system streamlined it and made things simpler (especially favored classes and combat maneuvers). Balance-wise, things haven't changed from the previous edition, and that's fine, because I know how to fix that.

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 08:01 AM

Yeah, I don't really understand a lot of the posting over there. I guess since they're focused more on pinnacle levels of optimization, the nerfs in PF turned them off the most. The rest of us don't care much that incantatrix and arcane thesis are gone. :D

Here's the thing, Carth. Pathfinder was supposed to remove things like the matamagic reducers. They (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/magic-traits/magical-lineage) didn't. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/regional-traits/wayang-spellhunter-minata):smalltongue:

People claim PF is 'better' when balance would be unachievable, fixes would be irrelevant, crippling, or upsetting balance further, or that we don't play in DM-altered environments, anyway.

SSGoW

2013-05-12, 08:04 AM

There is no Pathfinder vs. 3.5 D&D

Pathfinder is just a set of houserules that Paizo published that ever so slightly changes 3.5 D&D but does nothing to fix the main problems of 3.5, Pathfinder really only streamlines parts of 3.5.

That isn't to say Pathfinder is BAD, just really medicore changes that does nothing to really help. Like if you have a car and you want it to go faster in a race? You put flame decals on it.

Instead of PF vs. D&D you should really view it as Paizo vs. WoTC. One lied and was complete jerks to their fanbase and the other has never lived up to being a respectable company (seriously, wotc seems like they NEVER hired a damn editor...)

The Boz

2013-05-12, 09:01 AM

Archetypes can have their own fluff. Fluff is mutable. Witch is an archetype.

I suppose sorcerer is a wizard archetype, druid is a cleric archetype, ranger is a paladin archetype, barbarian is a fighter archetype, etc.?

Pathfinder is flat out superior to 3.5. "They didn't fix the most broken things" is not a flaw when compared to 3.5. They did, however, streamline a LOT of the things in the game, made classes more *fun*, eliminated most of the dead levels, brought down several world-breaking low-level magics, etc.
"3.5 has XYZSplatbook, PF doesn't" is a false dichotomy. PF is compatible with 3.5 splats. This isn't a houserule or something, it says so right there in the damn book. Need I remind you that, even in 3.5, THE INCLUSION OF SPLATBOOKS AT A GIVEN TABLE ARE A HOUSERULE ALL ITS OWN?

SSGoW

2013-05-12, 09:38 AM

I suppose sorcerer is a wizard archetype, druid is a cleric archetype, ranger is a paladin archetype, barbarian is a fighter archetype, etc.?

Pathfinder is flat out superior to 3.5. "They didn't fix the most broken things" is not a flaw when compared to 3.5. They did, however, streamline a LOT of the things in the game, made classes more *fun*, eliminated most of the dead levels, brought down several world-breaking low-level magics, etc.
"3.5 has XYZSplatbook, PF doesn't" is a false dichotomy. PF is compatible with 3.5 splats. This isn't a houserule or something, it says so right there in the damn book. Need I remind you that, even in 3.5, THE INCLUSION OF SPLATBOOKS AT A GIVEN TABLE ARE A HOUSERULE ALL ITS OWN?

Pathfinder is in no way "flat out superior" to 3.5.

It IS 3.5 D&D with houserules.

Also when a company says "we are fixing the bugs in this system" and then doesn't.... That is a huge flaw. I bet you wish we were still running windows 95?.

Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, and Ranger are all archetypes of the Warrior. Look into 2e and possibly 1e for more info on this.

The Boz

2013-05-12, 09:41 AM

Also when a company says "we are fixing the bugs in this system" and then doesn't.... That is a huge flaw. I bet you wish we were still running windows 95?.

I tried, man, I really did, but I can't find a way to read this and have it make sense...

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 10:05 AM

I suppose sorcerer is a wizard archetype, druid is a cleric archetype, ranger is a paladin archetype, barbarian is a fighter archetype, etc.?

Excuse me, but those archetypes existed within the game initially. I was rating the class in PF against eachother. They wasted their time with another class.

Sorcerer is a spontaneous class with slower spell level gain and a different casting stat, and a familiar/bond.

Witch is an Intellect prepared based caster with the same spell level gain and the familar.

Both have miscellaneous incidental class features. Sorcerer is actually looking more dissimilar than witch, despite initially being identical.

The Boz

2013-05-12, 10:09 AM

Yeah, sure, let us ignore hexes, the differences in the spell list, etc.
"Barbarian is a Strength spontaneous based martial class with the same BAB and the weapon proficiency."

nyjastul69

2013-05-12, 10:12 AM

I suppose sorcerer is a wizard archetype, druid is a cleric archetype, ranger is a paladin archetype, barbarian is a fighter archetype, etc.?

Pathfinder is flat out superior to 3.5. "They didn't fix the most broken things" is not a flaw when compared to 3.5. They did, however, streamline a LOT of the things in the game, made classes more *fun*, eliminated most of the dead levels, brought down several world-breaking low-level magics, etc.
"3.5 has XYZSplatbook, PF doesn't" is a false dichotomy. PF is compatible with 3.5 splats. This isn't a houserule or something, it says so right there in the damn book. Need I remind you that, even in 3.5, THE INCLUSION OF SPLATBOOKS AT A GIVEN TABLE ARE A HOUSERULE ALL ITS OWN?

Why the shouting? Please try and maintain a civil tone.

The Boz

2013-05-12, 10:16 AM

Sorry, what wasn't supposed to come off as shouting... should have underlined it instead.

StreamOfTheSky

2013-05-12, 10:51 AM

Well, looks like someone's created a lot of work for me. It'll suck if it all goes to waste when the mods inevitably swoop in, especially as I'm trying very hard to reply with a civility grossly disproportionate to that which I received....

I've found that the most vocal PF haters aren't particularly familiar with PF and tend to be rather hyperbolic.
Ah, irony.

Sub level 10, the tiers are much much closer in power. T1 spells got nerfed pretty hard, and the skill system buff moves everyone up about a half tier.
Sub level 10 is where casters got the most gains! Unlimited cantrips, a bunch of great 1st level powers like Sudden Shift of the Teleport Conjuror, a plethora of races with +2 mental stats...
The skill system did nothing to tiers except probably knock the rogue down one.

Not entirely. I've been playing a sorc, druid, and cleric in a PF/3.5 game. Staples like war trained riding dog animal companions, grease, or Divine Power have been substantially nerfed. GOD wizards are virtually non-existent. You may as well play a fighter with trip.
Except for the part where trip, like all combat maneuvers, was nerfed into the ground. Grease is buffed at low levels and weaker at later levels. Divine Power is outright better than 3E's version in any combat you are not getting hasted. The dog thing...that was a critical thing your druid “relied on”? Come on now...
And I'm not sure what your definition of God Wizard is, but Treantmonk had him as someone who uses battlefield control, buffs, and debuffs to make any battle easy for the party to overcome. And that's just as easy in PF. The free +2 mental stat from race makes a God Wizard's job easier.

The following spells either aren't available or have been nerfed to the point that they're no longer worthwhile spells
Power Word Pain falls into the “no sane DM” category, sorry. And grease, really? Grease is no longer worth casting? This is the first edition where I've actually felt inclined *to* cast it at level 1!

Glitterdust: Yay, you found an actual nerfed spell! It's still very good and combined with Persistent Spell feat/rod can still last a while. In any case, I notice you left out Blindness/Deafness and Pyrotechnics, the other two ways a 3rd level wizard can blind foes, which were completely unchanged. Remember what I said about “only nerfing *some* of the spells” not meaning much?
Ray of Stupidity: No sane DM.
Web, Alter Self: Yeah, they're nerfed. Still not useless.
Wings of Cover: No sane DM. Also, there's a spell that largely duplicates it (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/emergency-force-sphere) that not just sorcs (wizards, any Samsaran arcanist, as well as level 11+ Oracles) can cast now.

Shivering Touch: No Sane DM.
Anticipate Teleportation: Indeed, I miss this spell line dearly, too.

Assay Spell Resistance: Let's face it, you never really needed this, it was just nice to have. Plenty of no SR spells in PF (and 3E).
Black Tentacles, Solid Fog: Sure, nerfed. Still plenty useful, they weren't hit that hard.
Polymorph: Yeah, it's nerfed.
Divine Power: Buffed, if anything.

...But why are we even lamenting the things lost when others have been gained. You did to your credit list some of them. But you missed things like the race changes, ring of Continuation giving EVERY CASTER divine metamagic for one spell, the PF Persistent Spell, the PF Reach Spell (much more flexible than the 3E one), Selective Spell, Paragon Surge turning Sorcerers and Oracles into true Batman casters capable of pulling any spell out of their bum on a moment's notice, etc... Everyone lost stuff. But casters have gained back a lot of it and most of the rest is TO crap. Martials meanwhile had basically all of their fundamental abilities like skirmishing, lockdown, grappling, etc... completely and utterly destroyed. Twinking out damage / “Sir Chargealot” is basically all they have left.

Grease, Alter Self, Web, Solid Fog, Polymorph, Black Tentacles are no longer auto-win spells. Neither are Divine Power & Wild Shape. CoDzilla basically doesn't exist any more.

Alter Self and Polymorph were never auto win. Very strong spells, might keep the enemy from being able to harm you due to flight, but they didn't *win* fights. The battlefield control spells you listed are nerfed but still very good, and the pit spells you mentioned DO autowin against anything that can't fly. (What exactly did 3E casters have for BFC against flyers anyway, btw? You bemoan Create Pit for that, but flyers have always been hard to BFC. PF at least has Sirocco).

It greatly amuses me that the loudest whiners about PF are all "buut the wizard can do more damage without optmizing!! brokzorz!" without realizing that the actual good spells that wizards use are gone. It's like they haven't paid attention to the past ten years of 3.5....
Who has complained about wizard damage output? You feel the need to make personal attacks, go the extra mile and name names! I complain because all the martials' things have been ground into dust while casters merely have fewer choices on how to win at D&D and a bunch of new broken crap to play around with. If anything, you complaining about Polymorph and the (greatly exaggerated) death of CoDzilla is whining about caster damage output.

SSGoW

2013-05-12, 10:55 AM

I tried, man, I really did, but I can't find a way to read this and have it make sense...

Let me explain it a different way. I'm on my phone and it cut half my response right out of there.. Weird.

Anyways. Pathfinder is not flat out better than 3.5. Paizo kepted almost every flaw in 3.5 and screwed up their own streamline process (CMD/CMB). They started out with a good idea "fix 3.5" but ended up saying "screw it, we can push the same stuff off to the masses with no problems".

Same goes with 3.5 being better or not than PF. You can't be miles ahead of something when you share the same chassis and the same problems.

Say you have 2 buckets. Bucket 1 has holes in the bottom and Bucket 2 has holes in the bottom. The difference is that bucket 2 has a lip around the top for pouring out water. Which bucket is better? Neither. They both have the same problem even if one is a bit more appealing due to how it looks (buckets with lips to pour water out of make things easier).

I like 3.5, but it is a bucket with holes in the bottom. Pathfinder put stickers on the side of the same bucket saying "Everything is Fixed".

StreamOfTheSky

2013-05-12, 10:56 AM

It greatly amuses me that the loudest whiners about PF are all "buut the wizard can do more damage without optmizing!! brokzorz!" without realizing that the actual good spells that wizards use are gone. It's like they haven't paid attention to the past ten years of 3.5....

Brilliant Gameologists. Holy cow do they wank themselves silly over 3.5, yet malign the hell out of PF. It doesn't even make sense.

The only threads I tend to find there on PF are about how badly the martials are getting screwed, or some new broken toy casters are getting. Not whining about casters in PF being weak.

But don't let the facts go and hurt your narrative.

StreamOfTheSky

2013-05-12, 11:03 AM

As for "how could they have fixed 3E"? I don't know all the things necessary to do so, and the answer would be highly subjective for the extent needed to go. But they could have certainly done a better job of it. For example, say they went and nerfed a bunch of spells. Left some others unchanged and so hardly fixed much if anything. But then say they *don't* go and make every single core race get +2 to a mental stat, *don't* go and let wizards cast prohibited school spells, *don't* do any of the other caster buffs.

Would it be a balanced 3E game? No. Would it be less unbalanced than PF? Absolutely. And less work! All they have to do is stop doing things! Like, every time SKR says, "hey...what if we made a spell that let sorcerers cast any spell on their spell list on the spot?" or any time JB thinks, "wouldn't it be awesome if flasks couldn't be used with sneak attack?", someone could bop him on the head with a toy mallet and yell, "no! bad designer!"
I have no idea if SKR wrote Paragon Surge, just using his name as an example. I am almost positive it was JB that banned flask sneak attack, due to him calling it cheesy in the playtest forums.

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 11:07 AM

Yeah, sure, let us ignore hexes, the differences in the spell list, etc.
"Barbarian is a Strength spontaneous based martial class with the same BAB and the weapon proficiency."
Did Paizo publish Barbarian?

Hexes = incidental class features.

Frosty

2013-05-12, 11:09 AM

Squirrel_Dude

2013-05-12, 11:16 AM

The spells are Snowball (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/snowball) and Geyser (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/spells/geyser.html). I can't properly describe the tricks. I know that geyser relies on dazing spell and a way to change the type of damage done.

Chained Birds

2013-05-12, 11:23 AM

Can someone explain to me the Snowball trick and the Geyser trick? I don't even know what spells they are.

I believe you take the Havok of Society Trait to apply 1 point of Force Damage on your Sorcerer spells. You then take one of the -1 to Metamagic Traits to reduce Geyser or Snowball's Metamagic very low in regards to the Dazing Spell Metamagic Feat.

Now you've got an incredibly potent Dazing debuff with hardly anything the enemy can do in response.

I believe that is how it works? :smallconfused:

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 11:24 AM

The spells are Snowball (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/snowball)

Definitely better than the lesser orbs. At level 2 with Intensify, it would cap to 10d6, right?

Frosty

2013-05-12, 11:27 AM

Can you apply the Intensify metamagic more than once to a spell?

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 11:29 AM

Can you apply the Intensify metamagic more than once to a spell?

Not sure. That's why I changed it. 10d6 is more than enough, I think.

The Boz

2013-05-12, 11:29 AM

The Boz

2013-05-12, 11:32 AM

Did Paizo publish Barbarian?

Hexes = incidental class features.

So... this is basically special pleading?
WotC get to "modify" their stuff and call it other stuff, but other people don't?

Frosty

2013-05-12, 11:34 AM

What's the other metamagic reducing trait besides Magical Lineage?

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 11:35 AM

So... this is basically special pleading?
WotC get to "modify" their stuff and call it other stuff, but other people don't?
No.

They modify stuff all the time. It's called archetypes. :smalltongue:

StreamOfTheSky

2013-05-12, 11:37 AM

What's the other metamagic reducing trait besides Magical Lineage?

Wayang Spell Hunter.

They actually stack, though Wayang is limited to a 3rd level or lower spell. So it will help with Paragon Surge, but not Geyser.

Frosty

2013-05-12, 11:39 AM

Wayang Spell Hunter.

Don't you mean Metamagic Master?

StreamOfTheSky

2013-05-12, 11:41 AM

Don't you mean Metamagic Master?

It was renamed by d20pfsrd due to copyright issues. It's complicated.

But if you look at the url for Metamagic Master (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/regional-traits/wayang-spellhunter-minata), the truth shalt be revealed unto you.

Amnestic

2013-05-12, 11:44 AM

Look at it like this:
Let's say a chef prepares you a stew. You try the stew, and you find the meat chewy, the potatoes raw, and it could use a bit of salt.
The salt is not a problem, you can add that yourself, but you can't do anything about the meat and potatoes.
Then another chef comes up and says "I'll fix this stew." He prepares the stew according to the same recipe, but puts the potatoes in earlier, so that they're nice and cooked. Is the meat still chewy? Yes. Does it still need some salt? Sure. But the potatoes have been vastly improved upon.

I fail to see how a rational man could claim the second stew as anything less than outright better than the first. It's as if half of the participants in this thread are failing for the Nirvana fallacy.

Your analogy is based on the presumption that Paizo created a better stew, which you haven't justified. A similar analogy might be:

Let's say a chef prepares you a stew. You try the stew, and you find the meat delicious, but the potatoes raw, and it could use a bit of salt.
The salt is not a problem, you can add that yourself, but you can't do anything about the potatoes
Then another chef comes up and says "I'll fix this stew." He prepares the stew according to the same recipe, but puts the potatoes in earlier, but too early causing them to be overcooked, over soggy and awful. Is the meat still delicious? Yes. Does it still need some salt? Sure. But they didn't fix the potatoes - they merely ruined them in a different way.

Paizo created a similar stew where the meat (core play) is still enjoyably tasty, it's still flawed in ways which players/DMs can change to taste based on individual preference with minor work (salt), but a bunch of their other changes, their "fixes" fell flat. Casters are still broken, mundanes still don't get nice things. The potatoes are still ruined, but they're ruined in a slightly different way.

The Boz

2013-05-12, 11:44 AM

No.

They modify stuff all the time. It's called archetypes. :smalltongue:

So explain to me, how is it that a witch should be a wizard archetype, but a sorcerer shouldn't?

The Boz

2013-05-12, 11:47 AM

The meat (core play) is still enjoyably tasty, it's still flawed in ways which players/DMs can change to taste based on individual preference with minor work (salt), but a bunch of their other changes, their "fixes" fell flat. Casters are still broken, mundanes still don't get nice things. The potatoes are still ruined, but they're ruined in a slightly different way.

So you're claiming that streamlined combat maneuvers, skills, class bonuses, etc is NOT an improvement?

Frosty

2013-05-12, 11:50 AM

To me, the core brew is ruined less than the 3.5. It's a lot easier to enjoy being a mundane out of the box (except monks, who need all the Archetype love they can get) compared to 3.5. I know rogues technically got weaker, but I still like having more options, so I just find it more fun. It's not always about power level, although I guess with a thread about 'balance' it kinda is.

For Fighters, they just need to buff the Maneuver feats. I say get rid of Combat Expertise as a feat tax, and for example give Improved Trip the power of Greater Trip (except keep the CMB bonus at +2), and then give Greater Trip a flat additional +4 CMB to trip. That way, one feat will give the character the option to do neat stuff, even if it won't succeed as often, and if you invest a further feat into it, you're *really* making sure it'll work.

Amnestic

2013-05-12, 12:02 PM

So you're claiming that streamlined combat maneuvers, skills, class bonuses, etc is NOT an improvement?

I don't consider the favoured class bonuses an improvement. I consider it another way to pigeon-hole you into certain races for certain bonuses (see: Half Elf Summoners) when the racial aspects have no legitimate fluff connection to the bonuses provided (what about Half Elves gives them additional Evolution Points for their Eidolons that humans or Elves don't have?)

Consider the favourite punching bag of 3.5 vs. PF threads - the Rogue. Their favoured class bonuses are as follows:

{table=Head]Race|Bonus
Dwarf |Add a +1/2 bonus on Disable Device checks regarding stone traps and a +1/2 bonus to trap sense regarding stone traps.
Gnome |Gnome rogues gain a +1 bonus on Disable Device and Use Magic Device checks related to glyphs, symbols, scrolls, and other magical writings each time they gain a level of rogue.
Half-Elf |Add a +1/2 bonus on Bluff checks to feint and Diplomacy checks to gather information.
Halfling |Choose a weapon from the following list: sling, dagger, or any weapon with “halfling” in its name. Add a +1/2 circumstance bonus on critical hit confirmation rolls with that weapon (maximum bonus of +4). This bonus does not stack with Critical Focus
Human |The human gains +1/6 of a new rogue talent. [/table]
Source (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue)

From that list, it's quite clear to me that Dwarves get the shortest end of the stick. Humans on the other hand have far superior Favoured Class Bonuses. Gnomes are pretty damn good too (+1 to UMD/Level for scrolls? Not bad at all). Why? This inherent imbalance is a problem because they fixed a problem (3.5: Favoured classes are useless) only to create a new one (PF: Favoured classes are imbalanced for certain races).

I don't think Paizo can take credit for the skills considering skill consolidation has been a much talked about homebrew solution for years before PF came out. That's not changing the potatoes, it's adjusting the salt levels. Some people won't like the increase.

Streamlined combat maneuvers seems to have ended up punishing melee, meaning it goes faster in combat but now they're less useful. This is coupled by them splitting up feats (like the 3.5 Improved Trip) into multiple feats, meaning a large investment for the mundanes to actually be semi-decent at it.

Pathfinder did some things right. It did some things wrong. I have for a long time, and for the foreseeable future will continue to, viewed it as a selection of houserules and homebrew, and many of the changes I'm not a fan of. They're not to my taste.

The Random NPC

2013-05-12, 12:14 PM

So you're claiming that streamlined combat maneuvers, skills, class bonuses, etc is NOT an improvement?

I feel that the combat maneuvers have been nerfed out of viability, class bonuses are too much of a benefit (depending on race/class combination) to give up, and although I like the skill consolidation, I don't like that there is practically no difference between a class skill and a cross class skill.
Mind you, these are just my opinions, and may not be indicative of reality.

Frosty

2013-05-12, 12:16 PM

I feel that the combat maneuvers have been nerfed out of viability, class bonuses are too much of a benefit (depending on race/class combination) to give up, and although I like the skill consolidation, I don't like that there is practically no difference between a class skill and a cross class skill.
Mind you, these are just my opinions, and may not be indicative of reality.I love what they did with cross-class skills. Thank the maker people can be decent in a skill even if it's a class skill.

Again, the combat maneuver feats just need bigger numbers.

Tholomyes

2013-05-12, 12:35 PM

I love what they did with cross-class skills. Thank the maker people can be decent in a skill even if it's a class skill.

Again, the combat maneuver feats just need bigger numbers.Agreed, on both points, but I might argue to remove the prereqs instead of increasing the bonus. Essentially the bonuses are mostly fine, but not really worth two feats.

Essentially, neither system is "Well designed" mostly because the base mechanics aren't well designed, so the minor changes pathfinder made are still laid across a badly designed system. Largely, it's just a matter of preference if you like the changes PF made. Personally I do. Given the option, I wouldn't play it, and would play a better designed system, but currently there really isn't a better well-known alternative.

RFLS

2013-05-12, 12:38 PM

So explain to me, how is it that a witch should be a wizard archetype, but a sorcerer shouldn't?

He already explained his point of view on that. Go back and read.

StreamOfTheSky

2013-05-12, 01:12 PM

Again, the combat maneuver feats just need bigger numbers.

Combat maneuvers need a lot more than that. CMD is completely screwed up, big monsters throw it totally out of whack, just like they did for 3E grapple modifiers, except now the affliction hits every maneuver.

Anyway, here are suggestions for changing the maneuver rules I posted on paizo's forum. I would certainly do more, like try to fix CMD itself, make tumble flat DCs like in 3E, etc... but it is a big head start.
You could start by undoing some of the damage pathfinder inflicted on the entire maneuver system:

Combine Improved and Greater maneuver feats into a single feat that gives +4 bonus and the other benefits of each, with the pre-reqs of the Improved feat. 3E had no "greater" feats - you just got the full benefit w/ one feat (and its inevitable power attack, expertise, or imp. unarmed required).

Grapple can replace any attack, including AoOs. You do NOT have to "maintain" the check each round, if you're content to just hold them till they break free. Each successful grapple check deals unarmed damage to the target (unless you don't want it to). It takes TWO checks to go from pinned to free - one to get out of pinned, one to get out of grapple. If you are pinning someone, you can prevent them from speaking. Foes that are grappling lose dex to AC against anyone other than the foes they're grappling.
ALL of the above was how it worked in 3E. Grapple got nerfed super hard in PF. Honestly, I probably forgot some things.

Bull rushing someone causes him to provoke AoOs, even if you have no BR feats. As in 3E.

Having more than 2 legs never gives more than +4 vs. trip, as in 3E. Flyers are NOT auto-immune to trip and you can use the 3E Rules of the Game rules for stalling fliers with trip.

Then you can do some more:

Let people attempt maneuvers against foes of any size. If you have the check high enough to have a chance, you should be allowed to try!

Make bull rush add +5 ft moved per 3 you win by, or something. CMD is stupidly high, using the old 3E rule of 5 ft per 5 is just too punishing.

Consolidate the maneuvers. Seriously, there's too damn many. IMO, Steal shouldn't even be a maneuver, roll it into Sleight of Hand, use rules similar to the feinting rules of Bluff for stealing in combat. Combine Drag with Bull Rush. Combine Reposition with Trip. Combine Dirty Trick with Disarm. That way feats or bonuses can apply to the pair of them. I especially don't know why drag needed its own maneuver when it's so ridiculously similar to bull rush...

Make available feats to perform a maneuver on top of attacking for damage. PF has the [name] Strike feats, but basing it on crits is lame and random. Eidolons are cool for maneuvers specifically because they get cheap evolutions to tag their regular attack routine with things like Grab, Pull, Push, and Trip. If it's balanced for a caster's class feature, why is it such a no-no for actual martial characters to do it?!

Chained Birds

2013-05-12, 01:36 PM

What's the other metamagic reducing trait besides Magical Lineage?

Metamagic Master. It is a regional trait so it can be used alongside Lineage.

Though I've always been a bit hesitant to choose Regional/Faction traits and feats in Homebrew settings, or in some adventure paths as they just don't work out Fluff-wise. And makes no sense that you come from a region that doesn't exist in the game world you are currently playing in...

Sylthia

2013-05-12, 01:44 PM

I don't consider the favoured class bonuses an improvement. I consider it another way to pigeon-hole you into certain races for certain bonuses (see: Half Elf Summoners) when the racial aspects have no legitimate fluff connection to the bonuses provided (what about Half Elves gives them additional Evolution Points for their Eidolons that humans or Elves don't have?)

Consider the favourite punching bag of 3.5 vs. PF threads - the Rogue. Their favoured class bonuses are as follows:

{table=Head]Race|Bonus
Dwarf |Add a +1/2 bonus on Disable Device checks regarding stone traps and a +1/2 bonus to trap sense regarding stone traps.
Gnome |Gnome rogues gain a +1 bonus on Disable Device and Use Magic Device checks related to glyphs, symbols, scrolls, and other magical writings each time they gain a level of rogue.
Half-Elf |Add a +1/2 bonus on Bluff checks to feint and Diplomacy checks to gather information.
Halfling |Choose a weapon from the following list: sling, dagger, or any weapon with “halfling” in its name. Add a +1/2 circumstance bonus on critical hit confirmation rolls with that weapon (maximum bonus of +4). This bonus does not stack with Critical Focus
Human |The human gains +1/6 of a new rogue talent. [/table]
Source (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue)

From that list, it's quite clear to me that Dwarves get the shortest end of the stick. Humans on the other hand have far superior Favoured Class Bonuses. Gnomes are pretty damn good too (+1 to UMD/Level for scrolls? Not bad at all). Why? This inherent imbalance is a problem because they fixed a problem (3.5: Favoured classes are useless) only to create a new one (PF: Favoured classes are imbalanced for certain races).

I don't think Paizo can take credit for the skills considering skill consolidation has been a much talked about homebrew solution for years before PF came out. That's not changing the potatoes, it's adjusting the salt levels. Some people won't like the increase.

Streamlined combat maneuvers seems to have ended up punishing melee, meaning it goes faster in combat but now they're less useful. This is coupled by them splitting up feats (like the 3.5 Improved Trip) into multiple feats, meaning a large investment for the mundanes to actually be semi-decent at it.

Pathfinder did some things right. It did some things wrong. I have for a long time, and for the foreseeable future will continue to, viewed it as a selection of houserules and homebrew, and many of the changes I'm not a fan of. They're not to my taste.

At the very worst you can get the extra HP per level. Some favored class options are very nice, but the HP makes a floor to how bad taking the favored class is.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-05-12, 01:55 PM

Uh-huh, but there are still things like Human Sorcerer favored class bonus that is just so far beyond a hit point or spells, and most anything else available.

Chained Birds

2013-05-12, 01:59 PM

Amnestic

2013-05-12, 02:11 PM

At the very worst you can get the extra HP per level. Some favored class options are very nice, but the HP makes a floor to how bad taking the favored class is.

Then the racial stuff should always be superior to the HP. It should be superior in different ways, but superior nonetheless (and besides that a flat +1 HP/Level is boring).

More than anything else though, the favoured class bonuses punish you for multiclassing. Which might be the design, but considering how fun multiclassing can be for builds, I'm not a fan.

3.5 FCBs hurt you by slowing down your exp gain, but if you ever pulled behind your group then you'd speed up again (due to exp being a river and getting higher exp bonuses for being a lower level). You could make up for the FCB penalty.

You can never make up for the FCB penalty in Pathfinder. You lose that +1 HP/Level (effectively making the dice size up two points, eg. d8->d10) and it's gone for good.

The 3.5 FCBs also only applied to base/standard classes - it never hurt you for prestige classing. As far as I know, that's not true for Pathfinder.

StreamOfTheSky

2013-05-12, 02:38 PM

I'm actually wondering why 3.5 people want PF to have the same rules for Combat Maneuvers as were present in 3.5. Wasn't it horrible to deal with back then, and made Mundanes worse off than they are now?

Like, a super tripper is a nice concept, but it is lame that 50% of all builds for Melee in 3.5 had you use it, and the other 50% were Uber Chargers. Both builds would obliterate many encounters, but they also come at the cost of completely shutting down Mundanes when the DM uses them (Or is this taboo?).

I mean, casters are always going to have outs to Uber Chargers (Difficult Terrain, higher initiatives, BS spells that make them go first regardless of anything) and Tripping hardly does anything. Pinball builds are cute, but only really work on other Mundanes.

So I really don't see the problem in simply making the system simple to understand and have it require less rolls to determine everything. I guess it is a pessimistic viewpoint, but might as well make Combat Maneuvers so useless that Mundanes will have to use new builds to get by... Though nothing ever changes...

The thing is, in PF the ONLY option for martials is to do damage because maneuvers suck so bad and all the other options were nerfed, delayed greatly in level, or removed from the game. And that is even more boring than choosing between trip or damage-dealer. To only have damage dealer as an option.

Maneuvers really weren't that complicated save for grapple, which is still quite complicated in PF. In any case, if you used it often, you and the DM would quickly learn it / how you're houseruling it.

It wasn't just trip, though. Stand Still is a joke of its former self, and that was the cornerstone of a 3E lockdown build.

The Boz

2013-05-12, 02:44 PM

He already explained his point of view on that. Go back and read.

His argument is "one is Paizo, the other is WotC", and that is not an explanation, that's a cop-out.

Sylthia

2013-05-12, 02:57 PM

Uh-huh, but there are still things like Human Sorcerer favored class bonus that is just so far beyond a hit point or spells, and most anything else available.

(Not trying to be snarky: you mean HP or skill points?)

Yeah, the human sorc FCB is a bit OP, but that's more an issue with that FCB in particular. It probably would have been better to make it 1/2 a spell per level rather than one free spell per level. If there's ever a PF.5 FCB is something that could be rebalanced, but they are nice perks and you always have the HP to fall back on if your particular FCB isn't that great.

P.S. I like your sig.

137beth

2013-05-12, 02:59 PM

Then the racial stuff should always be superior to the HP. It should be superior in different ways, but superior nonetheless (and besides that a flat +1 HP/Level is boring).

More than anything else though, the favoured class bonuses punish you for multiclassing. Which might be the design, but considering how fun multiclassing can be for builds, I'm not a fan.

3.5 FCBs hurt you by slowing down your exp gain, but if you ever pulled behind your group then you'd speed up again (due to exp being a river and getting higher exp bonuses for being a lower level). You could make up for the FCB penalty.

You can never make up for the FCB penalty in Pathfinder. You lose that +1 HP/Level (effectively making the dice size up two points, eg. d8->d10) and it's gone for good.

The 3.5 FCBs also only applied to base/standard classes - it never hurt you for prestige classing. As far as I know, that's not true for Pathfinder.

In 3.5, multi-classing and prestige classes were superior to single class characters, so I see giving an extra boost to single-class characters as a good thing. Whether or not the multi-class bonus applies to prestige classes in PF is a really easy house rule to adjust, so I don't see the problem.

Also, I don't think the racial favored class bonuses should be superior to 1hp/level, I think they should be equal (or the hp bonus should be increased).
EDIT: Also, this is a nitpick, but there is no "favored class penalty" in PF, just a lack of a bonus that wasn't available in 3.5 to begin with.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2013-05-12, 03:12 PM

Looking into this matter previously, I found that Paizo clearly focused on the lower level spells (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199228) in development, and even then missed several good ones. I didn't look at non-core PF stuff like the Paragon Surge trick, or the dazing geyser trick.

Also, "it's less broken because we have less content" makes me yawn. I stick with the 3.5 engine, now supported by Paizo, because of (familiarity and) all the delicious content. I'm sick of PF games that expect me to throw out over half of the game's content just because a fraction of it is broken. If all I wanted was a basic, light system to support heroic fantasy play, there are dozens of indie systems which are also free.

Amnestic

2013-05-12, 03:39 PM

In 3.5, multi-classing and prestige classes were superior to single class characters, so I see giving an extra boost to single-class characters as a good thing.

This was generally true because the class features in 3.5 base classes were very limited at the start. This got better later on in 3.5's development, but the early classes suffered from it a lot (Sorcerer's only class feature being a Familiar...and that's it).

Pathfinder added a lot more class features for the base classes, incentivising staying in all on their own. The FCB on top of that is, in my eyes, too much.

Whether or not the multi-class bonus applies to prestige classes in PF is a really easy house rule to adjust, so I don't see the problem.

A lot of the stuff in 3.5 and PF can be house ruled to adjust ("changing the salt levels"). That doesn't change the fact that we're talking about the base game first.

Also, I don't think the racial favored class bonuses should be superior to 1hp/level, I think they should be equal (or the hp bonus should be increased).

A fair statement.

Edit: To draw attention to the imbalance of Favoured Class Bonuses in PF further, let me point to the Summoner.

Goblin: Add +1/4 evolution point to the eidolon's evolution pool. These bonus evolution points must be spent on evolutions that deal fire damage or protect the eidolon from fire (for example, resistance, energy attacks, immunity, breath weapon, and so on).

Half-Elf: Add +1/4 to the eidolon’s evolution pool.

They took the exact same concept (+1/4 points to Eidolon Evo pool) but Goblins have a restriction on how those evo points can be spent. Why?

Ehra

2013-05-12, 04:08 PM

As someone who plays with people who don't come close to optimizing and generally stuck to core 3.5 without looking at other stuff, I prefer Pathfinder. Rogues, Fighters, and Monks are in just as bad or worse of a place as they were in 3.5, which is a shame, but I feel the rest of the game makes up for it (could be because I was never a Rogue, Monk, or Fighter fan). Bloodlines have a lot of fun flavor, same with the Oracle's Mysteries and Curses, and the Wizard specializations to a degree. Bards are rad, particularly the Archaeologist. A lot of the most obvious imbalances such as melee Clerics/Druids (the ones that are the most "out in the open" and are most likely to be run into by the type of people I play with) aren't a big deal anymore, although things like the Summoner are absolutely ridiculous in that regard anyway so it cancels out in the end. The Paladin class has some fun mechanics to work with now that I didn't see in core 3.5. The Words of Power magic system is really interesting for a spontaneous caster, if unsupported.

It does still have a lot of cheese (I think casters would be fine if Metamagic rods didn't exist, for example), but, from my point of view, it generally seems like the kind of cheese that'd typically be found by someone who's out looking for cheese anyway. If you play with people who look up killer builds online or have a nose for spotting unbalance, and have no qualms taking advantage of it, you're going to have some horrible imbalance pretty much on par with 3.5.

The best thing about Pathfinder is a lot of it is out there for free. You can just look at the options the game gives and decide if you're interested in trying it out or not.

Gavinfoxx

2013-05-12, 04:11 PM

You shouldn't be comparing Pathfinder vs 3.5e.

What you should be comparing instead is, all the possible options in this realm!

I would consider Pathfinder 3.55, Trailblazer 3.60, True20 3.65, D&D with the Frank & K Tomes 3.65, Fantasycraft 3.70, 'Mutants and Dungeons' (both versions) also 3.70, and Legend 3.75, as far as the 'number of things fixed' goes...

For Example:

Legend:
http://www.ruleofcool.com/
http://www.ruleofcool.com/get-the-game/
https://s3.amazonaws.com/det_1/Legend.pdf <-- this is the actual link to it!
http://www.ruleofcool.com/donation-thresholds/ <-- some bonus content
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47651526/LCGb.html <-- an online character generator, a bit old though, doesn't contain everything or the current version.

Other good things to do is use mutants and masterminds 2e to write up D&D-esque characters, a la:
http://greywulf.net/2011/06/03/mutants-and-dragons-third-edition/

Also, someone is trying to make D&D stuff with mutants and masterminds *3e*:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279503
and
http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?p=706712#p706712

Fantasycraft is found here:
http://www.crafty-games.com/node/348

Trailblazer is found here:
http://badaxegames.com/

The Frank & K tomes are here:
https://sites.google.com/site/middendorfproject/frankpdf

True20 is here:
http://true20.com/

Again, if free content is important, LOOK UP LEGEND!! It is, as far as I can tell, superior in all ways to Pathfinder.

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 05:02 PM

His argument is "one is Paizo, the other is WotC", and that is not an explanation, that's a cop-out.
No it is not. They are writing "original" material, but only really composed a derivative work. This new "class", the "Witch", isn't much more than a slightly changed version of a class that existed when they started.

A fair statement.

How about Paladin.

IIRC, you can grab the 1 HP, or you can be a Halfing to a 1/2 HP to your LOH, which you can use more than twice a day. Or be a Tiefling for a full point of HP to LOH when self healing. Who would ever take the point of HP?

The Boz

2013-05-12, 05:21 PM

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 05:30 PM

Aside from "look, int-based spells!", I am yet to see a single piece of evidence which suggests that a witch is a wizard archetype. They don't even share the same spell list!
You've done literally nothing but repeat "but it is" for the past half a dozen posts.First, I am proposing that it should be an archetype. It's a sad excuse for an actual piece of "original" material.
Okay:
1) Int based
2) Prepared Casting
3) Familiar
4) No spells known limit
5) Same chassis

A wizard's spell list could have been easily changed by an archetype. Wizards used to have different spell lists based on specialization, which is something... wait, the witch does that too.

By the way, all you've been say is "Nuh-Uh." I suggest proposing an argument.

The Boz

2013-05-12, 05:38 PM

The problem with your argument is that the same can be said of, say, the cleric and druid. Let's see...

1) Wis based - CHECK
2) Prepared casting - CHECK
3) Spontaenous casting ability - CHECK
4) All spells known - CHECK
5) Same chassis - CHECK
6) Alignment restriction - CHECK
7) Alignment-restricted spell selection - CHECK

Oh my god! These two are even MORE SIMILAR!

Spuddles

2013-05-12, 05:42 PM

Well, looks like someone's created a lot of work for me. It'll suck if it all goes to waste when the mods inevitably swoop in, especially as I'm trying very hard to reply with a civility grossly disproportionate to that which I received....

Ah, irony.

Sub level 10 is where casters got the most gains! Unlimited cantrips, a bunch of great 1st level powers like Sudden Shift of the Teleport Conjuror, a plethora of races with +2 mental stats...
The skill system did nothing to tiers except probably knock the rogue down one.

Except for the part where trip, like all combat maneuvers, was nerfed into the ground. Grease is buffed at low levels and weaker at later levels. Divine Power is outright better than 3E's version in any combat you are not getting hasted. The dog thing...that was a critical thing your druid “relied on”? Come on now...
And I'm not sure what your definition of God Wizard is, but Treantmonk had him as someone who uses battlefield control, buffs, and debuffs to make any battle easy for the party to overcome. And that's just as easy in PF. The free +2 mental stat from race makes a God Wizard's job easier.

Power Word Pain falls into the “no sane DM” category, sorry. And grease, really? Grease is no longer worth casting? This is the first edition where I've actually felt inclined *to* cast it at level 1!

Glitterdust: Yay, you found an actual nerfed spell! It's still very good and combined with Persistent Spell feat/rod can still last a while. In any case, I notice you left out Blindness/Deafness and Pyrotechnics, the other two ways a 3rd level wizard can blind foes, which were completely unchanged. Remember what I said about “only nerfing *some* of the spells” not meaning much?
Ray of Stupidity: No sane DM.
Web, Alter Self: Yeah, they're nerfed. Still not useless.
Wings of Cover: No sane DM. Also, there's a spell that largely duplicates it (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/emergency-force-sphere) that not just sorcs (wizards, any Samsaran arcanist, as well as level 11+ Oracles) can cast now.

Shivering Touch: No Sane DM.
Anticipate Teleportation: Indeed, I miss this spell line dearly, too.

Assay Spell Resistance: Let's face it, you never really needed this, it was just nice to have. Plenty of no SR spells in PF (and 3E).
Black Tentacles, Solid Fog: Sure, nerfed. Still plenty useful, they weren't hit that hard.
Polymorph: Yeah, it's nerfed.
Divine Power: Buffed, if anything.

...But why are we even lamenting the things lost when others have been gained. You did to your credit list some of them. But you missed things like the race changes, ring of Continuation giving EVERY CASTER divine metamagic for one spell, the PF Persistent Spell, the PF Reach Spell (much more flexible than the 3E one), Selective Spell, Paragon Surge turning Sorcerers and Oracles into true Batman casters capable of pulling any spell out of their bum on a moment's notice, etc... Everyone lost stuff. But casters have gained back a lot of it and most of the rest is TO crap. Martials meanwhile had basically all of their fundamental abilities like skirmishing, lockdown, grappling, etc... completely and utterly destroyed. Twinking out damage / “Sir Chargealot” is basically all they have left.

Alter Self and Polymorph were never auto win. Very strong spells, might keep the enemy from being able to harm you due to flight, but they didn't *win* fights. The battlefield control spells you listed are nerfed but still very good, and the pit spells you mentioned DO autowin against anything that can't fly. (What exactly did 3E casters have for BFC against flyers anyway, btw? You bemoan Create Pit for that, but flyers have always been hard to BFC. PF at least has Sirocco).

Who has complained about wizard damage output? You feel the need to make personal attacks, go the extra mile and name names! I complain because all the martials' things have been ground into dust while casters merely have fewer choices on how to win at D&D and a bunch of new broken crap to play around with. If anything, you complaining about Polymorph and the (greatly exaggerated) death of CoDzilla is whining about caster damage output.

Wow it's a whole page of oberoni fallacies.

Tholomyes

2013-05-12, 05:44 PM

Aside from "look, int-based spells!", I am yet to see a single piece of evidence which suggests that a witch is a wizard archetype. They don't even share the same spell list!
You've done literally nothing but repeat "but it is" for the past half a dozen posts.

I think some of it comes from class-bloat aversion. I honestly think the Witch is broad enough to not be relegated to an archetype, but it's certainly a border case.

Carth

2013-05-12, 05:51 PM

Can someone explain to me the Snowball trick and the Geyser trick? I don't even know what spells they are.

The spells are Snowball (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/snowball) and Geyser (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/spells/geyser.html). I can't properly describe the tricks. I know that geyser relies on dazing spell and a way to change the type of damage done.

They key to snowball is the two traits metamagic master/Wayang spell hunter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/regional-traits/wayang-spellhunter-minata), and magical lineage (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/magic-traits/magical-lineage). Those two traits mean you can choose two +1 metamagic feats and apply them for free to snowball. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/rime-spell-metamagic and intensify spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/intensified-spell-metamagic) are two natural candidates.

End result is that you hurl a ranged touch attack that does d6/CL, capped at 10d6 (no save, no SR), entangles (no save if damage was taken), and staggers (fort negates). If you choose to be a rime blooded (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/archetypes/paizo---sorcerer-archetypes/wildblooded/rime-blooded) sorcerer, you add in a second fort save to the spell, which also slows the target upon failure.

But note the brokeness of the rime spell feat in general, because it doesn't allow a save, it only cares if the target took damage to trigger it. So an evoker wizard (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/arcane-schools/paizo---arcane-schools/classic-arcane-schools/evocation/admixture) or elemental cold bloodlined (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/elemental-bloodline) sorcerer can take the feat, for instance, and start hurling entangling burning hands at level 1, entangling anything without evasion or cold resistance.

Here's the geyser blaster (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15046971&postcount=10). Note that you can tweak the build to come online at level 15, which is when you get spell perfection (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/spell-perfection). The post says DC 45 for the geyser, but it's actually DC 44, as the arcane bloodline's arcana doesn't apply. Note that this doesn't use any metamagic reduction traits, because I don't know of a way to be able to take two traits in the same category (shutting out magical lineage), and also because geyser isn't a 3rd level or lower spell (shutting out metamagic master).

I am aware of no published monster in 1st party PF that can beat the DC 44 will save on anything less than a two natural 20s (thanks to persistent spell). A monster's reflex save can also be targeted initially by centering the geyser on them. Even a solar (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/angel.html) only has +23 to will saves, and that's the highest I know of. You can make things with class levels that have a better chance of success, of course, but you're greatly limited in options if you're building to get saves that high.

StreamOfTheSky

2013-05-12, 05:53 PM

Wow it's a whole page of oberoni fallacies.

I like it better when you make no arguments whatsoever to support your point.

You accomplish the exact same end result, but I don't have to waste nearly as much time replying.

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 05:53 PM

The problem with your argument is that the same can be said of, say, the cleric and druid. Let's see...
Druid and Cleric were 2 parts of the same class back in 2e. The Cleric doesn't really have class features in 3.5, where as Druid has a glut of them. You argument is even weaker than your words earlier.

Except this was content already produced at the time of Paizo's writing their system. Their "original" system.

RFLS

2013-05-12, 05:57 PM

Frosty

2013-05-12, 06:04 PM

They key to snowball is the two traits metamagic master/Wayang spell hunter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/regional-traits/wayang-spellhunter-minata), and magical lineage (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/magic-traits/magical-lineage). Those two traits mean you can choose two +1 metamagic feats and apply them for free to snowball. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/rime-spell-metamagic and intensify spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/intensified-spell-metamagic) are two natural candidates.

End result is that you hurl a ranged touch attack that does d6/CL, capped at 10d6 (no save, no SR), entangles (no save if damage was taken), and staggers (fort negates). If you choose to be a rime blooded (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/archetypes/paizo---sorcerer-archetypes/wildblooded/rime-blooded) sorcerer, you add in a second fort save to the spell, which also slows the target upon failure.

But note the brokeness of the rime spell feat in general, because it doesn't allow a save, it only cares if the target took damage to trigger it. So an evoker wizard (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/arcane-schools/paizo---arcane-schools/classic-arcane-schools/evocation/admixture) or elemental cold bloodlined (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/elemental-bloodline) sorcerer can take the feat, for instance, and start hurling entangling burning hands at level 1, entangling anything without evasion or cold resistance.

Here's the geyser blaster (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15046971&postcount=10). Note that you can tweak the build to come online at level 15, which is when you get spell perfection (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/spell-perfection). The post says DC 45 for the geyser, but it's actually DC 44, as the arcane bloodline's arcana doesn't apply. Note that this doesn't use any metamagic reduction traits, because I don't know of a way to be able to take two traits in the same category (shutting out magical lineage), and also because geyser isn't a 3rd level or lower spell (shutting out metamagic master).

I am aware of no published monster in 1st party PF that can beat the DC 44 will save on anything less than a two natural 20s (thanks to persistent spell). A monster's reflex save can also be targeted initially by centering the geyser on them. Even a solar (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/angel.html) only has +23 to will saves, and that's the highest I know of. You can make things with class levels that have a better chance of success, of course, but you're greatly limited in options if you're building to get saves that high.Yeah, but no DM is going to allow all of those things put together. Most DMs won't even allow the Ifrit race. We can probably put together DC30 though without too much problem.

The Boz

2013-05-12, 06:04 PM

Completely different class features - CHECK.

Bad argument is bad.

Because the wizard and the witch have the exact same class features, right?

Whatever, I give up. Communication is impossible with you two.

RFLS

2013-05-12, 06:09 PM

Because the wizard and the witch have the exact same class features, right?

I'm not entirely sure I agree with him, but your argument was possibly the worst thing (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U4lLoZ-ZPsI/UB6n88au05I/AAAAAAAAAMI/plZprAgDSD8/s500/that-post-gave-me-cancer-spiderman-qITRWJ.jpg) I've seen in a while. There's no way that a druid and a cleric are interchangeable. It's a much, much smaller step between wizard and witch than between cleric and druid.

Carth

2013-05-12, 06:13 PM

Yeah, but no DM is going to allow all of those things put together. Most DMs won't even allow the Ifrit race. We can probably put together DC30 though without too much problem.

That's the whole point, the system's design is such that just like 3.5, there are plenty of things that are legal, but no sane DM would allow. Edit: heck, even magic missile can be a pain in the nuts if you apply the metamagic reduction traits to dazing and persistent.

The Boz

2013-05-12, 06:14 PM

It was supposed to be bad. I think saying the witch and wizard are more similar than cleric and druid are is untrue. Both pairs use the same chassis and the same casting type and stat, but have a different spell list, completely different class features and entirely different fluff.

RFLS

2013-05-12, 06:21 PM

Sylthia

2013-05-12, 06:42 PM

Not to pick one side or the other, but with proper feat selection, one could make a fighter that is comparable, or even superior to a monk.

Both wizards and witches and clerics and druids are similar and could have either gone as archtypes or two different classes, it depends where you draw the line.

137beth

2013-05-12, 07:24 PM

Completely different class features - CHECK.

Bad argument is bad.

Yes, they are just as different as the witch and wizard are. Which was the point:smallsigh:

Tholomyes

2013-05-12, 07:34 PM

Both wizards and witches and clerics and druids are similar and could have either gone as archtypes or two different classes, it depends where you draw the line.

Yep, just like 2nd edition had Druid and Cleric under the same umbrella. Honestly, though I don't want to go back to that, either with druid and cleric, or witch and wizard. I think Pathfinder struck a nice balance between "Everything is an archetype" and class-bloat. I'd probably prefer a few more classes, but 3.5 was terrible in regards to class bloat, so I can see the reasoning behind suggesting witch as a wizard archetype. I don't agree, but I can see the reasoning behind it.

RFLS

2013-05-12, 07:49 PM

Yes, they are just as different as the witch and wizard are. Which was the point:smallsigh:

There's a greater difference, which was why it was a terrible argument.

Side note: You never responded to my other reply, which was directly to you. Page 2, I think.

JoshuaZ

2013-05-12, 07:58 PM

There's a greater difference, which was why it was a terrible argument.

Can you expand on why you think there's a greater difference? If anything, the hex mechanic (especially the hexes which are once a day per a target) seems substantially different. I'd be interested in hearing you expand on this logic.

RFLS

2013-05-12, 08:08 PM

In PF, wizards have at will powers based on their particular school. They get a familiar. They get prepared casting at the fastest progression with an Intelligence casting stat.

Witches have at will powers (that tend to be based on their Patron). They have a familiar. They get prepared casting at the fastest progression with an Intelligence casting stat.

The biggest differences are how many times/day the at will powers are and the spell lists. Both of those are things I think are within the realm of archetypes, although I don't have a particular problem with the separate class.

In PF, clerics get domains, channel energy, and Wisdom based prepared casting.

Druids get an animal companion, Wildshape, a whole slew of minor class features, and Wisdom based prepared casting. The changes here are spell list, domains/animal companion, and channel energy/Wildshape. I think that those are much bigger changes than between witch and wizard.

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 08:09 PM

Can you expand on why you think there's a greater difference? If anything, the hex mechanic (especially the hexes which are once a day per a target) seems substantially different. I'd be interested in hearing you expand on this logic.

"Substantial" Not a word I would use. You have a reather eclectic set of abilities here. Like CLW as a hex. In fact, a lot of the hexes function as spells, anyway. I don't know why they just didn't put them in the spell list.

AttilaTheGeek

2013-05-12, 08:21 PM

But think about this: Imagine a Cleric archetype that let you pick a fair amount Sorcerer/Wizard spells and prepare them at the cost of roughly half your spell list. Is that really an archetype anymore? I agree that the Witch is awkwardly similar to the Wizard, but it would be worse as an archetype.

Sylthia

2013-05-12, 08:22 PM

Don't witches and wizards have separate spell lists as well?

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 08:32 PM

Waker

2013-05-12, 08:36 PM

I remember when wizards would lose spells in their selection due to specialization. I don't think it would be awkward.

But Snowbluff, Wizards were sooo underpowered when they lost spell schools. That's why PF needed to buff them up a bit.

People can complain about anything they want in PF. That change was the one that annoyed me the most.

olentu

2013-05-12, 08:59 PM

Wow it's a whole page of oberoni fallacies.

Well I think StreamOfTheSky was given a response sufficiently similar to the one I would give with perhaps one modification. You know all the stuff he said no sane DM would allow, change that to my 20 ways to break the game is about the same as 10 for practical purposes argument and that looks like it would cover things. I'll wait for you to come up with a counterargument.

AttilaTheGeek

2013-05-12, 09:17 PM

I remember when wizards would lose spells in their selection due to specialization. I don't think it would be awkward.

Not that they couldn't use a nerf, but that an entire spell list seems like too much for an Archetype to change, at least to me. It's not even a couple changes, either; if I recall correctly, they get a good number of divine spells.

137beth

2013-05-12, 09:35 PM

There's a greater difference, which was why it was a terrible argument.

Side note: You never responded to my other reply, which was directly to you. Page 2, I think.

No, there is not a greater difference. Not really anything else to add to this.

For your other reply, I found it extremely offensive, and thought that a response would derail the thread.
But here it goes: (EDIT: spoilered as it is somewhat off topic):

That might be because the Psion was never intended to run around smacking people with swords. Additionally, psionics is called out in numerous places as directly equivalent to magic. Maneuvers, meanwhile, seem to focus on hitting someone really hard in a way they don't appreciate.
You appear to be unable to distinguish between the words "martial" and "melee." Psions are not martial characters. They could be melee characters, along with druids (who are also not martial.) Maneuvers aren't martial either, they are just a limited magic system which focuses almost entirely on melee. That doesn't make them martial.

The limitation of the system (3.5) that I was referring to is that it forces many things into similar formats. That's a common limitation, though. However, your complaint is leveled directly against it by pointing out that many maneuvers have effects that are similar to spells, or that target defenses other than AC. You completely ignore the fluff provided within the maneuvers in favor of this interpretation.
What I don't like about ToB is that the fluff doesn't match the crunch. As I already explained, the crunch feels like it works as an alternate magic system. The fluff, on the other hand, is slanted towards martial characters. This is a mismatch. I'd like the ToB crunch if it were paired with different fluff, and I'd like the ToB fluff if it were paired with different crunch. That isn't ignoring the fluff.

....oookay then. Disregarding the really, really obvious misrepresentation of what Tome of Battle is for, I'd like to point out that your argument has gone like this.

Melee should have nice things.
Those things should not be spells.
Tome of Battle looks like spells.
Tome of Battle doesn't do its job very well.
Don't use ToB for a mundane character.
To give mundanes nice things, use caster classes.

Wow...I...I'm trying really hard to imagine how you could have possibly extracted this list from my posts. I couldn't figure out how you got that last night, and attributed it to me being tired. But now...let's just take this one line at a time:

Disregarding the really, really obvious misrepresentation of what Tome of Battle is for
So, what do you think ToB is for, then? Most of the time people talk about it in these forums, they say that it is either to boost melee characters, or to boost martial characters. Or both.
Now, if you actually go back and look at my previous posts, you would see that I said that
a) if you want melee characters to have nice things, ToB is unnecessary, since druids can already be powerful melee characters, and
b) if you want martial characters to have nice things, then I don't consider ToB relevant, since I don't consider its characters martial.

Now...

Melee should have nice things.
Yes, and they already do. See standard tier 1s.

Those things should not be spells.
Again, you are confusing "martial" with "melee." I don't care if some melee characters have spells (which they do), or other magical equivalents (which they do.) But a martial character with spells is, well, not a martial character.

Tome of Battle looks like spells.
ToB looks like an alternate magic system. That isn't the same as saying it looks like the same magic system as the wizard uses. It is saying that it appears non-martial in nature.

Tome of Battle doesn't do its job very well.
1. I didn't say that, so I don't know where you are getting it from,
2. You really got me curious: what do you think ToB's purpose is?

Don't use ToB for a mundane character.
Okay, this one line is correct about what I said.

To give mundanes nice things, use caster classes.
:smallconfused:
Where did I say that?
I said casters give melee nice things. If you honestly can't tell the difference between "fights in close range" and "nonmagical", I'm gonna go cry.

Now, if you want to give martial characters more power,I will say that it is harder to design a powerful and interesting martial class than a powerful magical one. However, it is still very possible. If you want an example, look in the homebrew section of these forums for "fighter fix" or "monk fix." If you are allergic to anything not published by WotC, sorry, I can't help you.

The rest of your post basically consisted of "I don't think you've really read ToB!" Which is not a meaningful argument, so there is no rational way to respond to comments like this, since you were not attempting to engage in a rational discussion.

But Snowbluff, Wizards were sooo underpowered when they lost spell schools. That's why PF needed to buff them up a bit.

People can complain about anything they want in PF. That change was the one that annoyed me the most.
Yea, I like Pathfinder, but the "let's give wizards access to every spell while still giving them an extra slot for specialization!" idea was just plain stupid. I don't expect it to be fixed anytime soon, since the designers of PF are actually under the impression that their version of the wizard is no more powerful than a ranger. Really, Paizo sucks at game balance that much.

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 09:41 PM

Not that they couldn't use a nerf, but that an entire spell list seems like too much for an Archetype to change, at least to me. It's not even a couple changes, either; if I recall correctly, they get a good number of divine spells.

3.5 had an ACF for Wizards that gave them all of the Divination Spells... AAAAAAAALLLLLLLL OF THEM! ::::)

Well, before errata. It was fixed.

Considering the scope of some Archetypes ("You get guns" "You get bombs"), I don't think a spell list change is inappropriate.

13_CBS

2013-05-12, 09:42 PM

Again, you are confusing "martial" with "melee." I don't care if some melee characters have spells (which they do), or other magical equivalents (which they do.) But a martial character with spells is, well, not a martial character.

To butt in on this conversation:

To be fair, when most people refer to "melee" classes, they usually refer to what the class was intended by its designers to do, not what they actually end up doing in the current 3.5 optimized metagame. Yes, Clerics and Druids and Wizards are better at melee combat than Fighters and such, but most people still wouldn't call them "melee" characters because doing primarily melee damage in combat wasn't really what WotC designed them to do--at least, not to the extent of Fighters, Barbarians, etc.

When people refer to "melee" classes, therefore, they usually mean "mundane characters who are primarily designed to excel in melee combat".

I think. :smallconfused:

137beth

2013-05-12, 09:46 PM

To butt in on this conversation:

To be fair, when most people refer to "melee" classes, they usually refer to what the class was intended by its designers to do, not what they actually end up doing in the current 3.5 optimized metagame. Yes, Clerics and Druids and Wizards are better at melee combat than Fighters and such, but most people still wouldn't call them "melee" characters because doing primarily melee damage in combat wasn't really what WotC designed them to do--at least, not to the extent of Fighters, Barbarians, etc.

When people refer to "melee" classes, therefore, they usually mean "mundane characters who are primarily designed to excel in melee combat".

I think. :smallconfused:
If he was indeed referring to what the "primary purpose" of a class was, then there would still be a difference between "mundane" and "martial." A crusader or a paladin are both "melee" but not "martial". A rogue is martial, but was not designed to fight primarily in melee.

3.5 had an ACF for Wizards that gave them all of the Divination Spells... AAAAAAAALLLLLLLL OF THEM! ::::)

Well, before errata. It was fixed.
What was that one? I don't remember it...

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 09:51 PM

What was that one? I don't remember it...

Spontaneous Divination. Complete Champion. It says any Divination spell. :smalltongue:

RFLS

2013-05-12, 10:03 PM

-snip-

Ohkay then, we're playing the definitions game.

Melee: Any character that fights at close range, generally with sword, knife, or polearm.

Mundane: Any character with no magical talent.

Martial: Any character that achieves their means through force of arms. Melee is a subset of this.

And, because it's relevant:

Pseudo-mundane: A character with little magical talent. Generally used in a way that enhances martial capabilities. A paladin or a ranger fits this definition. A DMM:Persist Cleric does not.

Here're the core problems:

You seem to think that every Tome of Battle character is pseudo-mundane. This is demonstrably false. The disciplines Tiger Claw, White Raven, Stone Dragon, Iron Heart, Diamond Mind, and Setting Sun are all largely or entirely composed of (Ex) effects. They are, mechanically and fluff-wise, non magical.

However, you indicated somewhere that you think that the system is pseudo-magical or outright magical because it has similar effects. Barring Shadow Hand, Desert Wind, and maybe Devoted Spirit, maneuvers are, like I said, entirely non-magical. Sidenote: That I've now stated this at least three times may have something to do with my doubt as to your understanding of Tome of Battle.

So, I guess that really leaves me with the question: Do you ditch the ranger, the paladin, and the monk because they have (Su) abilities and spells? Because that's the extent of your complaints against the book.

137beth

2013-05-12, 10:06 PM

Spontaneous Divination. Complete Champion. It says any Divination spell. :smalltongue:

Huh, I never noticed that one before...
At least they fixed it...
now if only they had fixed 90238796293862983652 other issues with wizards...:smallbiggrin:

EDIT, due to another reply being added:

I usually give "martial" and "mundane" the same definition, but this isn't really important.

stuff about how I clearly haven't read the source we are discussing
I'm not sure what kind of response you want to this: if I told you that I hadn't read the subsystem rules, I would be lying. But it would appear that no amount of reason could possibly convince you that I have read the thing that we are discussing, so...

So, I guess that really leaves me with the question: Do you ditch the ranger, the paladin, and the monk because they have (Su) abilities and spells? Because that's the extent of your complaints against the book.
Okay, now I finally understand why you are having trouble understanding me...
I don't consider (su) the same thing as "magical." And I don't hate classes even if they are magical. What bothers me is magical mechanics paired with martial fluff, or martial mechanics paired with magical fluff.

Really, those three sentences summarize my opinion on the matter, and almost nothing you have said responds to it. You just keep incoherently jumping around and making up responses to stuff I didn't say.
The paladin is a partially magical class. This is consistent with both its fluff and its crunch. For the ranger, you could easily suppose that it gets its magic from nature like the druid (if, on the other hand, you reframed the ranger's fluff fro your homebrew setting to exclude this possibility, then I would expect it to lose spellcasting.)

For the monk........really? Yes, I think the monk is a horribly built class. That has virtually nothing to do with the letters "(su)".

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 10:18 PM

Huh, I never noticed that one before...
At least they fixed it...
now if only they had fixed 90238796293862983652 other issues with wizards...:smallbiggrin:

Haha, yep. Honestly, knowing every Divination isn't that bad. Divination isn't really the school that people complain about list differences with. The tricks involving a Spontaneous wizard are worse, I think.

137beth

2013-05-12, 10:30 PM

Haha, yep. Honestly, knowing every Divination isn't that bad. Divination isn't really the school that people complain about list differences with. The tricks involving a Spontaneous wizard are worse, I think.

Or a sorcerer who can cast almost every wizard spell (which is basically the same as a spontaneous wizard):smallsmile:
Then again, I don't think saying "PF isn't balanced" is a point in favor of 3.5, since neither is balanced. It is a point in favor of another system entirely.

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 10:38 PM

Or a sorcerer who can cast almost every wizard spell (which is basically the same as a spontaneous wizard):smallsmile:Unless you are trying to double progress with Ultimate Magus.

Then again, I don't think saying "PF isn't balanced" is a point in favor of 3.5, since neither is balanced. It is a point in favor of another system entirely.
Balance is Boring. I'd rather play a fun broken game than a boring working game. DnD 3.5 is my favorite system. Subsystems, fun variety, and solid (but still broken a points) mechanics pretty much sum up what I want out of a game.

PF just isn't enough of a "fix" to justify its existence in my eyes. I like things having a reason to exist, and right now PF's seems to be missing.

RFLS

2013-05-12, 10:46 PM

Really, those three sentences summarize my opinion on the matter, and almost nothing you have said responds to it. You just keep incoherently jumping around and making up responses to stuff I didn't say.
The paladin is a partially magical class. This is consistent with both its fluff and its crunch. For the ranger, you could easily suppose that it gets its magic from nature like the druid (if, on the other hand, you reframed the ranger's fluff fro your homebrew setting to exclude this possibility, then I would expect it to lose spellcasting.)

For the monk........really? Yes, I think the monk is a horribly built class. That has virtually nothing to do with the letters "(su)".

...Warblade's disciplines are entirely nonmagical. Completely. The class has no access to magic. Crusader has one discipline that has some maneuvers that are tagged (Su). Swordsage is the only class with disciplines that have a large number of Su maneuvers. Its fluff is explicit in explaining that this is intentional.

You still haven't explained why you have it in your head that all three classes are magical. I've explained that they're not. Unless you expect a discipline-by-discipline, maneuver-by-maneuver breakdown, I'd like some attempt at a refutation to the following statements:

The Warblade is completely non-magical.
The Crusader is barely magical. Certainly less magical than a Paladin, which it is clearly, through fluff and crunch, meant to replace.
The Swordsage is intended to have pseudo-magical abilities. This is explicit in its fluff.

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 10:49 PM

Swordsages Su Abilities/Abilities ratio is actually lower than Monk's.

I hate monks.

olentu

2013-05-12, 10:50 PM

Or a sorcerer who can cast almost every wizard spell (which is basically the same as a spontaneous wizard):smallsmile:
Then again, I don't think saying "PF isn't balanced" is a point in favor of 3.5, since neither is balanced. It is a point in favor of another system entirely.

Not everyone values balance highly but some do. So while saying pathfinder is not balanced is not a point in favor of 3.5 it does however remove a possible point in favor of pathfinder. Then, if we are limiting ourselves to only the two, things such as available splat book resources, campaign settings, etc. will be more important factors even if balance was something favored.

137beth

2013-05-12, 10:55 PM

Unless you are trying to double progress with Ultimate Magus.

Balance is Boring. I'd rather play a fun broken game than a boring working game. DnD 3.5 is my favorite system. Subsystems, fun variety, and solid (but still broken a points) mechanics pretty much sum up what I want out of a game.

PF just isn't enough of a "fix" to justify its existence in my eyes. I like things having a reason to exist, and right now PF's seems to be missing.

As I said on another thread, I consider balance to be a plus, but something which is less significant than fun, useability, variety, and realism/immersion. That was my main issue with 4E--it sacrificed almost everything else (especially variety) for "balance." There are many kinds of games where I think 3.X might not be the best choice (at which point I usually default to my other favorite system, GURPS), but for fantasy games, I agree with you, 3.X is the best option.

Now, as for the "reason for PF to exist," I would agree that it isn't really a "fix." However, it does do something important, and that is to continue to support 3E. What 3.5 lacks, which PF has, is continuing professional support. I can make "fixes" to any system with which I am familiar via house rules and homebrew, but a big advantage to using a well established system is that other people are helping me out. WotC, let's face it, is not going to provide additional material to help 3.5 games in the near future. Paizo is. That is what I view the "purpose" of pathfinder as.

...Warblade's disciplines are entirely nonmagical. Completely. The class has no access to magic. Crusader has one discipline that has some maneuvers that are tagged (Su). Swordsage is the only class with disciplines that have a large number of Su maneuvers. Its fluff is explicit in explaining that this is intentional.

You still haven't explained why you have it in your head that all three classes are magical. I've explained that they're not. Unless you expect a discipline-by-discipline, maneuver-by-maneuver breakdown, I'd like some attempt at a refutation to the following statements:

The Warblade is completely non-magical.
The Crusader is barely magical. Certainly less magical than a Paladin, which it is clearly, through fluff and crunch, meant to replace.
The Swordsage is intended to have pseudo-magical abilities. This is explicit in its fluff.
Reread the part where I explained that when I say "magical" I do not mean "has "(su)" next to it."
I really don't see why you keep nagging at this, or any purpose in me responding. As I have already told you, I consider maneuvers to be magic-like in their mechanics, regardless of whether or not the have "su" printed next to them. And if WotC had decided to delete the sentence which specified that a wizard's spells were supernatural, I would still consider them supernatural in nature. I can't fathom the reason why you keep jumping back to the "uhhhh, it doesn't say (su)!!!" explanation for why I should be required to love ToB, when I explicitly told you in my previous post that I don't give a ****** whether something says "su"--if it is magical, then it is magical. For that matter, none of the 4e wizard's powers say "su" next to them. Does this mean that you believe the 4e wizard is not supernatural? Really, is this what you think? No?

There isn't really any reason for me to continue this "debate" with you, since
a)it isn't really related to the thread topic
b)I have already told you everything I have to say on the matter--I don't like ToB, and I have given you an explanation as to why
c)You pretty clearly aren't bothering to digest what I wrote--every response you've written seems like you are responding to some other poster that I can't see, they all criticize things I haven't said. And when I have pointed that out, you respond by making up some other crazy nonsense about what I think which has no basis in what I wrote.
d)if you can't imagine something being magical without "(su)" written next to it, that really isn't my problem, and, most importantly of all,
e)if you are incapable of having fun in a game without this one particular book, then that's not my problem, and I have no sympathy for you.

In short, I have explained my reasoning. You have completely ignored it. You have invented some ideas about what I didn't say, and then harassed me for saying things which I didn't say. So I'm just going to go back to discussing the distinctions between PF and 3.5, like this thread is about.

RFLS

2013-05-12, 10:56 PM

Swordsages Su Abilities/Abilities ratio is actually lower than Monk's.

I hate monks.

Clearly, you'd be better served playing a cleric or druid. After all, they're all Wisdom based.

Tholomyes

2013-05-12, 10:57 PM

Snowbluff

2013-05-12, 10:59 PM

Now, as for the "reason for PF to exist," I would agree that it isn't really a "fix." However, it does do something important, and that is to continue to support 3E. What 3.5 lacks, which PF has, is continuing professional support. I can make "fixes" to any system with which I am familiar via house rules and homebrew, but a big advantage to using a well established system is that other people are helping me out. WotC, let's face it, is not going to provide additional material to help 3.5 games in the near future. Paizo is. That is what I view the "purpose" of pathfinder as.
I question the value of the system still being supported. :smalltongue:

More stuff written for 3.5, rather than PF, would be nice. I really can't appreciate the material presented in PF.

Clearly, you'd be better served playing a cleric or druid. After all, they're all Wisdom based.Clearly. Monk's Wisdom uses are superior to all others.

Elderand

2013-05-12, 11:01 PM

GoodbyeSoberDay

2013-05-12, 11:04 PM

So... because it doesn't provide enough of an improvement, it's not worth existing? Despite all the things it did improve, like skill consolidation and fixing the stupidity that 3.5 had with class/cross-class growth disparity... Or fixing Multiclass XP penalties... Yeah, I feel like any improvement is "a reason to exist"Those are reasons for house rules to exist, not a new system. Also, the changes aren't so great and far-reaching (and even always good) that I'd recommend PF as the house rules to replace standard 3.5 rules.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-05-12, 11:05 PM

Elderand

2013-05-12, 11:08 PM

Both arguments are being made based on crunch as far as I can tell.

Asside from the part where it's specificly claimed that you have to ignore the fluff of ToB to be able to call it a magic system ?

However, your complaint is leveled directly against it by pointing out that many maneuvers have effects that are similar to spells, or that target defenses other than AC. You completely ignore the fluff provided within the maneuvers in favor of this interpretation.

Tholomyes

2013-05-12, 11:12 PM

Those are reasons for house rules to exist, not a new system. Also, the changes aren't so great and far-reaching (and even always good) that I'd recommend PF as the house rules to replace standard 3.5 rules.

Maybe it's not the right house rules to replace 3.5 rules, but they're the house-rules that exist as a system, and they're better than 3.5's standard rules in many aspects.

Though, to be fair, I don't think 3.5 honestly deserves to be played. Nor does 4e. Nor, honestly does PF. But these three are the go-to systems, and honestly, they dominate the market so much that often times, you're stuck with one of these three, and of these three, PF is the best, but none of them are good.

I'd love to play (as my standard) a high-fantasy system that's not one of these three, but it's hard enough to get people to agree on which of these to play, and it's almost impossible when you start introducing lesser known systems, unless everyone is on board.

137beth

2013-05-12, 11:19 PM

I question the value of the system still being supported.

More stuff written for 3.5, rather than PF, would be nice. I really can't appreciate the material presented in PF.
I don't really see how it makes much difference. Most groups have their own collection of house rules, so they have to adapt all published material to those rules. For new PF material, you can (frequently) just remove the Paize-house rules when you apply your own. Yea, there will be some times when PF material will not apply to your game, but this happens with almost any RPG. Just don't buy the stuff that doesn't work in your game:smalltongue:

Clearly. Monk's Wisdom uses are superior to all others.
Nuh uh! Obviously, the commoner gets way more out of wisdom than the monk. I mean, the commoner doesn't even have ANY class features which function without wisdom!

RFLS

2013-05-12, 11:22 PM

I find it terribly funny that the people howling about ToB not being magic by virtue of it's fluff are all too willing to ignore the fluff of the witch so they can claim it's near identical to a wizard

That'd be me. Glad I caught this, I almost missed it. Quote or tag me next time. Don't be so passive.

My arguments this far have been this:

2 of the 3 classes in Tome of Battle are entirely or almost entirely non-magical. Their crunch supports this. So does the fluff. Tome of Battle not being PF, archetypes don't enter into it.

The witch and the wizard have analogous class abilities that could reasonably be exchanged for each other. This is what archetypes are for. Additionally, archetypes quite often impact the fluff of a class. Witch would be a large fluff change, but I'm certain I could find a larger one contained within a published archetype.

Finally, if you'd read my posts carefully, you'll see that I expressed doubt over whether witch should actually be an archetype. I was explaining the position of another Playgrounder who'd been dogpiled.

Elderand

2013-05-12, 11:39 PM

I don't think the crunch of ToB is actually supporting a non magic interpretation. I find it extremely similar to spellcasting in how it's handled.
I don't mean it's actually magic because of it, I'm saying they didn't move far enough from standard dnd mechanics to be able to clearly say it's different.

I do have an exemple of thing being done differently enough while still being purely martial in nature. The token system in iron heroes. That to me is clearly different enough from the magic system (both standard and then one in iron heroes) to say whitout a doubt that yes, that's not a variant of the magic system. (Altough being a variant of the magic system isn't a bad thing, makes it easier to learn)

I don't agree with the idea the witch could have been just an archetype of the wizard, it has too many options to be an archetype. I could see an argument for the witch being an alternate class of the wizard, like the ninja, samurai and antipaladin. But even then I think the witch is more developped in it's own right than those.

RFLS

2013-05-12, 11:47 PM

I don't think the crunch of ToB is actually supporting a non magic interpretation. I find it extremely similar to spellcasting in how it's handled.
I don't mean it's actually magic because of it, I'm saying they didn't move far enough from standard dnd mechanics to be able to clearly say it's different.

Can you perhaps provide an example of a maneuver, set of maneuvers, or stance that's overly magical? I've mentioned already that Shadow Hand and Desert Wind are explicitly, in fluff and crunch, magical in nature, so perhaps something from one of the other disciplines.

I feel as though most of the other maneuvers rely on "make a skill check in addition to your attack roll to add <X> effect," which actually seems very dissimilar to magic to me.

I don't agree with the idea the witch could have been just an archetype of the wizard, it has too many options to be an archetype. I could see an argument for the witch being an alternate class of the wizard, like the ninja, samurai and antipaladin.

I could get behind that. That sounds more sensible to me than separate class or archetype, to be honest.

Frosty

2013-05-12, 11:50 PM

The Witch is too different to be an archetype. I guess I wouldn't mind if it were an alternative class to wizard, but to be honest it works perfectly *well* as its own class right now, so why bother trying to change that? It would have literally zero effect on the games we play on this forums. I mean, who multiclasses Witch with Wizard anyways outside of gestalt games and even then it's be rare.

Scow2

2013-05-12, 11:55 PM

As I said on another thread, I consider balance to be a plus, but something which is less significant than fun, useability, variety, and realism/immersion. That was my main issue with 4E--it sacrificed almost everything else (especially variety) for "balance." There are many kinds of games where I think 3.X might not be the best choice (at which point I usually default to my other favorite system, GURPS), but for fantasy games, I agree with you, 3.X is the best option.

Now, as for the "reason for PF to exist," I would agree that it isn't really a "fix." However, it does do something important, and that is to continue to support 3E. What 3.5 lacks, which PF has, is continuing professional support. I can make "fixes" to any system with which I am familiar via house rules and homebrew, but a big advantage to using a well established system is that other people are helping me out. WotC, let's face it, is not going to provide additional material to help 3.5 games in the near future. Paizo is. That is what I view the "purpose" of pathfinder as.

Reread the part where I explained that when I say "magical" I do not mean "has "(su)" next to it."
I really don't see why you keep nagging at this, or any purpose in me responding. As I have already told you, I consider maneuvers to be magic-like in their mechanics, regardless of whether or not the have "su" printed next to them. And if WotC had decided to delete the sentence which specified that a wizard's spells were supernatural, I would still consider them supernatural in nature. I can't fathom the reason why you keep jumping back to the "uhhhh, it doesn't say (su)!!!" explanation for why I should be required to love ToB, when I explicitly told you in my previous post that I don't give a ****** whether something says "su"--if it is magical, then it is magical. For that matter, none of the 4e wizard's powers say "su" next to them. Does this mean that you believe the 4e wizard is not supernatural? Really, is this what you think? No?

There isn't really any reason for me to continue this "debate" with you, since
a)it isn't really related to the thread topic
b)I have already told you everything I have to say on the matter--I don't like ToB, and I have given you an explanation as to why
c)You pretty clearly aren't bothering to digest what I wrote--every response you've written seems like you are responding to some other poster that I can't see, they all criticize things I haven't said. And when I have pointed that out, you respond by making up some other crazy nonsense about what I think which has no basis in what I wrote.
d)if you can't imagine something being magical without "(su)" written next to it, that really isn't my problem, and, most importantly of all,
e)if you are incapable of having fun in a game without this one particular book, then that's not my problem, and I have no sympathy for you.

In short, I have explained my reasoning. You have completely ignored it. You have invented some ideas about what I didn't say, and then harassed me for saying things which I didn't say. So I'm just going to go back to discussing the distinctions between PF and 3.5, like this thread is about.
Tome of Battle has a very few number of superficial resemblances to a magic system. However, it's strictly martial - Although the abilities are classified by 'level', they are infinite-use, all resolved through weapon attacks (Attacking full AC, with few exceptions, and benefiting from Weapon feats and the like, and deal Weapon damage), and nonmagical in nature. What they DO is address the problem of mundane characters playing by a completely different set of rules than everyone else.

And on the matter of Pathfinder vs. 3.5.

I'm glad they got rid of Blinking Flask Rogues and other absurd builds, and reigned in power attack. I wish they had allowed ranged rogues to get easier sneak attacks, though. I also like the buff to spontaneous casters, and giving them actual class features on top of access to the magic system. I DON'T like the class features they gave them (Tactical teleportation at low levels? Didn't they learn anything from Abjurant Jaunt cheese?)

However, CMD+CMB is a godawful mess, as others have noticed. And while they buffed the individual classes, some classes got buffed more than others (Wizard and Cleric, notably), the mechanics behind a bunch of buffs got nerfed... and there's a serious case of Power Creep for mundanes - but monsters crept a lot further than the melee classes did. In 3.5, all but the most straight-up melee beatsticks (Such as Giants and Animals) had a CR equal to or less than their HD, and more magically-empowered monsters frequently had FEWER HD than their CR. In Pathfinder, most monsters have 25% more HD than their CR - and while melee has more options, they DON'T have more Raw Power to overcome the improved saves, BAB, CMB, HP, and CMD of the monsters.

137beth

2013-05-13, 12:09 AM

I wish they had allowed ranged rogues to get easier sneak attacks, though.
This was one of my biggest complaints about the 3E rogue, and I was fairly annoyed that PF didn't fix it.

However, CMD+CMB is a godawful mess, as others have noticed. And while they buffed the individual classes, some classes got buffed more than others (Wizard and Cleric, notably), the mechanics behind a bunch of buffs got nerfed... and there's a serious case of Power Creep for mundanes - but monsters crept a lot further than the melee classes did.
I like the simplification of CMB/CMD, although it doesn't work very well as written. I think a lot of it would work better if you just gave the mundane classes a boost to their CMB, to make combat maneuvers more viable.

The Witch is too different to be an archetype. I guess I wouldn't mind if it were an alternative class to wizard, but to be honest it works perfectly *well* as its own class right now, so why bother trying to change that? It would have literally zero effect on the games we play on this forums. I mean, who multiclasses Witch with Wizard anyways outside of gestalt games and even then it's be rare.
The only thing that is similar about the witch and wizard is their spells. Other than that (which, admittedly, is rather large), they have a grand total of 0 class features in common, completely different fluff, and a different spell list. The only thing they have in common is that they are both full casters based on INT. That is about as similar as the druid and cleric are--both full casters based on WIS, but no other similar class features.

The witch also has its own archetypes, which are nice.

RFLS

2013-05-13, 12:22 AM

Reread the part where I explained that when I say "magical" I do not mean "has "(su)" next to it."
I really don't see why you keep nagging at this, or any purpose in me responding. As I have already told you, I consider maneuvers to be magic-like in their mechanics, regardless of whether or not the have "su" printed next to them.

In what way is "Make an attack roll and a skill check" mechanically similar to any sort of spell? And yes, I mean any spell.

If you're going to try to be dismissive, at least put a little effort into thinking out your points of view instead of dancing them away and then refusing to discuss anymore.

TuggyNE

2013-05-13, 12:33 AM

One thing I like about PF that I don't think anyone's mentioned so far is the changes they made to some of the types; Giant is now a subtype, for example, as is Elemental. I do wish they'd gone a bit further and made Undead a subtype (with most undead being Constructs, presumably, but some retaining their previous type, like Vampires).

Of course, this is relatively minor, but it is nice. :smallsmile:

GoodbyeSoberDay

2013-05-13, 12:47 AM

Maybe it's not the right house rules to replace 3.5 rules, but they're the house-rules that exist as a system, and they're better than 3.5's standard rules in many aspects.

Though, to be fair, I don't think 3.5 honestly deserves to be played. Nor does 4e. Nor, honestly does PF. But these three are the go-to systems, and honestly, they dominate the market so much that often times, you're stuck with one of these three, and of these three, PF is the best, but none of them are good.

I'd love to play (as my standard) a high-fantasy system that's not one of these three, but it's hard enough to get people to agree on which of these to play, and it's almost impossible when you start introducing lesser known systems, unless everyone is on board.If we're talking about the best theoretical system, there are better house rules than PF in GitP's homebrew section. If we're going to delve into at-the-table practicality, then the biggest problem with PF is that people who play PF don't want to use 3.5 content. That kills PF for me. The rare occasions I've seen 3.PF it worked pretty well, although there were some nagging legacy issues. Such is the problem with house rules in general.

On another note, the only thing that makes ToB similar to spellcasting is that they get to choose from a large list of abilities that allows them to gain a modicum of versatility. They are useful in more than two situations? SPELLCASTORZ

JoshuaZ

2013-05-13, 12:57 AM

If we're going to delve into at-the-table practicality, then the biggest problem with PF is that people who play PF don't want to use 3.5 content. That kills PF for me.

Interesting. I've by and large had the exact opposite experience with people being more than willing to bring in 3.5 content with appropriate modifications. This may be very much group specific.

On another note, the only thing that makes ToB similar to spellcasting is that they get to choose from a large list of abilities that allows them to gain a modicum of versatility.

That's part of it. But the system as a whole is clearly modeled after spellcasting in other ways. Having 9 levels, and having the save DCs depend as they do on the level, are all exactly the same as spells. So there's some definite mechanical similarity beyond the basic aspect.

olentu

2013-05-13, 01:02 AM

That's part of it. But the system as a whole is clearly modeled after spellcasting in other ways. Having 9 levels, and having the save DCs depend as they do on the level, are all exactly the same as spells. So there's some definite mechanical similarity beyond the basic aspect.

If it had 8 levels and the save DC was individually assigned to each maneuver would that make things suddenly not spellcasting.

WhatBigTeeth

2013-05-13, 01:05 AM

RFLS

2013-05-13, 01:12 AM

I get the impression that the "magical crunch" people are complaining about has less to do with (Su) abilities or melee characters doing fun things and more to do with the nearly vancian system of readied maneuvers, which you can jump through some mental aerobics to justify, but which don't really reflect real people interacting with the real world, unless you handwave it as magic or funky metagame limitations of some sort.

(Maybe refreshing maneuvers means catching the character's breath, but if that's the issue, why can he still use the other 5 maneuvers he has readied but not expended? Or maybe it's supposed to model attacking with a variety of methods to catch the opponent off-guard, but if that were the case, a warblade spending a couple seconds waggling his sword around isn't going to make the opponent forget the last attack he made.)

This has been explained in other places before, and by people more qualified than I, but essentially, readying maneuvers represents setting yourself up with a particular grip and stance and position to unleash Emerald Razor or whatever. According to some of the martial artists around here, it's a decent representation of how martial arts combat flows.

Hopefully one of them tags in to explain it better than I can.

Infernalbargain

2013-05-13, 01:15 AM

olentu

2013-05-13, 01:20 AM

JoshuaZ

2013-05-13, 01:21 AM

137beth

2013-05-13, 01:29 AM

One matter that drives the point home for me was the level 20 wiz vs level 1000 monk thread. In 3.5, that level 20 wiz can beat a level 1000 monk (there's a thread somewhere here describing how). I challenge these boards to make a level 20 wiz using only PF material that can beat a level 1000 PF monk. If these boards cannot succeed, then I will admit that PF did not do anything to even mitigate the caster - martial imbalance.

Whoever made the wizard 20 vs. Monk 1000 thread wasn't really familiar with epic level play:
If we extend the WBL trends based on treasure per encounter in the ELH, the WBL for level 1000 is roughly 8.8*10^46. WBL increases much faster than any other class feature, so really the only class-related thing that matters past ~level 35-40 are:
--What kinds of magic items you can use. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that anyone can take a single rank in UMD cross-class, and then skill-boosting magic items cost the same for everyone.
--Whether you have access to epic spells

That's about it. A level 1000 commoner is better than a level 950 wizard, because the wizard's class features are negligible compared to the enormous difference in wealth.
The level 1000 monk has enough gold to duplicate every spell on the wizard list from magic items, at a much higher caster level, metemagiced into extremity, without worrying about the cost, since he gets substantially more gold from a single level-appropriate encounter.

I get the impression that the "magical crunch" people are complaining about has less to do with (Su) abilities or melee characters doing fun things and more to do with the nearly vancian system of readied maneuvers, which you can jump through some mental aerobics to justify, but which don't really reflect real people interacting with the real world, unless you handwave it as magic or funky metagame limitations of some sort.

(Maybe refreshing maneuvers means catching the character's breath, but if that's the issue, why can he still use the other 5 maneuvers he has readied but not expended? Or maybe it's supposed to model attacking with a variety of methods to catch the opponent off-guard, but if that were the case, a warblade spending a couple seconds waggling his sword around isn't going to make the opponent forget the last attack he made.)
I don't know if this is the same issue other people on this thread are having, but what you just described is the main issue I have with ToB. This isn't a limitation of the system in general, since there are plenty of homebrewed purely martial fighter/monk/rogue fixes which have interesting mechanics but use no magic-like subsystems. It is mainly a "WotC wasn't very good at designing martial classes.

This message is hidden because RFLS is on your ignore list.
Just a heads-up, I won't be seeing your posts, RFLS.

RFLS

2013-05-13, 01:32 AM

Just a heads-up, I won't be seeing your posts, RFLS.

*sigh* Obnoxious. Whatever. Can anyone else field my question? How is attack roll+skill check too similar to spells? Is it really just the 9 levels of maneuver that throws people?

....also, how do you ignore someone? I could probably drop my BP by a few points with that.

Infernalbargain

2013-05-13, 01:35 AM

For ease of simplicity, just assume he continues to gain feats, saves, BAB, stats, HP, and any class features that scale at a regular rate continue to do so at pre-epic progression and to top it off, he has no money.

olentu

2013-05-13, 01:39 AM

*sigh* Obnoxious. Whatever. Can anyone else field my question? How is attack roll+skill check too similar to spells? Is it really just the 9 levels of maneuver that throws people?

....also, how do you ignore someone? I could probably drop my BP by a few points with that.

Unfortunately I am equally unable to comprehend the similarity, but I may be able to help with the ignore list. If you view someone's profile there should be a link on the right side just above the signature that adds them to your ignore list. I haven't ignored anyone as of yet so I am unsure if it works or if it is the most efficient method, but that seems like it should do the trick.

StreamOfTheSky

2013-05-13, 01:40 AM

Well, much as I like ToB, I do think things were "under-reported" as being magical.

All the SH teleporting maneuvers lack Su tags, for example.

Iron Heart Surge, as clarified by cust. serv., can shout down area spell effects entirely. It may not have a (Su) tag, but by George that's clearly pretty magical.

IIRC, there were a lot of other random head scratchers that were not named as Su, either. Like the counter that turns you incorporeal, most/all? of the alignment "aura" stances of devoted spirit along with several of its healing strikes, etc...

Most of the maneuvers ARE non-magical, but I do think there are a fair bit that are magical, whether the writers made it official or not.

RFLS

2013-05-13, 01:44 AM

Unfortunately I am equally unable to comprehend the similarity, but I may be able to help with the ignore list. If you view someone's profile there should be a link on the right side just above the signature that adds them to your ignore list. I haven't ignored anyone as of yet so I am unsure if it works or if it is the most efficient method, but that seems like it should do the trick.

MAN that feels good. Thank you.

Well, much as I like ToB, I do think things were "under-reported" as being magical.

All the SH teleporting maneuvers lack Su tags, for example.

Iron Heart Surge, as clarified by cust. serv., can shout down area spell effects entirely. It may not have a (Su) tag, but by George that's clearly pretty magical.

IIRC, there were a lot of other random head scratchers that were not named as Su, either. Like the counter that turns you ethereal most/all? of the alignment "aura" stances of devoted spirit along with several of its healing strikes.

Most of the maneuvers ARE non-magical, but I do think there are a fair bit that are magical, whether the writers made it official or not.

Yeah, there was some erroneous tagging going on there, but if you'll check out my posts, I called out Shadow Hand as being a magical discipline and Devoted Spirit as being about half-and half.

And....I mean...come on. Iron Heart Surge is just shooting fish in a barrel. Especially with the custserv ruling that buffed it. I'm not sure I really want to listen to his rulings anymore...

StreamOfTheSky

2013-05-13, 01:58 AM

A lot of it comes down to what a person sees as magical, too. A lot of narrow cases. For example, my favorite strike in the book is Lightning Throw, a totally badass line attack w/ reflex for half (I loves me some attacking defenses other than AC!) where you unerringly throw your weapon so that it strikes everyone in a big line then unfailingly returns to your hand by the end of the standard action. Supposedly represented purely as a result of "martial skill."

I'm willing to believe that a level 15+ warrior could do such a thing by his own training and throwing ability alone.

I could also see others seeing that as impossible without magical aid.

Again, a maneuver from the Iron Heart discipline, the one that's supposed to represent "pure martial skill" and the one unique discipline to the "least magical / 'completely nonmagical' ToB class."

AttilaTheGeek

2013-05-13, 07:19 AM

Just a heads-up, I won't be seeing your posts, RFLS.

That was uncalled for.

I think a lot of the "ToB=magic" sentiment comes from the fact that "maneuver level", "initiator level" and "initiation action" directly mirror the terms "spell level", "caster level" and "casting time".

Chained Birds

2013-05-13, 08:07 AM

That was uncalled for.

I think a lot of the "ToB=magic" sentiment comes from the fact that "maneuver level", "initiator level" and "initiation action" directly mirror the terms "spell level", "caster level" and "casting time".

I wouldn't mind seeing a PF version of ToB, but instead of making new classes the ToB maneuvers appear as new Archetypes for Fighter (Iron Heart), Paladin (Devoted Spirit), Monk (Setting Sun), Rogue (Shadow Hand), Ranger (Tiger Claw), and Cavalier (White Raven). As well as maybe a racial version for Dwarves and Kobolds (Fighter/ Stone Dragon) and Ifrit (Rogue/ Desert Wind).

There can even be a Psychic Warrior (Diamond Mind).

MukkTB

2013-05-13, 08:55 AM

Tome of Battle has some schools of maneuvers that are magic (shadow hand) and some that are not (iron heart). This is perfectly in keeping with Paladins and Rangers having some magic and Su, while the Fighter and Barbarian are straight mundane.

The biggest weakness PF only has over 3.5 only is the loss of ToB. ToB makes melee quite fun.

The witch is an odd class but it has enough to differentiate it from a wizard that they can coexist. The summoner and alchemist strike me a weirder. The synthesist summoner seems to recreate some of the Druid problems. The alchemist just seems odd to me because Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is not where I first think of when someone says "fantasy alchemist." I don't have major complaints about either class. They just seema bit off. On the other hand the magus is quite fun, and I'm a big fan of the Inquisitor.

PF fixes a couple things. The skill system is a clear improvement. The core problem with balance remains though. In fact, it seems that the Paizo guys were traumatized by optimizers or something. Not only do they have a strong deficiency in its understanding, but they are hostile to people who bring it up in detail. You hear stories about people getting banned for placing technical arguments on their forums and other things of that nature.

Elderand

2013-05-13, 09:33 AM

Again, disclaimer, I'm not saying ToB is magic or is not, just that the system is too close to the magic system to be clearly considered something different.

so as to why it's similar to the magic system:

Initiator level is more or less caster level. Granted it would be hard to have things scaling whitout it.

Maneuver known readied is analogue to spell known and prepared. yes you can recover maneuver more easily than spell. But it doesn't make sense when one think about it in term of martial ability.
Martial artists use techniques mid combat based on their judgement, they don't have to select from the technique they know at the start of the day and be unable to use anything else unless they spend time to change them. You know who does that ? Spellcaster. They may know all the spell but can only prepare a subset of them unless they change them.
Worse you can only use the maneuver you readied as many time as you readied it ? That would be like a martial artist who can kick : once because he only mentaly prepared himself to kick once. That doesn't work for martial ability, it's how vancian magic work.

9 level of maneuver. Just like you have 9 level of spells. Why ? There is no reason for that, at all. 10 level would work much better, 9 is just an ugly number to work with and is clearly a magical holdover form older editions.

As I said before, it does make learning and using this system easier since it's similar to vancian magic. But it also reinforce the notion (erronous or not) that it is magic.

Compare to iron heroes : the token system is entirely different from magic and does give a real feeling of it being martial tricks and tactics when compared to the quasi magical/wuxia stuff from tome of battle. Of course they function on completely different level of power since iron heroes does not need to compete with caster like ToB does. But it does show that a martial system can be done differently enough to not be seen as vancian magic tweaked for melee.

137beth

2013-05-13, 11:33 AM

That was uncalled for.
That is what the ignore button is for.

I wouldn't mind seeing a PF version of ToB, but instead of making new classes the ToB maneuvers appear as new Archetypes for Fighter (Iron Heart), Paladin (Devoted Spirit), Monk (Setting Sun), Rogue (Shadow Hand), Ranger (Tiger Claw), and Cavalier (White Raven). As well as maybe a racial version for Dwarves and Kobolds (Fighter/ Stone Dragon) and Ifrit (Rogue/ Desert Wind).

There can even be a Psychic Warrior (Diamond Mind).

I could go for that--it eliminates the obnoxiousness of "okay, so these classes fill the same role as some core classes and are better in every way!", by making ToB classes part of the core classes.

Chained Birds

2013-05-13, 12:21 PM

I could go for that--it eliminates the obnoxiousness of "okay, so these classes fill the same role as some core classes and are better in every way!", by making ToB classes part of the core classes.

Though I'm not 100% sure what would be traded out.

Rogue: Removing some Sneak Attack progression after level 1 and rogue talents at certain levels (like 6, 12, and 18).

Fighter: Weapon Training and/or Armor Training; maybe Bravery too.

Monk: Remove Flurry of Blows and Still Mind.

Paladin: Removal of spell casting and perhaps their Bond.

Ranger: Lock them into two-weapon fighting style, remove spell casting, and perhaps remove their animal companion.

Cavalier: Remove their mount and banner, in addition to any of the mount related class features.

----

Perhaps Barbarian can gain (Stone Dragon) now that I think about it.

Edit: This is actually really off subject, so I'll probably make a thread about it later. :smallwink:

HyperInferno

2013-05-13, 01:48 PM

Personally, I love pathfinder, and I love 3.5.

I'd like to mention a few points, mostly in response to stuff Snowbluff has said.

First off, yes, the gunslinger is a bit pointless. Why? Because it was never meant to be its own class originally.

Ultimate combat originally introduced 3 classes that were "alternate classes". Not entirely new classes, but changed things a bit too much to be considered an archetype. Gunslinger was an alternate fighter. Ninja was an alternate rogue. Samurai was an alternate cavalier. Fans clamored to have the gunslinger fleshed out to be its own class, and Paizo just took off the alternate title without actually changing it much.

Summoner is an odd case. This is a class that Paizo has admitted to rushing out the door, and quite a few Paizo writers have deemed it as a "mistake".

I mostly enjoy Paizo's adventure paths, and thus play whatever system the adventure path is written for (PF for newer ones, 3.5e for the older ones).

krai

2013-05-13, 02:41 PM

I have a friend who likes playing martial classes and did not like the ToB for the "too much like spell casting" reason.
I talked to him about this and his reason for that opinion is that the bookkeeping of being a ToB character is similar to the bookkeeping of playing a spellcaster. The reason that some people play martial classes is that they don't like the work it takes to read through lists of spells to build their characters.
ToB is a good way to even the playing field between the martial characters and spellcasters, but in some cases it is not what those players wanted.
This player likes the pathfinder updates to martial classes, he feels they add to the versatility and power of the classes without adding much work to character generation.

I have played both 3.5 and Pathfinder and I like both. I now play pathfinder because I like the fact that they made it so that classes have fewer dead levels. Most of what was added are silly minor things, but those silly minor things made leveling feel a lot more exciting.
Another thing I like with pathfinder is that there are a lot of partial casters(casters whose casting goes to 6th). Most of those are solid fun to play Tier 3 classes.

RFLS

2013-05-13, 02:47 PM

This player likes the pathfinder updates to martial classes, he feels they add to the versatility and power of the classes without adding much work to character generation.

...I mean, not really. Fighter still hits stuff with a stick, and only does that. He just has bigger numbers. The monk is doing the same stuff, but with...bigger numbers. The ranger is doing largely the same thing, but with, wait for it....bigger numbers. Rogue's got the same numbers, some new tricks, and a nerf to it from the content it relies on. Paladin's really the only martial class that got a versatility buff, and even that was not really big. At least it's a playable class now, I suppose.

Can you ask him what he means by versatility?

Ehra

2013-05-13, 02:52 PM

That is what the ignore button is for.

No, I'm pretty sure "nya, nya, I have you on ignore and I'm not going to reply to you even though I just did anyway!" isn't the intent of the ignore button. That's pretty much the definition of trolling.

RFLS

2013-05-13, 03:07 PM

No, I'm pretty sure "nya, nya, I have you on ignore and I'm not going to reply to you even though I just did anyway!" isn't the intent of the ignore button. That's pretty much the definition of trolling.

Meh, just let it go. If he's incapable of answering my questions or responding in a mature fashion, I'm not overly upset if I never hear from him again. It's not a big deal. Besides, there's other interesting stuff going on in this thread. ./popcorn.

Amnestic

2013-05-13, 03:35 PM

Summoner is an odd case. This is a class that Paizo has admitted to rushing out the door, and quite a few Paizo writers have deemed it as a "mistake".

They've got this wonderful thing called 'errata' where they can make adjustments to classes. If Paizo admit to rushing the summoner and a number of writers have deemed it as a "mistake"...then why haven't they fixed it? The Advanced Player's Guide was last updated almost three years ago according to Paizo's store site. :/

137beth

2013-05-13, 04:32 PM

They've got this wonderful thing called 'errata' where they can make adjustments to classes. If Paizo admit to rushing the sorcerer and a number of writers have deemed it as a "mistake"...then why haven't they fixed it? The Advanced Player's Guide was last updated almost three years ago according to Paizo's store site. :/

According to the PFSRD, there were only two significant changes to the summoner from errata:
One fixed a nonfunctioning ability (making the already powerful class even stronger)...
The other removed a "unlimited Eidolon health" cheese/loophole.
Paizo has expressed on several occasions that significantly rewriting classes is something that they don't want to do in errata, and which will get relegated to the next edition. So they might rewrite the summoner in PF 2.0....that's a big "might," though.

navar100

2013-05-13, 05:40 PM

Excuse me.

1) "That's an opinion. You may not have those."

2) It's PF vs. DnD 3.5. What Stream has is a comparison of the 2. He is in the right.

3) Whether or not people enjoy Pathfinder, ignoring the issues is not helping anyone.

I'm not the one proverbially banging my head against the wall because he can't convince people who like Pathfinder not to like it because of his angst about rogues.

Snowbluff

2013-05-13, 05:47 PM

I'm not the one proverbially banging my head against the wall because he can't convince people who like Pathfinder not to like it because of his angst about rogues.

Should he be like you? Your comments do not seem particularly constructive or conducive to a productive conversation. You seem to think the system is entirely flawless, despite the evidence against it being perfect.

Nothing. Nada. I'm perfectly fine with it. My group enjoys the game. We have a great time. We have no issues.

navar100

2013-05-13, 06:07 PM

Should he be like you? Your comments do not seem particularly constructive or conducive to a productive conversation. You seem to think the system is entirely flawless, despite the evidence against it being perfect.

Oh horrors! I must be having BadWrongFun because I actually like the game as is, do not have all this enraged angst about it as some people here, and having a grand time in my gaming group. How dare I!

Snowbluff

2013-05-13, 06:18 PM

Oh horrors! I must be having BadWrongFun because I actually like the game as is, do not have all this enraged angst about it as some people here, and having a grand time in my gaming group. How dare I!

Which is exactly the sort of post I am talking about.

I mean, I dislike a lot of things about a lot things, but I at least I can admit when my favorite system has issues.

AttilaTheGeek

2013-05-13, 06:30 PM

I mean, I dislike a lot of things about a lot things, but I at least I can admit when my favorite system has issues.

What Navar is saying is that his table doesn't have those issues, not that those issues don't exist. That's his contribution to the discussion, saying "these issues are less bad at my table than on this forum". Just because it's not critical of either system doesn't mean it's not constructive.

13_CBS

2013-05-13, 06:31 PM

Oh horrors! I must be having BadWrongFun because I actually like the game as is, do not have all this enraged angst about it as some people here, and having a grand time in my gaming group. How dare I!

Hold on, did Snowbluff and others who share his opinion ever explicitly say having fun with Pathfinder was wrong? :smallconfused: I only recall them saying that Pathfinder is a flawed game, and a disappointment when viewed as a game that was "3.5 but fixed"--which isn't quite the same thing as "if you enjoy Pathfinder you're wrong/stupid/whatever".

GoodbyeSoberDay

2013-05-13, 06:54 PM

I'm not the one proverbially banging my head against the wall because he can't convince people who like Pathfinder not to like it because of his angst about rogues.You think people are trying to convince each other, not just arguing for the sake of arguing, on the internet?

Maybe you shouldn't take every insult hurled at PF as a personal affront to your gaming experience.

Side note: Group > System

Snowbluff

2013-05-13, 06:59 PM

You think people are trying to convince each other, not just arguing for the sake of arguing, on the internet?
Hey, I contest that point! :smallwink:

Side note: Group > System
Well, yes, but we are talking about systems here. I've been known to play 4e and PF, despite disliking both systems, and enjoying it because the groups were good. Well, not half the PF games. Those usually end in arguments. We could open a new thread comparing our groups, if you want.

137beth

2013-05-13, 07:47 PM

You think people are trying to convince each other, not just arguing for the sake of arguing, on the internet?
Of course, every single thread on the internet has ended with one person explicitly stating:

You guys are right, my initial ideas were foolish. I completely agree with <opinion I previously disagreed with> and retract anything I said about it. Let's go get coffee now!

Hold on, did Snowbluff and others who share his opinion ever explicitly say having fun with Pathfinder was wrong? I only recall them saying that Pathfinder is a flawed game, and a disappointment when viewed as a game that was "3.5 but fixed"--which isn't quite the same thing as "if you enjoy Pathfinder you're wrong/stupid/whatever".
I also recall them saying it has no reason to exist. But point taken.

Well, yes, but we are talking about systems here. I've been known to play 4e and PF, despite disliking both systems, and enjoying it because the groups were good. Well, not half the PF games. Those usually end in arguments. We could open a new thread comparing our groups, if you want.
Since most of us haven't played in each others' groups, it might be hard to convince each other of anything. So yea, that sounds like a good idea (unless you want a debate in which one side concedes...)

13_CBS

2013-05-13, 08:00 PM

I also recall them saying it has no reason to exist. But point taken.

I believe that was more to reinforce their point that, as a game that was supposed to "fix" 3.5's problems, it didn't fix enough things to truly justify the existence of a whole new game. A common critique of Pathfinder is that at most it feels like it's somewhere between an extensive homebrew and a whole new game.

That still does not mean they think that enjoying Pathfinder makes you wrong (though it looks like we're all clear on that now).

navar100

2013-05-13, 08:01 PM

Hold on, did Snowbluff and others who share his opinion ever explicitly say having fun with Pathfinder was wrong? :smallconfused: I only recall them saying that Pathfinder is a flawed game, and a disappointment when viewed as a game that was "3.5 but fixed"--which isn't quite the same thing as "if you enjoy Pathfinder you're wrong/stupid/whatever".

StreamOfTheSky has been taking an active campaign lately bashing Pathfinder and laments that he can't convince people who like the system how wrong they are to do so and not agree to his problems with the system of spellcasters getting stuff and rogues suck donkey.

137beth

2013-05-13, 08:04 PM

13_CBS

2013-05-13, 08:09 PM

StreamOfTheSky has been taking an active campaign lately bashing Pathfinder and laments that he can't convince people who like the system how wrong they are to do so and not agree to his problems with the system of spellcasters getting stuff and rogues suck donkey.

It looks like what set this off between you and Stream is this:

Ok, I'm sick of posting lengthy explanations of this crap, I feel like I've been doing it a lot lately, so I will just state:

- Rogues were nerfed in PF
- Monks were nerfed in PF
- All noncasters lost options, had them nerfed badly, or were forced to wait till higher levels and/or pay more feats to get those options
- Casters were buffed, blatantly, and the removal of *some* win spells but not *all* win spells did diddly squat, further eroded by the fact that paizo adds more back in with every single splat they put out

And leave it at that. No more long paragraphs, my fingers hurt and I'm starting to get the feeling people will endlessly say things like "rogues are better in PF!" no matter how much you try and demonstrate otherwise to them.

In response, you accused him of trying to impose his subjective opinion of Pathfinder on other people:

Your tastes are not other people's tastes. Your angst is not their angst. What you consider a problem others consider a feature or are indifferent. People enjoy playing Pathfinder despite your problems with it and don't need your approval.

I'm unable to detect anything that you accused Stream of in that first post, however. He gives a (pretty harsh) critique of Pathfinder, true, but nowhere does he say that someone is stupid for enjoying Pathfinder.

You could argue that he might have been implying that anyone who thinks Pathfinder fixed 3.5 is wrong, but again, I don't recall him ever saying that enjoying Pathfinder is wrong.

If Stream has indeed been trying to get people to stop playing Pathfinder, I think I've missed that on this particular thread. On another thread? Maybe, but not here.

137beth

2013-05-13, 08:17 PM

If Stream has indeed been trying to get people to stop playing Pathfinder, I think I've missed that on this particular thread. On another thread? Maybe, but not here.
I'm gonna agree with you on this one. He wasn't telling anyone not to play PF. Just that he didn't like it/it didn't do what he wanted it to do.

You could argue that he might have been implying that anyone who thinks Pathfinder fixed 3.5 is wrong, but again, I don't recall him ever saying that enjoying Pathfinder is wrong.
Good idea! You've given us yet another topic to argue about:smallbiggrin:

I think that whether or not PF "fixed" 3.5 is entirely subjective. PF made changes to 3.5. Whether those were good or bad depends on what you wanted out of the game. Which is purely opinion.

Snowbluff

2013-05-13, 08:23 PM

Yay, I am being categorized by a bunch of people with numbers in their names... is that a good thing? :smallconfused:

Good idea! You've given us yet another topic to argue about:smallbiggrin:

I think that whether or not PF "fixed" 3.5 is entirely subjective. PF made changes to 3.5. Whether those were good or bad depends on what you wanted out of the game. Which is purely opinion.
For the sake of discussion, claiming that the evidence would be subjective, and therefore inadmissible, would remove any purpose of the discussion. To paraphrase an internet game commentator, "Just because it's my opinion doesn't mean it's wrong." :smallwink:

The basis of the argument would be that the modification was supposed to fix several issues in the game, primarily the gap between casters and melee. Personally, unless Paizo published substantially weaker casters and superior melee classes, it did not meat the objective.

That'd be EXandshadow of Brainscratchcomms, I think.

Chained Birds

2013-05-13, 09:03 PM

Well, yes, but we are talking about systems here. I've been known to play 4e and PF, despite disliking both systems, and enjoying it because the groups were good. Well, not half the PF games. Those usually end in arguments. We could open a new thread comparing our groups, if you want.

If you were forced into playing either 4e or PF (Because your group was feeling up for either), which one would you prefer. And I'm not just talking about a simple 1 encounter 30 minute game, but an entire adventure path lasting at least 4-6 hours.

137beth

2013-05-13, 09:25 PM

Yay, I am being categorized by a bunch of people with numbers in their names... is that a good thing?
And we all have 1s...

If you were forced into playing either 4e or PF (Because your group was feeling up for either), which one would you prefer. And I'm not just talking about a simple 1 encounter 30 minute game, but an entire adventure path lasting at least 4-6 hours.
For a one-shot game, I'd probably prefer 4e, I can imagine one-shots working better as combat-oriented/combat-only games, which is what 4e is.
For a full-length campaign, I'd prefer pf. Or 1e. Or 2e. Or GURPS. Or something else...

Snowbluff

2013-05-13, 09:28 PM

If you were forced into playing either 4e or PF (Because your group was feeling up for either), which one would you prefer. And I'm not just talking about a simple 1 encounter 30 minute game, but an entire adventure path lasting at least 4-6 hours.

That's tough. A bunch of my PF games ended pretty poorly, and my 4e game didn't last very long before we all got too busy. Not sure if I have enough for both to make a good comparison, and it has been a while.

Most notably for PF, I played a 7th level sorcerer in a 3 man party (Sorc, gunslinger, paladin). I completed wrecked every encounter with my Giant Frog and Magical Missile tripping. The paladin got uppity about the Code rules at one point, and one village uh... 'incident' (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoodleIncident) later we were all too pissed off at each other to keep playing. We ended up playing magic instead.

For 4e, I played a couple of games under the same DM. One game I played a Paladin named Priscilla who's Cha focus, art design (I drew her awesome) and awesomeness made her so cool I'm keeping her for a story I'm writing. The other game I played a few sessions as a Ranger in a Zelda based setting. The game had quite a few new players, who had a notably easier time with 4e than they did with 3.5, which is something I have to give 4e credit for.

Chained Birds

2013-05-13, 10:19 PM

At least 4e is easy to comprehend, though the easy nature of the game is its downfall.

I've had quite a few positive and negative experiences in both PF and 3.5. I've played 4e for a few sessions, which were fun, until the battles started to drag on and everyone was just hitting with the same things over and over again (I know this is common for all D&D, but this was just annoying).

I like PF because... Well, because it is easier to build stuff in PF then 3.5, and I'm not too fond of 4e (I'd play it again, though only with a willing friend or two). I really don't have to check out dozens of books and articles to find interesting options for a concept (All on the SRD), nor do I need to multiclass and dip 4-8 times to get the desired build. PF makes things a bit simpler by not punishing a player for going more than 4 levels in a non-magical class.

I can play a level 20 Barbarian or Paladin in PF without feeling like a piece of garbage... I can't say the same for 3.5...

And of course I know that going the full 20 in a non-caster class in still non-optimal, but it is at least somewhat viable.

Snowbluff

2013-05-13, 10:27 PM

Noncasters can be plenty effective, and the loss of ToB injures PF. Noncasters as PF and 3.0 are simply not as effective as their casting counterparts.

3.5 actually provided the best options for noncaster, and casters without ninth level spells. Paladin is passable, Ranger is certainly playable (especially with ACFs), and classes like Bard, Duskblade, and Psychic Warrior work well. ToB provides a good set of material for making effective melee, and when it's not allowed, the systems provides many other options, anyway.

Honestly, I'd play Paladin 20 in 3.5. Divine, charging, and mounted combat feats make them pretty handy and competent damage dealers.

TuggyNE

2013-05-13, 10:49 PM

You think people are trying to convince each other, not just arguing for the sake of arguing, on the internet?

For what it's worth, debates almost never convince opponents*, on or off the Internet. What they can do is convince undecided bystanders. And really, that's what you should focus on.

Easy to say, hard to do. :smallsigh:

*My older brother took a class on sociology or some such in college; one of the experiments they did was to divide the class into three groups based on their opinion on some random issue: for, against, and undecided. Initially, for and against were of roughly equal sizes, and undecided was fairly large; at the end, the group of undecided was quite small, and one of the other groups had gotten a lot larger, but the other had stayed about the same.

krai

2013-05-13, 11:45 PM

...I mean, not really. Fighter still hits stuff with a stick, and only does that. He just has bigger numbers. The monk is doing the same stuff, but with...bigger numbers. The ranger is doing largely the same thing, but with, wait for it....bigger numbers. Rogue's got the same numbers, some new tricks, and a nerf to it from the content it relies on. Paladin's really the only martial class that got a versatility buff, and even that was not really big. At least it's a playable class now, I suppose.

Can you ask him what he means by versatility?

We talked and he seems to have meant in combat versatility. He liked the rage powers of the barbarian. He liked the various challenge abilities of the cavalier. He liked the expansion of the rouge special abilities that rogue talents added. He liked gunslinger's grit abilities. These abilities he felt reduce the amount of "I full attack" moments in combat.
He did admit that fighter mostly just got more numbers, but he claimed that the added abilities of fighters made fighter 20 a viable character.
Monk is still bad, pathfinder screwed that one up.
He hasn't played a ranger because he hates the idea of his character being only good against one type of enemy; so he had no comment on that.

kiryoku

2013-05-14, 02:27 AM

I totaly didn't think this would spark into something this large. o-o I was just curious about pathfinder. Seems it has its highs and lows though again heavy on the caster having more flexibility/ power. so same problem with more problems for the melee build. So I will probably take bits from it. But not play the system as a whole. My players are a little. hmmmmm attached to hitting things with big sticks still. XD hahahaha.

Lans

2013-05-14, 02:26 PM

Whoever made the wizard 20 vs. Monk 1000 thread wasn't really familiar with epic level play:
If we extend the WBL trends based on treasure per encounter in the ELH, the WBL for level 1000 is roughly 8.8*10^46. WBL increases much faster than any other class feature, so really the only class-related thing that matters past ~level 35-40 are:
--What kinds of magic items you can use. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that anyone can take a single rank in UMD cross-class, and then skill-boosting magic items cost the same for everyone.
--Whether you have access to epic spells

That's about it. A level 1000 commoner is better than a level 950 wizard, because the wizard's class features are negligible compared to the enormous difference in wealth.
The level 1000 monk has enough gold to duplicate every spell on the wizard list from magic items, at a much higher caster level, metemagiced into extremity, without worrying about the cost, since he gets substantially more gold from a single level-appropriate encounter.
.
I'm pretty sure the monk was limited in what he could buy and use his wealth on

Carth

2013-05-14, 02:29 PM

Yeah, the monk was limited to 20th level WBL in that thread, and also leadership was banned I think. Otherwise the monk could have easily just turned into a higher level wizard.

kiryoku

2013-05-14, 02:35 PM

We are kinda wondering a little bit lets get back on topic please. I don't want another one of my threads closed on that grounds again. >w< I like hearing what people think.

Blisstake

2013-05-14, 06:19 PM

We are kinda wondering a little bit lets get back on topic please. I don't want another one of my threads closed on that grounds again. >w< I like hearing what people think.

Pretty much any topic regarding Pathfinder will end up like this, unfortunately. A lot of people can't just point out the changes; they have to include why they're better or worse for the game system, which ends up causing these "debates."

What it really comes down to is what kind of gaming group you're in. The more optimized groups who know most of the tricks of 3.5 probably arne't going to enjoy some of the specific restrictions in PF. Conversely, many less-experienced, or more casual groups enjoy the changes introduced by PF, and the increase in class features and decreased reliance and multiclassing. That's not always the case on which groups prefer what, but it's the trend I've noticed; and it fits the gaming groups I've been with (mostly casual ones, and we've managed to have more fun with PF than 3.5, but I completely understand why some wouldn't like the changes)

But anyway, since you're the one requesting the information, what kind of 3.5 games are you used to? What kind of optimization levels are usually seen in your group's characters? I think these are the kinds of questions that should be asked before deciding if you should give Pathfinder a try or not.

Carth

2013-05-14, 06:43 PM

What it really comes down to is what kind of gaming group you're in. The more optimized groups who know most of the tricks of 3.5 probably arne't going to enjoy some of the specific restrictions in PF. Conversely, many less-experienced, or more casual groups enjoy the changes introduced by PF, and the increase in class features and decreased reliance and multiclassing. That's not always the case on which groups prefer what, but it's the trend I've noticed; and it fits the gaming groups I've been with (mostly casual ones, and we've managed to have more fun with PF than 3.5, but I completely understand why some wouldn't like the changes)

Blanket statements like that are precisely what get people riled up to get these debates going. It's good that you've labeled that to be your experience, but as you can surely tell by now, it is not the experience of others. You shouldn't advertise one experience as being more likely than the other.

Blisstake

2013-05-14, 06:56 PM

Blanket statements like that are precisely what get people riled up to get these debates going. It's good that you've labeled that to be your experience, but as you can surely tell by now, it is not the experience of others. You shouldn't advertise one experience as being more likely than the other.

I specified this solely from my observations and that it isn't the case for everyone. It wasn't intended to be a blanket statement; by "what it comes down to," I meant that your past experiences are the biggest influence on whether or not you'll like Pathfinder, not that my predictions on casual/new environment vs. experienced/optimized were necesarily accurate. My apologies.

Carth

2013-05-14, 06:59 PM

I probably should have bolded your use of "probably" when I quoted your post. Apologies for being unclear.

navar100

2013-05-14, 07:25 PM

We are kinda wondering a little bit lets get back on topic please. I don't want another one of my threads closed on that grounds again. >w< I like hearing what people think.

Here, Spoilered for length.

WOTC fired their customers. Those who did not join the 4E bandwagon were enraged. Paizo heard their call to continue the 3E template, giving us Pathfinder. Yell all you want what they claimed they were going to do. Let’s just see what they have.

Ability Scores

While dice rolling is still there their Point Buy is more forgiving, except for buying an 18. Starting from a base of 10 means they aren’t forcing penalties. There is nothing inherently wrong with a score of 8, but unlike 3E Pathfinder is not slapping you with annoying -1s just for the audacity of playing the game. If a player is willing to have one the option is there, and it’s not a terrible idea. Racial modifiers can still give you that worshipped 18 for that reasonable cost of 16. Personal opinion of preference I think only the 25 Point Buy value is subjectively “enough”, but that’s my personal issue with Point Buy specifically not Pathfinder.

Races

Little changes from 3E. I like that every race gets racial modifiers. I like that elves no longer bump into secret doors, but I hate elves in general. Nothing to do with Pathfinder.

Classes

Barbarian

Pathfinder gave the class interesting things to do while raging. Pick the abilities you want. Go for a theme. It’s no longer just boring Hulk smash. I don’t give a damn if the rounds spent raging is less time raging than 3E’s times per day. I like that the rounds system allows for more tactical decision flexibility. The player no longer has to worry about whether a particular combat is rage-worthy. He can choose when he wants to rage and for how long.

Bard

The big thing for me is more bardic music effects. A little more variety of actions adds to the fun.

Cleric

No more C in the CoDzilla. A cleric can still do alright as a warrior-type, but he’s no longer uber at it mainly because of the changes to his spells particularly Divine Power. It no longer stacks with Divine Favor and doesn’t increase Strength or BAB. I like the changes to Domain powers. While personal taste can have some be better than others, they are an improvement over 3E. Pathfinder chose to boost the magical feel of the class in exchange for lowering the warrior. Which brings me to Channel Energy. It’s the biggest boon to clerics since 3E’s spontaneous curing. Not only does the cleric not lose a class feature when not facing undead, he gets to heal more than one person at a range from level 1. Not that a cleric must be a healbot but healing is still important. Now the cleric has even less pressure on his spellcasting for healing to use his spells more efficiently. Healing in or out of combat, Channel Energy is superb.

Druid

Female dog and moan all you want about the Animal Companion, you can’t take it everywhere. Now there’s an official option for a Domain as a replacement, and it’s not a poorer choice, just different. Take it by choice or enforce the Domain as DM if you insist because you have an allergic reaction to “Tier 1”.

Wildshape is legacy to the druid. It’s not going away. Deal with it. Polymorphing is iconic magic. It’s not going away. Deal with it. Pathfinder made its choice on how to deal with it. It’s a glorified buff. It changes your own ability scores. It gives you specific abilities. All the “good stuff” comes in at increasing levels where they’re more appropriate. It is of less headache than 3E.

Fighter

For the class itself, they improved mechanical problems of 3E. Fighters are no longer The Suck for wearing heavy armor. Obsolete feats can be swapped out. If a better magical weapon comes along different from that they were using, they don’t really lose anything for switching.

However, the big deal is the feats themselves. Curse all you want about “Tier 5”, Pathfinder made its choice in tweaking combat as well as magic. In 3E, the “most efficient” Fighter builds were Lockdown and Ubercharger. Pathfinder has made other combat styles palatable by not having those two be the be all and end all. With the changes of how some feats work and the addition of new ones, other fighting styles now have merit. There is support for Weapon & Shield Style. Even if all you want the shield for is AC, class abilities and feats allow for attacking with a one handed weapon to be a viable option. Two-Weapon Style has support. Rogues still like it for the Sneak Attack, but Fighter can use it too. Shout all you want it takes up more feats than not using Two Weapon Style. That’s not the point. A player may want to use two weapons anyway. He can now do it well enough. Archery has support. The Fighter can apply afflictions against bad guys. The Fighter can even just go for raw damage. That which is not uberoptimal is not automatically subpar.

Monk

I would call Pathfinder monk a slide shift rather than an improvement over 3E. Redefining Flurry of Blows makes it easier to understand and is no longer “flurry of misses”. That it is two-weapon fighting and no longer stacks with it as in 3E is not a tragedy. However, Pathfinder unfortunately chose not to fix its MAD problem. What they should have done is replace the monk’s need for Strength. They could have used its Dexterity for its to hit bonus and Wisdom for its damage. Instead, what Pathfinder chose to do is keep the 3E chassis but define it more with feat choices. It’s perhaps not really that different from 3E’s Oriental Adventures and Rokugan, but it’s the method they chose. Like it or not.

Paladin

Pathfinder loves Paladins. Everything about it is an improvement. More Lay On Hands options. Smite Evil worthy of the name. More auras. Choose your own magic weapon. No/less MAD (depending on point of view) with spellcasting tied to Charisma. If there’s one thing Pathfinder did right, it’s their Paladin.

Ranger

Personal bias, this class holds little interest for me. I never really paid attention to it in any D&D edition. It’s just a class I have no inkling for. It’s not that much different than 3E ranger I think. I like that the Ranger could share his favored enemy bonus with party members. That anyone can track but the ranger gets a bonus doesn’t bother me. Track is a plot device disguised as a class feature/feat in 3E. You will only find a creature you are tracking when the DM wanted you to anyway and the moment he wanted you to. If you were never meant to find the creature, you will lose the trail. If you don’t find any tracks at all that means the DM didn’t want to tell you information about the bad guys or whatever at that particular time in the first place, either because he hadn’t thought of it yet or he wants to keep the mystery going.

Rogue

A big complaint in 3E has been the number of creatures the rogue can’t sneak attack. Now he can sneak attack more of them. That’s a good thing. Splash weapons, ptooey weapons. Fine, don’t like that change if you want, rogues are liking they can sneak attack undead and constructs. Talents give rogues more interesting stuff to do from level 1 instead of level 10.

Which brings me to Skills. Rogues are not hurt by Pathfinder’s skill system. Other classes, especially the Fighter, are just helped. No cross class nonsense means even a Fighter can have a decent Perception. If Rogues aren’t that quite unique as a Skill Monkey anymore that’s not an atrocity. They are still a Skill Monkey. Other classes getting better at skills does not take away the Rogue’s ability to be good at skills himself.

Sorcerer/Wizard

It is not a crime against Humanity that Pathfinder arcane spellcasters get class features. Spells, shmells, the class features offer fun things aside from casting spells. Spellcaster players are not forbidden to have such things. As an intended side effect, now a spellcaster won’t automatically go into a prestige class because they actually have to give up something to do it. Entering a prestige class means the player really, really wants to as opposed to just getting more stuff.

As for the spells themselves, Pathfinder made it choices. Save or die is save or take damage, except for Phantasmal Killer which they left alone because they figure two saves is fine. Most immunities are now just plus numbers to saving throws. Polymorph spells are specifically defined. Some spells that didn’t have saving throws now do. Pathfinder has lowered the power level of spells in general. However, they were not obligated to nerf them to uselessness. It is ok for spells to be powerful. Really, if you hate 3E magic that much, just don’t play it then. Ditto Pathfinder. While not playing it, there is also no reason for you to bad mouth it every time all the time against those of us who don’t have a problem with it. I really, really don’t give a damn a wizard casts Gate, a druid casts a spell while wildshaped because of Natural Spell, or a cleric casts Righteous Might and wages into battle. Such things do not bother me at all. They aren’t broken game destroying things. It’s just a matter of taste. If it’s not yours, that’s your business.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-05-14, 07:28 PM

Snowbluff

2013-05-14, 07:48 PM

I find that Pathfinder is slightly easier to get into. I prefer the new CR system, and the combat maneuver system, and the tiny numerical bonuses, and deemphasis of mutlticlassing. They make the system slightly easier to explain to new players, and the lack of material makes it less imposing for someone new to DMing. I don't know if I prefer one or the other. Both require Wizards/T1s to make a gentlemen's agreement to not ruin the game for others.
I honestly think the changes to combat maneuvers were a bad idea. Please don't expect your players to waste everyone's time speccing into them. It seems to be just the right mix of ineffectiveness and complication, IMHO.

This is sound like more blanket statement. "Emphasis on multiclassing" is a trait the players ascribe to the game. The core classes have restrictions and experience penalties to discourage multiclassing. Later options make multiclassing more beneficial, but it does not mean the system is focused on it.

If you consider a gentleman's agreement for not using T1 (Which is a strange statement in PF), why can't you just ask your players to limit themselves to less material?

Chained Birds

2013-05-14, 09:17 PM

If you consider a gentleman's agreement for not using T1 (Which is a strange statement in PF), why can't you just ask your players to limit themselves to less material?

I don't think his gentleman's agreement was for players not to use Tier 1 classes, but for them not to play as God Wizards.

Snowbluff

2013-05-14, 09:31 PM

I don't think his gentleman's agreement was for players not to use Tier 1 classes, but for them not to play as God Wizards.Agreed, but that brings up another issue.

I'll clarify. 3.5 has a few weaker primary casters for players. You have your Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage fit a very particular niche each. Their tiers are indicative of their capabilities. Your players do not need to select a spell list, spend time managing spells prepared, and they get a few nice benefits on the side. They conveniently help lower the power ceiling by limiting their lists, which is something I wanted to see out of PF I think the closest analogue PF has would be Witch, but that seems to be situated on a higher level of power.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-05-14, 09:35 PM

I honestly think the changes to combat maneuvers were a bad idea. Please don't expect your players to waste everyone's time speccing into them. It seems to be just the right mix of ineffectiveness and complication, IMHO.I don't think they're more effective either. I simply think that it's easier to tell someone when they say they want to try and steal something/trip someone/disarm someone, to make a CMB check. I like the universal nature of the system because it makes it easy to incorporate new ideas or creative ideas by players easily.

And then they did the stupid reposition/steal manuevers >.>

This is sound like more blanket statement. "Emphasis on multiclassing" is a trait the players ascribe to the game. The core classes have restrictions and experience penalties to discourage multiclassing. Later options make multiclassing more beneficial, but it does not mean the system is focused on it.Let me rephrase: An greater emphasis on seeing a class through all 20 levels.

This has come at the nigh-uselessness of most prestige classes, though. That hasn't improved over time.

If you consider a gentleman's agreement for not using T1 (Which is a strange statement in PF), why can't you just ask your players to limit themselves to less material?Not a gentleman's statement to not use a T1, simply to not use one and take over the game or fill everyone else's roles. One of the unfortunate pats of 3.5 is that many of the most powerful options for T1 characters are in the core rulebook. Meanwhile, many of the better options for martial/mundane/whatever classes are found scattered across a much wider breadth of source material.

Limiting the material would only hurt those classes more, so I wouldn't want to do that. Pathfinder seems to be the opposite.

Snowbluff

2013-05-14, 09:47 PM

Let me rephrase: An greater emphasis on seeing a class through all 20 levels.I don't see it. 3.5 had a bunch of later classes with 20th level capstones. Dread Necromancer, Warblade, Swordsage are just a few off the top of my head.

This has come at the nigh-uselessness of most prestige classes, though. That hasn't improved over time.
Okay, that makes a bit more sense. Lack of PrC support would definitely make x20 seem more important.

Limiting the material would only hurt those classes more, so I wouldn't want to do that. Pathfinder seems to be the opposite.
This feels contradictory to what you had said earlier about PFs lower amounts of material being better.

You certainly wouldn't have to cut whole books to limit material. Couldn't you just ask for a set list of classes? The more functional (from my gameplay/balance) classes were mostly contained within their own books anyway.

Carth

2013-05-14, 09:51 PM

This has come at the nigh-uselessness of most prestige classes, though. That hasn't improved over time.

This is one of the bigger problems I have with Pathfinder. Coming up on 10 years of playing 3rd edition, and I still feel like there are new and interesting builds I could toy with. I question whether Pathfinder could every have that kind of longevity, given that archetypes can't easily be mixed and matched, that prestige classes are an afterthought in the design process, and multiclassing doesn't work nearly as well. I'm not their yet with Pathfinder, but at the same time, I can actually see the point where it does happen in front of me, which isn't something that happened with 3.5 until after WotC stopped supporting it.

olentu

2013-05-14, 10:03 PM

Now that someone mentions it, lack of prestige support is is one of the things I rather dislike about pathfinder. Additionally there seems to be a smaller number of small swaps in abilities. While 3.5 is not the most flexible system in existence I would not call reducing that flexibility to the degree that they have something favorable.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-05-14, 10:15 PM

This feels contradictory to what you had said earlier about PFs lower amounts of material being better.

You certainly wouldn't have to cut whole books to limit material. Couldn't you just ask for a set list of classes? The more functional (from my gameplay/balance) classes were mostly contained within their own books anyway.The lower amount of material is better. I just feel that in 3.5 you need to use a larger amount of material because the most powerful classes get the most of the more powerful options in the core rulebook, while fighters and barbarians need other source books

Pathfinder seems to have the opposite problem, for the most part (exception: Quiggong Monk) as more books come out, the magical classes get stronger (Summoner, Planar Generation, etc.).

In short: 3.5 of PF as a player (currently playing 1 of each right now), PF as a GM.

navar100

2013-05-14, 10:36 PM

olentu

2013-05-14, 10:54 PM

If you don't like this approach, that's your prerogative. However, it should be noted it's a design feature choice rather than a goof-up. It's a matter of personal taste, not an awesomeness/suckage factor.

Awesomeness/suckage factor is rather completely about personal taste.

Carth

2013-05-14, 11:11 PM

A big complaint against 3E had been the plethora of prestige classes. Not so much the amount in published books but rather multiclassing them for one or two level dips then moving on to something else to collect a set of abilities never intended to be used together to create a monstrosity. Particular individual prestige classes have their own complaints, but multiclassing prestige classes were a big deal.

Even now you will occasionally see a thread of someone asking: "I'm going to be playing base class X. What prestige class should I take?" The default assumption is 'but of course I'm going into a prestige class'. Pathfinder by purposeful design wanted to get away from that. It is by design wanting you to stay single class., but they know players like multiclassing and prestige classes so they will provide some support of it. Their archetype model is their way of providing an alternative to prestige classes. Some people even say some 3E prestige classes would have been better as a feat chain. Pathfinder archetypes cater that idea using trading of class features instead.

If you don't like this approach, that's your prerogative. However, it should be noted it's a design feature choice rather than a goof-up. It's a matter of personal taste, not an awesomeness/suckage factor.

Your point is well taken, the problem is that Pathfinder dramatically overcorrected what I agree to be a problem in 3.5, creating an entirely new problem.

Amnestic

2013-05-14, 11:25 PM

A big complaint against 3E had been the plethora of prestige classes. Not so much the amount in published books but rather multiclassing them for one or two level dips then moving on to something else to collect a set of abilities never intended to be used together to create a monstrosity.

As opposed to certain archetypes ('sup Master Summoner?) being monstrosities all on their own?

Also I have never once seen "I have a lot of choices in Prestige Classes" as a complaint against 3.5. Never. Maybe it's a big complaint and I've never seen it, but having complaining about having options on different fluff and ability outside of your class seems bizarre to me.

Even now you will occasionally see a thread of someone asking: "I'm going to be playing base class X. What prestige class should I take?" The default assumption is 'but of course I'm going into a prestige class'.

How is that different from "I'm going to be playing base class X. What archetypes should I take?". It's asking for build advice. Single class characters aren't more "pure" than multiclassed ones. That 3.5 didn't properly support single classing in its early run was a failure which was later worked on (see ToB) but PF took it too far to the extent that any multiclassing is seriously disincentivised and taking a prestige class to its extent even moreso.

Their archetype model is their way of providing an alternative to prestige classes.

No, their archetype model is a way of expanding on 3.5's Alternate Class Feature model. Things like Shapeshifter Druid or Wildshape Ranger already laid the groundwork for this. That PF expanded it doesn't make it an 'alternative' to Prestige Classes any more than the ACFs in 3.5 were. They're simply a method of customising a base class to suit you better. Prestige Classes can still be used as a method of acquiring certain abilities which multiple classes want access to without giving them each individual ACFs which do exactly the same thing.

137beth

2013-05-14, 11:30 PM

This is one of the bigger problems I have with Pathfinder. Coming up on 10 years of playing 3rd edition, and I still feel like there are new and interesting builds I could toy with. I question whether Pathfinder could every have that kind of longevity, given that archetypes can't easily be mixed and matched, that prestige classes are an afterthought in the design process, and multiclassing doesn't work nearly as well. I'm not their yet with Pathfinder, but at the same time, I can actually see the point where it does happen in front of me, which isn't something that happened with 3.5 until after WotC stopped supporting it.

I agreed with you, up until the last sentence. Or rather, the end of the last sentence:

until after WotC stopped supporting it.
The prestige class system/extra multiclassing in 3.5 (or rather, lack of incentive not to multiclass more) helps you get more out of each (prestige) class. Now, in PF, you can still multiclass just as much with no xp penalty (which was a big limiter to multiclassing several base classes in 3.5)--they just gave single-class characters an extra boost. But yea, archentypes are less flexible than the ACFs in 3.5.

The point where I pivoted, upon reading your comment, was how WotC stopped supporting 3.5. The possible builds in 3.5, while vast, are finite without homebrew (and really, homebrew can work equally well in 3.5 as in pf). For PF, when the "end" of possibilities occurs depends a lot on how long Paizo continues to support the system. Which, as of right now, is indefinite. They are planning a second edition to PF (D&D 3.65...), which may or may not fix the complaints made against it on this thread. But they will continue to come out with new classes and (hopefully) prestige classes.

On the other hand, I've actually felt like it is in some ways easier to come up with builds for PF. In 3.5, you could mix prestige classes all you want, but you were basically limited to 1 base-class dip without a serious xp penalty. In PF, though, the xp penalty is removed, and the boost for staying with one class makes the previously sub-optimal single class builds more viable.

I guess what I would prefer would be a mix of PF's favored class boost system and archetypes (which are nice for flavor) with 3.5's ACFs prestige classes.

EDIT:
How is that different from "I'm going to be playing base class X. What archetypes should I take?".
I don't want to speak for other people, but I think the idea was that in 3.5,there were almost always prestige classes which were preferable to staying with base classes, while in PF, archetypes aren't always the best choice.