What is wrong with Pathfinder?

[Tanuki Tales]

I'm in the middle of constructing house rules for a game I will be running at the end of this month (knock on wood; it was supposed to start back in March but then a player tore her ACL) and I want to keep adding to them and tweaking them to make a unique and fun experience for my players and for myself.

To this end, I want to hear from everyone what they think Pathfinder has or had done wrong (not Paizo as a company, but the game itself) and at least some justification behind said opinions.

I want your beefs/issues/opinions/hang ups/etc. with the system to be as brutal and honest as possible (as I know folks like Snowbluff will love to oblige :smalltongue:) and I don't want any punches pulled. I want to see Pathfinder completely run through the ringer so that I can take a step back and view the varying intricacies of the game from as many different view points and angles as possible so I can see new avenues to add to my own rules. Just try not to pointlessly bash the system please (i.e. "Gunslingers suck" is not alright, but "I think Gunslingers would have served better as an archetype for either the Fighter or Ranger. The Grit and Deed mechanics are not so intricate as class features that they couldn't have just been given to either of those two classes instead of devoting a whole class to them" is what we're aiming for).

Thank you in advance! :smallsmile:

[StreamOfTheSky]

Well, you could start with this recent thread:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281153

[StreamOfTheSky]

I will try to start.

Races: All core races and most splat ones either get +2 mental stat or can choose it. There are even races that boost two mental stats. Meanwhile, I'm not sure there IS a race that boosts two physical stats, and strength is very rare to find in general. Compare with 3E, where aside from the Fire and Grey Elf there were no LA +0 races on d20srd at all that boosted mentals and finding them even in splats was rare and somewhat difficult. The deck is stacked heavily in favor of the casters.
Then there are favored class benefits. Not only do these encourage staying single classed (which casters want to do anyway), the unique noncaster options almost universally suck, but the caster options while also having a lot of trash feature things like bonus spells known for spont. casters, extra evolution points for the eidolon, or bonus to enchantment save DCs.

Combat maneuvers: Got completely wrecked. CMD grows much faster than CMB, making success rate low. More feats are required to master a maneuver and a higher level required. In some cases (like bull rushing someone making them provoke), you literally need to spend 3 feats to do what an untrained commoner could benefit from in 3E.
Grapple now takes actions (standard, then feats to also do as a move and swift) and can't replace attacks/AoOs, you have to spend an action to "maintain" it each round or lose it and a 1 auto-fails, it's far less restrictive on the target (grapple no longer costs dex to AC, you can now use 1H weapons while grappled and attack other people), it takes only one check for someone to go from pinned to not grappled but still 2 to get them to pinned, pining no longer lets you silence someone, and...just... yeah. Grapple got super nerfed.
Trip no longer works at all on flying creatures, and many legged creatures don't cap their bonus at +4 anymore.
The entire system is completely borked.

Barbarian: Pretty decent overall. Main negative is that in PF rage is a morale bonus, causing stacking issues that it shouldn't. Also, in PF falling unconscious ends rage, which can easily KILL YOU at higher levels. There is a feat tax to fix this... :smallyuk:

Bard: Has better casting than 3E, but the performances took a huge nerf with the rounds per day. Other than that nerf, came out pretty well, though, is mostly just hurt for the lack of 3E splat love that all classes miss. Bard had some of the biggest splat love, such as the inspire courage optimization.

Cleric: Doing just fine, about as strong now as it was before.

Druid: Nerfed to the point where it might be the weakest of the 9-level casters now. Wildshape and companion took huge nerfs, and SNA is now blatantly inferior to SM. That said...they're still full casters, they need no help. I wouldn't mind "helping" them by nerfing SM a bit, though.

Fighter: He got more + #'s, whatever. Only interesting change was Armor Training to move in full plate like it's chain shirt. Could still use with 4 + int skill points and a better list, at a minimum. Is mostly hurt by nerfs to combat options, not in the class itself.

Monk: The weakest 3E core class is also probably the most nerfed PF class. No Imp. Natural Attack. No adding natural weapons to the end of flurry. No adding fast movement to anything other than land speed. No logical way to ever obtain the equivalent of 3E's Improved Trip/Disarm (since you now need "Greater" for that and thus his bonus feats do nothing to escape the Int 13 he can't afford). Higher BAB requirements on feats delay things for him. Tumble is now suicidal. All maneuvers were nerfed, but Grapple got hit especially hard. This class needs major, MAJOR help.

Paladin: Very well done. Smite is dangerous, lay on hands is useful, and the class is much less MAD. The only class change I truly like. Only things I'd fix is loosening up the rigid code of conduct, and giving some better options for fighting hordes of evil/undead. Smite is great, but single target only. A high level option to get smite on one attack only vs. one evil creature per Paladin level would be welcome.

Ranger: Eh... FE is buffed, companion is...I don't know if it's buffed for being level -3 or nerfed for PF's general companion nerfs. Bonus feats are generally nicer / some early entry. The camo and HiPS are nerfed by being limited to a handful of chosen terrains now. Not sure what if anything should be done w/ Ranger.

Rogue: Also very badly nerfed. Lost all its precious niche protection with the huge nerf to class skills' prestige. Trapfinding and disarming can be done by nearly anyone well now. Sneak attack works on more kinds of foes w/o need of splats, but is overall greatly weakened. Can't use it with splash weapons now; blinking does not grant it; grease will at best give you one sneak attack per round... In general, ranged SA took an incredible beating. Melee suffers, meanwhile, for the huge tumble nerfs. Rogue looks all spiffy at first, but in practice is nearly impossible to use well or shine at anything. You should re-instate all the more favorable 3E rules for SA and tumble, give rogue a good will save to reduce their MAD, give some sort of big bonuses to chosen skills so rogues can actually be the best at them, and probably some more. Also, the Flanking Foil feat is ridiculously broken and any houseruling of PF should include banning it.

Sorcerer: Aside from lack of broken and abundant 3E splat love, this class is outright stronger than in 3E. At the very least, ban Paragon Surge cheese, it lets sorc and oracle spont. cast nearly any spell.

Wizard: It's good to be the king! Gets powerful class features right from 1st level (like swift Su teleporting) and continuing on into mid levels (like 24/7 Su flight), and onwards. Can now cast from opposed schools at double spell slot cost (or no cost from wand, scroll, etc... protip) or if that gets too burdensome, can take a feat to un-oppose a school entirely. Yeah, these guys need to be reigned in a lot.

[Big Fau]

To this end, I want to hear from everyone what they think Pathfinder has or had done wrong (not Paizo as a company, but the game itself) and at least some justification behind said opinions.

Banned people for offering genuinely well thought-out critiques during the open beta.

Didn't fix spells above 5th level. Left a ton of magic items in despite how broken they were. Made crafting magic items a joke (although they did allow mundanes to craft items). Screwed melee over even harder. Barely even touched the Druid, Cleric, and Wizard (and made the latter even more powerful, despite minor nerfs to spells).

[Tanuki Tales]

Banned people for offering genuinely well thought-out critiques during the open beta.

We know that they were unfair to you Big Fau, but that's a gripe with Paizo the company and not Pathfinder the game.

[Gnaeus]

I am a big pathfinder fan, and play it almost exclusively.

Disclaimer finished:
Polymorph line nerfs were a very mixed bag. On the one hand, they took some overpowered spells (Alter self, Polymorph, Shapechange) and reined them in to the point where they are now average to weak. On the other hand, Polymorph was the biggest buff available to party beatsticks, and it now completely fails at that function. Most polymorph school spells are target:self. Polymorph itself is now one level higher, and while it is still a passable utility spell for a caster, it doesn't let you turn your fighter or monk into anything really helpful.

Druid was overnerfed IMO. The changes to the SNA line were really kicking them when they were down. The wildshape changes I like, the animal companion changes were probably good, but you could have left them as the go-to caster for summoning animals. Now, a Wizard can summon the same animals a Druid can, but enhanced with a helpful template.

[The Boz]

Druid was overnerfed IMO. The changes to the SNA line were really kicking them when they were down. The wildshape changes I like, the animal companion changes were probably good, but you could have left them as the go-to caster for summoning animals. Now, a Wizard can summon the same animals a Druid can, but enhanced with a helpful template.

It is impossible to overnerf a T1 full caster.
Druid is still convincingly T1, wildshape and SNA were just gravy.

[Sylthia]

It is impossible to overnerf a T1 full caster.
Druid is still convincingly T1, wildshape and SNA were just gravy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't druids spontaneously cast SNA? Being able to summon dozens of monsters without having to prepare it ahead of time is already pretty powerful.

[Gnaeus]

It is impossible to overnerf a T1 full caster.

It is possible, since Pathfinder accomplished it. Actually, 3.5 did it also, in the Spirit Shaman. I'm not really sure what role druid is particularly meant to accomplish in PF. They're passable utility casters I suppose. But they aren't good in combat any more, they aren't good at summoning, and anything else was always better to go to a Cleric or Wizard.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't druids spontaneously cast SNA? Being able to summon dozens of monsters without having to prepare it ahead of time is already pretty powerful.

SNA was balanced with Summon Monster in that SNA had good thuddy animals, while Summon Monster had good special abilities. Now Summon Monster is better at everything. Being able to spontaneously cast spells is only useful if that spell is actually worth casting, and worth spending a full round risking attacks or disruptions to cast. Not only did the thuddy combat creatures get downgraded to weaker than the same level SM, but almost all the creatures with useful special abilities, like Thoqqa and Unicorns, were removed. To add insult to injury, Sorcerers and wizards can get abilities from bloodlines or specializations to make their summons even better.

[Sylthia]

It is possible, since Pathfinder accomplished it. Actually, 3.5 did it also, in the Spirit Shaman. I'm not really sure what role druid is particularly meant to accomplish in PF. They're passable utility casters I suppose. But they aren't good in combat any more, they aren't good at summoning, and anything else was always better to go to a Cleric or Wizard.



SNA was balanced with Summon Monster in that SNA had good thuddy animals, while Summon Monster had good special abilities. Now Summon Monster is better at everything. Being able to spontaneously cast spells is only useful if that spell is actually worth casting, and worth spending a full round risking attacks or disruptions to cast. Not only did the thuddy combat creatures get downgraded to weaker than the same level SM, but almost all the creatures with useful special abilities, like Thoqqa and Unicorns, were removed. To add insult to injury, Sorcerers and wizards can get abilities from bloodlines or specializations to make their summons even better.

True, but summoning is still quite powerful. I think SNA is where it should be, if not a tad strong. SM could probably use a bit of a nerf. I'm not fond of summoning being able to replace party members.

[Man on Fire]

Mundane fear effects should stack.

And it still has the biggest flaw of D&D - combat is So. @#$%ing. Slow.

[Tholomyes]

Mundane fear effects should stack.

And it still has the biggest flaw of D&D - combat is So. @#$%ing. Slow.

Never had this problem. 4e, certainly, can be catagorized as having slow combat, but 3.5 and PF have plenty of problems, and slow combat isn't one of them. It's not as fast as some systems, but those are hardly what I'd aspire to.

[Snowbluff]

People keep telling me it's a DnD 3.5 fix, but I don't see it. I don't know why it exists. It's redundant.

Summoner is pretty messed up. I hear synthesist make mundane melee look like tissues. I would love to play a Synthesist with Construct Armor for the lolz the next time PF comes up in my groups. Just for the lolz.

[JoshuaZ]

In general, everyone has more options. There aren't any dead levels, and some of them like rogues get some really neat things to play around with for those levels. Melee is still substantially weaker than casting, but in some respects it isn't as extreme. The consolidated skill system is particularly nice, and also works well for allowing people to take non-class skills.

Some of the criticisms being made here are legitimate but most of them fall into "didn't fix enough" category. (E.g. T1 is still T1, T2 is still T2. etc.) There are still things which are broken, but the total number of ways things are broken is smaller.

[Amnestic]

but the total number of ways things are broken is smaller.

I'm not convinced this is true. People say it about Pathfinder a lot but I'm not entirely sure it's accurate (or if it is, it's not accurate to a significant degree).

I'd be interested to see a tally/survey of every way in which people thought 3.5 was broken, followed by a list of ways in which PF addressed them each break (if they did so). Then add a list of ways in which Pathfinder is broken, in ways not originally part of 3.5.

Of course, not all problems are equal - one spell isn't equivalent to an entire class, but it's still a decent enough starting point. Having a full list would be a helpful reference point, if nothing else, for both games.

[137beth]

It is possible, since Pathfinder accomplished it. Actually, 3.5 did it also, in the Spirit Shaman. I'm not really sure what role druid is particularly meant to accomplish in PF. They're passable utility casters I suppose. But they aren't good in combat any more, they aren't good at summoning, and anything else was always better to go to a Cleric or Wizard.
It really depends on your standards for "overnerfing." If we are comparing it to other T1 casters, then yes, the druid is weaker in pf than in 3.5. But really, should this be the point of comparison? The druid is still much, much, much more powerful than T3, so I don't really see what the problem is.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm not convinced this is true. People say it about Pathfinder a lot but I'm not entirely sure it's accurate (or if it is, it's not accurate to a significant degree).


It's probably accurate - but only by virtue of volume. In 4 years, Pathfinder has published 5 official 1st-party sourcebooks that contain rules and character options, not including adventure paths with scattered individual bits of material, plus 3 bestiaries. In that same span of time, starting with the release of the 3.5 PHB, WotC published 40+ sourcebooks, plus 4 monster manuals.

If you did an analysis of broken items/total items for each, I very much doubt the PF ratio would be significantly better than the 3.5 one.

[The Boz]

Of course, not all problems are equal - one spell isn't equivalent to an entire class, but it's still a decent enough starting point. Having a full list would be a helpful reference point, if nothing else, for both games.

Not all problems are equal, true, but not all people gauge problems the same way. I mean, have a read through this thread and the other one, 3.5 vs PF. Look at how some people are willing to say X is not overpowered while others say X is broken beyond belief.
I am not convinced that a full list of unique problems in both systems would have any actual use.

[Big Fau]

If you did an analysis of broken items/total items for each, I very much doubt the PF ratio would be significantly better than the 3.5 one.

Although, seeing as Paizo claimed Pathfinder was designed to be backwards-compatible, the PF ratio is a fair bit higher than just 3.5.

[Lord_Gareth]

Wording.

Wording wording wording.

So many of PF's abilities have lazy, sloppy, or just-plain non-functional wording - which is really crappy in a rules-heavy system like PF is. The designers also don't give a damn about balance or even their own CR system, leading to some encounters that are wildly easy and others (like the Ship In a Bottle) that are horrifically under-CR'd. Complaints about these things are met with, well, scorn.

[Frosty]

The flight + ranged weapons + DR 5/Bludgeoning is a bit much for a level 2 party to be sure. PCs have no access to flight at that stage, and ranged weapons are usually piercing weapons, unless we got halflings using slings and bolas.

[137beth]

Wording.

Wording wording wording.

So many of PF's abilities have lazy, sloppy, or just-plain non-functional wording - which is really crappy in a rules-heavy system like PF is. The designers also don't give a damn about balance or even their own CR system, leading to some encounters that are wildly easy and others (like the Ship In a Bottle) that are horrifically under-CR'd. Complaints about these things are met with, well, scorn.

According to Paizo, the fact that wizards are more powerful than mundane classes is "a myth spread by people with agendas." Now, I personally rank fun as the most important aspect of a game, followed by useability, followed by realism, and rank game balance fourth, and I think PF did a good job making some of the classes more fun (paladin in particular). And I wouldn't mind if they said "yea, we know our game isn't particularly balanced, but we don't consider that to be as important as <some other aspect of play>." I might be annoyed that it would mean they aren't paying attention to all the nice homebrew which helps balance the game without detracting from anything else, but at least then they wouldn't be saying "any criticism of our game is a myth!"

[RFLS]

Wording.

Wording wording wording.

So many of PF's abilities have lazy, sloppy, or just-plain non-functional wording - which is really crappy in a rules-heavy system like PF is. The designers SKR also didn't give a damn about balance or even their own CR system, leading to some encounters that are wildly easy and others (like the Ship In a Bottle) that are horrifically under-CR'd. Complaints about these things are met with, well, scorn.

FTFY.

To be fair, I guess he's not the only offender. Just the worst. I was so psyched to have a published, agreed-upon fix for the Monk. Look at what we got... They even had to slip Quiigong (sp) past him, because he thinks monks are "too powerful."

[JoshuaZ]

Yeah, SKR wouldn't understand balance it incarnated as an avatar right in front of him and hit him over the head with the Blade of Tiers.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

In addition echoing StreamOfTheSky's comments, which offer a great explanation of what the changes are and why they're bad moves when they are, I'd like to say that I think my problem with Pathfinder, more than any specific rules or changes, is the philosophy that went into those changes.

Basically, as a 3.5 "fix," Pathfinder fixed what was broken in the sense of being prone to abuse, not what was simply wildly overpowered in its basic, default use. In other words, they rewrote Polymorph, Wildshape and so on to be less game-breaking, but didn't fix the fact that casters can still do pretty much everything other classes can better than they can, in some way or another. Moreover, in the process of "fixing" things like Wildshape they removed most of the flavor, in my opinion; it may be more fair for turning into a bear to just give a +2 strength and a bonus to natural armor, but it also takes a lot of the fun out of it. To add insult to injury, their "fixes" didn't even really end up consistent; "Well, druids shouldn't just be able to pretty much ignore their physical ability scores. Obviously, Synthesist summoners should, though," and "Let's nerf a lot of save-or-lose spells, those are unfair. Speaking of which, let's add a metamagic feat that makes pretty much any spell save-or-lose," for instance.

Really, at the end of the day, all I see most of Pathfinder's "fixes" accomplishing is taking some of the fun out of a lot of 3.5 mechanics to fix balance issues which were not really inherently connected to those mechanics. In other words, like somebody was saying, Druid got nerfed hard all over the place, and yet a druid is still going to be way more useful than any mundane class in just about any situation. Maybe the druid won't be turning into a buzzsaw of a dinosaur, now, but when he breaks the encounter/plot arc/&c. with the standard action, does it really matter if he was a dude or a deinonychus?

In short, mundanes got a strange, almost nonsensical overhaul that hurt them more than it helped them, while a few famously abusable spells got rewritten to be less abusable (and less fun), but casters were compensated with power boosts than more than made up for it.

[Frosty]

Yeah Summoner is a tad too strong, and the monk fix could've been done a lot better, but I still say that if they made CMB scale better for those who choose to invest in it (and with less feat taxes), a lot of mundanes will still be fun enough to play.

[JadePhoenix]

The main reason my group moved to Pathfinder is the PF SRD.

[Sylthia]

It may have not been implemented well, but I still like the idea of CMB. It's nice to have one number to keep track of, rather than Byzantine system 3.5 could have for combat maneuvers.

[137beth]

It may have not been implemented well, but I still like the idea of CMB. It's nice to have one number to keep track of, rather than Byzantine system 3.5 could have for combat maneuvers.

I agree. Give the mundane classes a per-level boost to CMB, and it works a lot better. Once you do that, the mundane classes become more fun than they were in 3.5. Not necessarily more balanced, but more fun.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Why does everyone trash 3E maneuvers so much for being complicated?

Bull Rush, Over Run, and Trip were strength checks with size mod and any other miscellaneous mods such as from feats.

Disarm and Sunder were straight up attack rolls with size mod and a modifier for if you're using a 2H weapon. Plus bonus from feats or a disarm weapon, etc...

Grapple was never spoken of or acknowledged. :smallwink:


That's not complicated.

PF is not much simpler at all.

[Silvanoshei]

The idea of moving my gaming group to Pathfinder was absurd. Not only was there ton of content we had already bought for 3.0/3.5, but buying a game that just made it 3.8/3.9 was just "meh".

Honestly they just tried to grab all the players that were 3.5 fans and didn't like wizards new 4.0 direction, so they were like, hey guys, we got this 3.5 "ish" d&d game that kicks ass! It does not kick ass, and is not the right direction. Just because it's another direction than 4.0, does NOT MEAN ITS RIGHT.

I think 3.5 pays tribute to D&D well, and covers all the bases for fans. That's why there was so much content for it. Just because wizards are OP and higher level, doesn't mean the game is unbalanced. Everytime we play, the wizards need to use his/her party members at low level to even think about getting those spells that make him overpowered in the first place. Read Dragonlance, Raistlin is a perfect example of that claim. (Yes, I used fantasy fiction to prove theoretical example in a fantasy game.)

Those "low-tier" classes benefit greatly from their high-tier wizards, items, enchancements, spells. I think D&D has peaked at 3.5, and well be hard to bend/fix/balance this version that's so customizable.

[Frosty]

PF *is* simpler because the mechanics are unified.

That said, the 3.5 mechanics aren't that complicated either. Still, I think trip based SOLELY on strength is dumb. BAB SHOULD enter into it because your skill in combat definitely affects how well you can trip someone. However, I can understand how Bull Rush should be based purely on Str.

[Carth]

The main reason my group moved to Pathfinder is the PF SRD.

This is the biggest thing Pathfinder has going for it, I believe.

[137beth]

This is the biggest thing Pathfinder has going for it, I believe.

That, and the fact that stuff continues to be added to the pfsrd, since, unlike with 3.5, the company which develops it has not abandoned it.

[RFLS]

Yeah, SKR wouldn't understand balance it incarnated as an avatar right in front of him and hit him over the head with the Blade of Tiers.

That could be arranged...

What really frustrates me is that, any time he's presented with any sort of evidence or argument contradictory to his own, he responds with aggression and ad hominem attacks, or, as previously mentioned, outright bans (was that him in particular? I've heard multiple versions). I've never seen him respond with a reasoned answer

[olentu]

That, and the fact that stuff continues to be added to the pfsrd, since, unlike with 3.5, the company which develops it has not abandoned it.

It is certainly true that free is about as cheap as things can get, but I am uncertain if pathfinder has more supplemental material then 3.5.

[The Glyphstone]

It is certainly true that free is about as cheap as things can get, but I am uncertain if pathfinder has more supplemental material then 3.5.

Not yet, not by far. But give it enough time, and it might, especially if D&D Next fails to take off and PF retains its market share.

[Frosty]

Not yet, not by far. But give it enough time, and it might, especially if D&D Next fails to take off and PF retains its market share.Is DnD Next supposed to mix the best of 4e and 3e or something?

On an unrelated note, can you tell me why the search function has been disabled indefinitely? Was it causing too much stress on the servers or something?

[JadePhoenix]

Is DnD Next supposed to mix the best of 4e and 3e or something?

It's supposed to mix the best out of all editions of D&D.

[olentu]

Not yet, not by far. But give it enough time, and it might, especially if D&D Next fails to take off and PF retains its market share.

All right then. Thanks for the information.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Read Dragonlance, Raistlin is a perfect example of that claim.

Well, yeah, but Raistlin is a magic-user, not a wizard :smalltongue:

Seriously, though, he was written with the rules of an older edition in mind, not to mention the fact that he has a constitution score of, like, three. It's not exactly fair to use him as an example of a 3.5 wizard.

[Tholomyes]

Not yet, not by far. But give it enough time, and it might, especially when D&D Next fails to take off and PF retains its market share.Fixed, I believe.

Seriously, nothing I've seen about D&D next is encouraging. Each playtest, they come up with some interesting idea that could work, but is buried in a pile of the worst of every other edition, then by the next playtest they either get rid of the idea, or scrap everything interesting about it.

[JadePhoenix]

Fixed, I believe.

Seriously, nothing I've seen about D&D next is encouraging. Each playtest, they come up with some interesting idea that could work, but is buried in a pile of the worst of every other edition, then by the next playtest they either get rid of the idea, or scrap everything interesting about it.

That's pretty much the definition of playtest, mate.

[Tholomyes]

That's pretty much the definition of playtest, mate.The problem is they're getting bad data, because each faction between the Old Guard, who liked it back when the game was TSR, the 3.x Crew who hated ToB, the 3.x crew who liked ToB, and the 4e fans are all fighting to get their playstyle represented, so what's ending up happening is the playtest data is coming back as a jumbled mess of what was good and what wasn't based on these biases. And rather than trying to improve upon the new stuff from the previous playtest, they instead focus on trying to shift the balance of 1e/2e feel and 3.x feel and 4e feel, rather than making a good, mechanically solid game.

Though I'll admit my own biases. I don't like any edition of D&D. Sure some have things I like in them, more than others, but I really just want them to finally make a system that works right. Essentially, I want them to do what 4e should have been: a system that deemphasizes some of the things that historically made casters overpowered, and emphasize mechanics that provide meaningful options to mundanes, without breaking the mechanical difference between them, and without slowing combat to a grinding halt. But the 4e crowd don't seem to want what 4e should have been, but instead what it was, just repackaged, so I'm not expecting anything much out of next, at least for me.

[RFLS]

The problem is they're getting bad data, because each faction between the Old Guard, who liked it back when the game was TSR, the 3.x Crew who hated ToB, the 3.x crew who liked ToB, and the 4e fans are all fighting to get their playstyle represented, so what's ending up happening is the playtest data is coming back as a jumbled mess of what was good and what wasn't based on these biases. And rather than trying to improve upon the new stuff from the previous playtest, they instead focus on trying to shift the balance of 1e/2e feel and 3.x feel and 4e feel, rather than making a good, mechanically solid game.

Huh. That's really well put, actually. Makes you wish they'd grow a spine and pick something to represent.

[Knaight]

Pathfinder's main problem is that it's lacking in network externalities. A big part of what makes games useful is the ability to get other people to play, which means that people either need to already know the rules or the rules need to be written so as to be picked up easily. Pathfinder is long, often poorly written, and generally requires some investment to learn. It also drew really heavily from the existing 3.5 playerbase, so basically everyone familiar with it also knows 3.5, and 3.5 has a network externality advantage. If the games were more different this wouldn't be that big a deal, but as Pathfinder is basically 3.501 it just ends up largely superfluous.

[peacenlove]

My problem with pathfinder is that they do not go beyond the core rule book in terms of options. Wordcasting was an exception but was then completely abandoned. Seriously not even an NPC word caster exists, in contrast to the shadow caster who gets 2 web enhancements and the truenamer who gets a dragon article.

3.5 edition has given us Binders, Shadowcasters, Initiators, Incarnum users etc.
Pathfinder has given us divine sorcerer, wizard with hexes, variant eldrich knight and so on. While 3.5 edition tried to explore and persevere 2nd editions myriad of options, PF for me remains stagnant. Hell even the mythic rules are a variant of the gestalt system just with more numbers tacked on it.

Lastly most feats in Pathfinder are either non scaling or feat taxes. Most of their feat chains could be compressed into one feat, giving its benefits spread out at different levels. 3.5 edition had it too, but they tried to fix it with magical locations and/or crafting prices as guidelines to buy them with money, at least the non scaling ones.
They instead go to the opposite direction, introducing yet another feat chain, that will never see the light of day due to its harsh prerequisites.

3.5, sometimes silently, sometimes loudly had accepted its shortcomings and moved on. Pathfinder doesn't (yet, I hope)

[Sylthia]

My problem with pathfinder is that they do not go beyond the core rule book in terms of options. Wordcasting was an exception but was then completely abandoned. Seriously not even an NPC word caster exists, in contrast to the shadow caster who gets 2 web enhancements and the truenamer who gets a dragon article.

3.5 edition has given us Binders, Shadowcasters, Initiators, Incarnum users etc.
Pathfinder has given us divine sorcerer, wizard with hexes, variant eldrich knight and so on. While 3.5 edition tried to explore and persevere 2nd editions myriad of options, PF for me remains stagnant. Hell even the mythic rules are a variant of the gestalt system just with more numbers tacked on it.

Lastly most feats in Pathfinder are either non scaling or feat taxes. Most of their feat chains could be compressed into one feat, giving its benefits spread out at different levels. 3.5 edition had it too, but they tried to fix it with magical locations and/or crafting prices as guidelines to buy them with money, at least the non scaling ones.
They instead go to the opposite direction, introducing yet another feat chain, that will never see the light of day due to its harsh prerequisites.

3.5, sometimes silently, sometimes loudly had accepted its shortcomings and moved on. Pathfinder doesn't (yet, I hope)

That's a valid opinion, but conversely it can be nice as a DM to not have to learn a completely new rule style for a new class.

[The Random NPC]

On an unrelated note, can you tell me why the search function has been disabled indefinitely? Was it causing too much stress on the servers or something?

I have been informed that it is a massive processing hog.

[Rhynn]

I have been informed that it is a massive processing hog.

What, searching through 2,097,327 posts takes processing power? :smalleek:

(And that's just the Roleplaying Forum & subforums.)

[TuggyNE]

What, searching through 2,097,327 posts takes processing power? :smalleek:

(And that's just the Roleplaying Forum & subforums.)

Well, more like "maintaining the index for umpty million posts"; it's completely impractical to actually search them directly. At the time it was turned off, upgrading the index table was the key delaying factor in an outage that had already taken 2-3 days longer than intended, and it was unclear just how much longer it would take to finish that process.

Theoretically, they could turn it back on, but then there'd be the same days-long processing bit just to get it up. And I somehow suspect the server(s) do not have a ton of spare processing power to try to do it in the background.

However, if by some strange chance they manage to get past that, it's highly likely that search would stay on if at all possible, since it's so valuable to the mods.

[Sylthia]

What, searching through 2,097,327 posts takes processing power? :smalleek:

(And that's just the Roleplaying Forum & subforums.)

You can use a Google search to find stuff, but unfortunately, it's not as quick and easy.

[sonofzeal]

I've kinda trained myself just to put "site:www.giantitp.com" into my google searches whenever I want to look things up here. I really need to set up a macro for that....

[Ashtagon]

At the backend level, maintaining the search indices will literally double the size of the sql files to be maintained. That's some serious data storage for a site like this, so yes, it is a processing hog.

[Man on Fire]

Never had this problem. 4e, certainly, can be catagorized as having slow combat, but 3.5 and PF have plenty of problems, and slow combat isn't one of them. It's not as fast as some systems, but those are hardly what I'd aspire to.

Dude, playing with more than 3-4 players and attempting to have them be attacked by a group larger than 3 (and I don't mean 10+, I mean 5) means that rolling initiative will take a moment on itself, and then combat just drags on and one and is so horribly boring. I started going with group initiative for that reason and it quickened thigns only a little bit. Multiple times I jsut had to go "@#$%& it!" and turn fight into fast describtion with bunch of rolls here and there.

And then you have players who love summoning creature and this drags even more. I'll need to switch to something with more fast-paced combat system after that.

[peacenlove]

That's a valid opinion, but conversely it can be nice as a DM to not have to learn a completely new rule style for a new class.

After 12 years playing or DM'ing with spellcasters and fighting men under different variations, and the same spell slot system, any air of change would be welcome.

How much more difficult is learning a new subsystem than reading upon 20+ spells, 20+ items and 30+ feats in a new splat? What new subsystem in the history of DnD equals or surpasses in difficulty the 3.5 druid or PF summoner, where he needs ALL DnD books to be effectively built? Whereas ToB + Core is all you need to make an effective warblade. Incarnum + Core for Incarnum and so on.

This might not make sense from a player perspective, but the short focus of 3.5's subsystems have enabled me to design simple but specialized npc's on the fly.

Pathfinder actually lessens my options by trying to make psions the same as wizards (or banning them outright, depending on designer), although IMHO psionics is a more stable magic system than vancian. In addition it vastly increases the complexity of existing classes with new archetypes, feat chains and most importantly spells.

[JoshuaZ]

Pathfinder actually lessens my options by trying to make psions the same as wizards (or banning them outright, depending on designer), although IMHO psionics is a more stable magic system than vancian. In addition it vastly increases the complexity of existing classes with new archetypes, feat chains and most importantly spells.

Um, you know there's a psionic conversion on 20PFSRD yes? It is technically third party, but it is done by the same people who did the excellent Hyperconscious stuff for 3.5. And now, you don't need to know most archetypes and spells. If you aren't using a specific archetype you don't need to know what it does. The same goes for spells.

[Frosty]

Umm what? The Summoner only need Core + APG to work, and work well to boot. It does not need UC or UM or anything to function.

[peacenlove]

Um, you know there's a psionic conversion on 20PFSRD yes? It is technically third party, but it is done by the same people who did the excellent Hyperconscious stuff for 3.5. And now, you don't need to know most archetypes and spells. If you aren't using a specific archetype you don't need to know what it does. The same goes for spells.

I know about Dreamscarred press. Their soulknife both represents the simplicity/effectiveness ratio I want (darn good 2 weapon fighter he is!) and is an example of good 3rd party material. Dario Nardi's Binder of souls is also very good and I anticipate getting the book for Pathfinder.
Still official Paizo plans for psions are different, if any, and not my cup of tea.
For archetypes I agree. For spells I don't, as a DM at least. But I must end my personal rant here. :smalltongue:


Umm what? The Summoner only need Core + APG to work, and work well to boot. It does not need UC or UM or anything to function.

He needs Monster Manual (Bestiary) I, II, III (and soon IV) for the summons.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

...

Combat maneuvers: Got completely wrecked. CMD grows much faster than CMB, making success rate low. More feats are required to master a maneuver and a higher level required. In some cases (like bull rushing someone making them provoke), you literally need to spend 3 feats to do what an untrained commoner could benefit from in 3E.
Grapple now takes actions (standard, then feats to also do as a move and swift) and can't replace attacks/AoOs, you have to spend an action to "maintain" it each round or lose it and a 1 auto-fails, it's far less restrictive on the target (grapple no longer costs dex to AC, you can now use 1H weapons while grappled and attack other people), it takes only one check for someone to go from pinned to not grappled but still 2 to get them to pinned, pining no longer lets you silence someone, and...just... yeah. Grapple got super nerfed.
Trip no longer works at all on flying creatures, and many legged creatures don't cap their bonus at +4 anymore.
The entire system is completely borked.
...
*raises hand*
I'm very interested in this part of your post - can you expand on the topic? Maybe show what's wrong with each combat maneuver?

Also, I'd like to double-check - are you saying that PF is wrong, in that combat maneuvers are handled utterly incorrectly regardless of the previous d20 rules, or that they are a poor modification of the d20 rules?

[137beth]

Still official Paizo plans for psions are different, if any, and not my cup of tea.
For archetypes I agree. For spells I don't, as a DM at least. But I must end my personal rant here.

If you are a DM, does it really matter what counts as "official" and what is "3rd part?" Just use what works in your game...


He needs Monster Manual (Bestiary) I, II, III (and soon IV) for the summons.
Whoah! Take a step back! Yes, it gets more powerful when you add more bestiaries, but it is already plenty strong with just the first bestiary, and possibly the second. Yes, it gets more powerful with more splat books, but this is true of any class. The summoner functions very well now. Once the Bestiary IV is released, it will continue to function well without bestiary IV.

I do agree, though, I would like for there to be more alternate magic systems. I liked primal magic, but it, too, was too heavily related to the core casting system.

[Amoren]

Others raise probably better points, but I'll raise the one which grates me the most.

Rogues Shouldn't Invest In Intelligence Anymore

This, in Pathfinder and 4th Edition, is one of those pet peeves that keeps on digging in. In both systems, a rogue would be better off keeping Intelligence at a 10 (or even flat out dumping it to an 8 or lower) in favor of Wisdom. This is because, in Pathfinder, the consolidated skills list removes most of their need from extra skill points (an Intelligence of 10 gets you EVERYTHING you need for a rogue, and everything outside of that is just meh or situational), and the fact that the traditional rogue skills that utilized intelligence (Disable Device and Search) had their intelligence synergy traded away when skills were collapsed (Dex for Disable Device, Wisdom for Search as it was rolled into Perception). Thus, a rogue would actually make a better trap monkey by dumping intelligence and bumping wisdom, which grates me.

The only reason to invest in Intelligence from an optimization stand point is for the capacity to cast a few 0 or 1st level spells a day, dispelling strike (which requires both of the former, and a Major Rogue Trick), or its capstone.

Seriously, this change dramatically altered what was a sort of Dex/Int based class, into a Dex/Wis. How did they manage that while actually TRYING to make it have more options with Intelligence? Ugh.

[peacenlove]

If you are a DM, does it really matter what counts as "official" and what is "3rd part?" Just use what works in your game...

I wholly agree with you. My previous complaints are relevant to the Paizo rulesystem in isolation and have little if no practical meaning to my games (because of houserules/homebrew/3rd party).



Whoah! Take a step back! Yes, it gets more powerful when you add more bestiaries, but it is already plenty strong with just the first bestiary, and possibly the second. Yes, it gets more powerful with more splat books, but this is true of any class. The summoner functions very well now. Once the Bestiary IV is released, it will continue to function well without bestiary IV.

I do agree, though, I would like for there to be more alternate magic systems. I liked primal magic, but it, too, was too heavily related to the core casting system.
You seem familiar with the class so I will rethink of it.
A what now? Please provide a link if you may.

[Philistine]

Others raise probably better points, but I'll raise the one which grates me the most.

Rogues Shouldn't Invest In Intelligence Anymore

This, in Pathfinder and 4th Edition, is one of those pet peeves that keeps on digging in. In both systems, a rogue would be better off keeping Intelligence at a 10 (or even flat out dumping it to an 8 or lower) in favor of Wisdom. This is because, in Pathfinder, the consolidated skills list removes most of their need from extra skill points (an Intelligence of 10 gets you EVERYTHING you need for a rogue, and everything outside of that is just meh or situational), and the fact that the traditional rogue skills that utilized intelligence (Disable Device and Search) had their intelligence synergy traded away when skills were collapsed (Dex for Disable Device, Wisdom for Search as it was rolled into Perception). Thus, a rogue would actually make a better trap monkey by dumping intelligence and bumping wisdom, which grates me.

The only reason to invest in Intelligence from an optimization stand point is for the capacity to cast a few 0 or 1st level spells a day, dispelling strike (which requires both of the former, and a Major Rogue Trick), or its capstone.

Seriously, this change dramatically altered what was a sort of Dex/Int based class, into a Dex/Wis. How did they manage that while actually TRYING to make it have more options with Intelligence? Ugh.

On the contrary, Pathfinder's skill list consolidation makes the Rogue's 8+Int just barely enough, and I find myself still going to 16+ Int for Skilled characters. It's basically the only thing about PF that I like, as 8+Int wasn't enough to cover even the basics of most "roguish" archetypes when spread across 3E's massively bloated skill list. Of course, if you thought it was a good thing that Rogues had to spend 8 SP/level just to keep up with the "Rogue niche" skills for sneaking, scouting, and thieving, without even getting into socials or physicals (much less knowledges or utilities), then we're just not ever going to agree.

With regards to 4E you do have an argument, since Skills are based solely on class and completely divorced from Int; but there it just looks like WotC went with a different idea of what a Rogue should be - Dex and Cha rather than Dex and Int - which isn't necessarily wrong even if it doesn't match up to your (or my) expectations.

[JadePhoenix]

*raises hand*
I'm very interested in this part of your post - can you expand on the topic? Maybe show what's wrong with each combat maneuver?

Also, I'd like to double-check - are you saying that PF is wrong, in that combat maneuvers are handled utterly incorrectly regardless of the previous d20 rules, or that they are a poor modification of the d20 rules?

The basic mechanic for combat maneuvers is pretty good and a lot better than the mess 3.5 had going (specialluy when it comes to grappling). It's a unified mechanic and that's very, very good. I like the new combat maneuvers, as well (specially Dirty Trick).
People keep saying you need 3 feats to use combat maneuvers (instead of two like you did in 3.5), but you get more feats in Pathfinder anyway, so that's not really a point you should be arguing.
A valid complaint is the difference between CMB and CMD. I think that it being incredibly hard to trip, say, a drider is good. It means tripping is an option, not the no brainer it was in 3.5. When it comes to humanoids, you'll do just fine with combat maneuvers and I think that's where it should be used, mostly.

[137beth]

I wholly agree with you. My previous complaints are relevant to the Paizo rulesystem in isolation and have little if no practical meaning to my games (because of houserules/homebrew/3rd party).
Point taken--3.5 functioned somewhat better than pf without 3rd party sources.


A what now? Please provide a link if you may.
I was referring to primal magic (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/primal-magic), from Inner Sea Magic (1st party source). It isn't really a full magic system, though--more like a modification to the standard magic system. It is fun, though.

[The Random NPC]

People keep saying you need 3 feats to use combat maneuvers (instead of two like you did in 3.5), but you get more feats in Pathfinder anyway, so that's not really a point you should be arguing.

Sure it is, some people keep referring to the increase in feats as a strength, when due to the increase in feat trees, you haven't actually gotten an increase in the number of feats.

[RFLS]

Sure it is, some people keep referring to the increase in feats as a strength, when due to the increase in feat trees, you haven't actually gotten an increase in the number of feats.

Unless you're a caster.

[JadePhoenix]

Sure it is, some people keep referring to the increase in feats as a strength, when due to the increase in feat trees, you haven't actually gotten an increase in the number of feats.
You get 10 feats in 20 levels, as opposed to 7 in 3.5
Some feat trees have one extra feat.
Even considering that, you still have more feats available.

[Snowbluff]

Do they have flaws in PF?

Also, I think a lot of awesome tactical feats were lost as well.

If you need 3 feats to finish a chain, the feat chain isn't done until level 5, as opposed to 3 in 3.5.

[Frosty]

You get 10 feats in 20 levels, as opposed to 7 in 3.5
Some feat trees have one extra feat.
Even considering that, you still have more feats available.
Yeah,t he feats could still use a bit of work though.

My DM just gave me the news of a houserule I quite like (although I'll petition him to make it 10 HD instead of 10 BAB)


At BAB +10, the feats Improved Grapple, Trip, etc., increase their bonus to +4. At BAB +10, the feats Greater Grapple, Trip, etc., increase their bonus to +4. This doubles the bonuses of those feats in the mid levels.

[Doug Lampert]

The basic mechanic for combat maneuvers is pretty good and a lot better than the mess 3.5 had going (specialluy when it comes to grappling). It's a unified mechanic and that's very, very good. I like the new combat maneuvers, as well (specially Dirty Trick).
People keep saying you need 3 feats to use combat maneuvers (instead of two like you did in 3.5), but you get more feats in Pathfinder anyway, so that's not really a point you should be arguing.
A valid complaint is the difference between CMB and CMD. I think that it being incredibly hard to trip, say, a drider is good. It means tripping is an option, not the no brainer it was in 3.5. When it comes to humanoids, you'll do just fine with combat maneuvers and I think that's where it should be used, mostly.

More feats? You get 3 extras from level 1-20, total. So a fighter (the Combat Manuever class), got 18 feats (+1 if human) in 3.x, and in PF he gets 21. If he needs 3 feats instead of 2 per manuever he's LOST GROUND. The barbarian went from 7 feats to 10. If he needs 3/2 as many then he's really no better off (3 and a fraction becomes 3 and a smaller fraction, ???, profit!).

Pathfinder gives more feats, but so few that this can't sensibly be used to justify nerfing melee feats.

Meanwhile crafting and metamagic didn't change how many feats they take, so casters have extra feats, because they were so underpowered, while melee spends their extra feats to do what they could do with fewer feats in PHB1 3.x (who's melee feats are almost universally derided as weak except for power attack), because melee needed the nerf.

Oh, and well you admit those manuevers won't work against many foes they used to work against, don't worry, it's not like the casters will summon any monsters or anything.

[StreamOfTheSky]

You get 10 feats in 20 levels, as opposed to 7 in 3.5
Some feat trees have one extra feat.
Even considering that, you still have more feats available.

You don't actually pull ahead on feats from 3E until 7th level. And that's assuming your 3E game didn't have flaws. A lot of people don't get anywhere near level 20, so the net effect of all this (not actually having more feats till later and the diluted/expanded noncaster feat trees) in the low/mid-level games they play in is that it feels like they actually are *more* feat starved.

Also, I've noticed there were a lot more items that granted feats in 3E than in PF. I loved the Mobility enhancement. Get a worthless but needed pre-req feat for a +1 armor enhancement bonus? Yes, please.

[navar100]

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

[StreamOfTheSky]

*raises hand*
I'm very interested in this part of your post - can you expand on the topic? Maybe show what's wrong with each combat maneuver?

Also, I'd like to double-check - are you saying that PF is wrong, in that combat maneuvers are handled utterly incorrectly regardless of the previous d20 rules, or that they are a poor modification of the d20 rules?

Uh...you want me to make a complete list of changes to maneuvers in PF? That could be a lot of work... Maybe later.

I'm saying that the PF rules make maneuvers very hard to pull off, so they aren't worth doing. They also nerfed the good maneuvers significantly just in how they're used and what they can do. And stretched out the maneuver feat chains to take more feats and higher level to do what you could in 3E.

The true end result is that maneuvers require a hyper amount of specialization to be worthwhile using, and even then monsters (including eidolons and things casters can polymorph into) are better at them just because they can get monster attacks like "grab" for freebie attempts on top of doing damage. Which largely mitigates the high failure rate risk.

[Amnestic]

The true end result is that maneuvers require a hyper amount of specialization to be worthwhile using, and even then monsters (including eidolons and things casters can polymorph into) are better at them just because they can get monster attacks like "grab" for freebie attempts on top of doing damage. Which largely mitigates the high failure rate risk.

The fact that trip is auto-defeated by a 3rd level spell (Fly) still boggles my mind. It was that way in 3.5 too, but at least in 3.5 you could cause flying creatures who used wings to stall and plummet to the ground with a trip attempt. Pathfinder took that away - any flying creature is completely immune to trip attempts, regardless of source of flight. Madness!

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Uh...you want me to make a complete list of changes to maneuvers in PF? That could be a lot of work... Maybe later.

I'm saying that the PF rules make maneuvers very hard to pull off, so they aren't worth doing. They also nerfed the good maneuvers significantly just in how they're used and what they can do. And stretched out the maneuver feat chains to take more feats and higher level to do what you could in 3E.

The true end result is that maneuvers require a hyper amount of specialization to be worthwhile using, and even then monsters (including eidolons and things casters can polymorph into) are better at them just because they can get monster attacks like "grab" for freebie attempts on top of doing damage. Which largely mitigates the high failure rate risk.
No, I'm not looking for a complete list of changes, I want to see what you believe is wrong.

Let me put it another way: You've repeatedly mentioned that PF nerfs manoeuvres, and requires too much specialisation - which appears to imply that you believe d20 3.5 to have got the manoeuvres right.

So, why do you think that d20 3.5 was right?

[Amnestic]

Let me put it another way: You've repeatedly mentioned that PF nerfs manoeuvres, and requires too much specialisation - which appears to imply that you believe d20 3.5 to have got the manoeuvres right.


There are degrees of correctness. It's not just "PF got it wrong, therefore 3.5 got it right". If PF nerfed maneuvers...then the implication is they're doing it worse than 3.5, not that 3.5 did it right.

[avr]

Most simply, if a tripper loses a large part of his/her ability once flying opponents become common, and if an effective tripper requires substantial investment or character abilities to accomplish, then a large part of that substantial investment will be wasted later on in the campaign. Unless the GM takes mercy.

IMO that's wrong, without needing to get into the math.

For the math we could start with PF's CMD adding two ability modifiers and CMB adding one. Again, not so much a problem at low levels. Apparently it is possible to optimise your way over this, there was a guy on this forum who gave the example of his overrunning dwarf. Blyte or Blythe I think?

I can't say PF grappling is worse but I also can't see how the flowcharts involved represent a simpler or improved system. Better presented perhaps, via fan rather than official effort though.

[Gnaeus]

I think the argument against PF Maneuvers is overblown. I wouldn't call them worse, just different.

Take Trip:
3.5: Improved Trip is 1 feat + a feat tax (combat expertise). It works on flyers and some critters if you focus on it. It gives you a followup attack.

After that, you really arent getting better at tripping. A dedicated trip build is likely to take some battle field control feats, like combat reflexes, thicket of blades, etc, but they really aren't doing anything but getting more AOOs for enemies who politely provoke.

PF. Improved trip is functionally 2 feats + feat tax. It doesn't work on flyers, or work well on some monster types. On the other hand, it provokes an AOO from anyone around the target, potentially generating a number of followup attacks.

After that, there are lots of trip feats that you can take if you want to be a better tripper. Free trip on a Power attack or critical hit. Add dex to the CMB. Entangle an enemy with a trip. Throw an opponent into an adjacent square, to drop them off a bridge or dump them in the middle of your party for a mess of AOOs. Free grapple after a trip. Also, things that give you bonuses to hit also give bonuses to CMB, so the route to being a successful tripper does not require Enlarge Person/Polymorph.

If you expect to be in a campaign with a lot of humanoid opponents, you could do much worse than make a tripper. It might not be optimal in other games. I'm not sure that it a bad thing.

[Amnestic]

Free trip on a Power attack

Swift action trip on a power attack. And it costs a feat.


or critical hit.

Crit confirmation needs to exceed the enemy's CMD - how likely do you think that is if you're optimising for tripping, not critting?


Add dex to the CMB.

Why isn't this baseline?


Entangle an enemy with a trip.

Requires use of a whip. Enemy can break free of said entangle with a DC10 strength check (no action specified) which also breaks your whip. Even if it's a +10 Magical Whip of Epic Amazingness.


Throw an opponent into an adjacent square, to drop them off a bridge or dump them in the middle of your party for a mess of AOOs. Free grapple after a trip.

Only if you're tripping things your size or smaller. Also requires Improved Unarmed Strike as an additional feat tax.

Which brings me to my final point: You can make a decent tripper in 3.5 with far fewer feats than in PF. PF gives you more feats, but it also gives you far more trip specialisation feat dumps for something which is more easily countered in PF than 3.5.

[Gnaeus]

Swift action trip on a power attack. And it costs a feat.

The difference is trivial for most muggles, and I was describing the additional feats that PF offers for tripping.


Crit confirmation needs to exceed the enemy's CMD - how likely do you think that is if you're optimising for tripping, not critting?

If you had played PF, you would know that bonuses to hit contribute to both your CMB (used for trip) and confirming crits. So, since it is pretty much the exact same optimization, I think I will go for pretty darn likely.


Why isn't this baseline?

Because PF maneuvers are rolling in both the trip check and the touch attack. In 3.5 dex doesn't help you trip at all, unless you take weapon finesse, and then only if it is higher than your strength. At least PF gives the option of a tripper that makes use of a huge Dex instead of just piling up strength and size modifiers.




Requires use of a whip. Enemy can break free of said entangle with a DC10 strength check (no action specified) which also breaks your whip. Even if it's a +10 Magical Whip of Epic Amazingness.

So you don't use a magical whip. OK.



Only if you're tripping things your size or smaller

So, since I said that PF tripping was very useful in a campaign with predominantly humanoidish opponents, pretty much means that you are agreeing with me.


Which brings me to my final point: You can make a decent tripper in 3.5 with far fewer feats than in PF. PF gives you more feats, but it also gives you far more trip specialisation feat dumps for something which is more easily countered in PF than 3.5.

Except that you can't do most of those things in 3.5, and that it is also way easier to buff tripping in PF, since anything that contributes to to-hit also helps it.

[Reverent-One]

I think the argument against PF Maneuvers is overblown. I wouldn't call them worse, just different.

Interesting to see you on this side of the debate, as I remember you being more on the other side of the matter about maneuvers in a debate we had some time ago (like a year or two ago). I agree with what you're saying here though.

[Jerthanis]

One major difference in PF's Greater Trip versus 3.5 Improved trip as I understand it is that because Greater Trip's followup attack is an attack of opportunity, it resolves before the triggering event resolves, and as a result, you are attacking them while they're not yet prone, so it's 4 points less accurate on attack without even bringing up how CMD is a more comprehensive defense than opposed rolls could be.

In addition, it consumes your Attack of Opportunity for the round unless you have Combat Reflexes, so you have another feat tax to do the basic Tripmonkey routine of Trip->Followup->AoO on target standing up, which was 2 feats in 3.5 with no BAB requirement. A level 1 human rogue could be a tripmonkey, a level 1 dwarven fighter could be a tripmonkey. Anything in the universe could be a tripmonkey at level 3.

In comparison, the same idea in Pathfinder requires 4 feats and +4 BAB, generally higher stats, and still won't be as effective.

However, since it's an AoO, if you've got a melee heavy party, you can use it to coordinate with your party or your animal companions better. So it's not worse in every situation, just worse for the typical Fighter who is the meatshield for his otherwise non melee group.

[Tanuki Tales]

3 pages in 2 days?

Excellent. :smallbiggrin:

I want to thank everyone who's taken part in the discussion here very much. You've already given me tons of food for thought thus far and I really hope to see more come from this thread.

Keep up the good work!

[Spuddles]

I will try to start.

Races: All core races and most splat ones either get +2 mental stat or can choose it. There are even races that boost two mental stats. Meanwhile, I'm not sure there IS a race that boosts two physical stats, and strength is very rare to find in general. Compare with 3E, where aside from the Fire and Grey Elf there were no LA +0 races on d20srd at all that boosted mentals and finding them even in splats was rare and somewhat difficult. The deck is stacked heavily in favor of the casters.
Then there are favored class benefits. Not only do these encourage staying single classed (which casters want to do anyway), the unique noncaster options almost universally suck, but the caster options while also having a lot of trash feature things like bonus spells known for spont. casters, extra evolution points for the eidolon, or bonus to enchantment save DCs.

Combat maneuvers: Got completely wrecked. CMD grows much faster than CMB, making success rate low. More feats are required to master a maneuver and a higher level required. In some cases (like bull rushing someone making them provoke), you literally need to spend 3 feats to do what an untrained commoner could benefit from in 3E.
Grapple now takes actions (standard, then feats to also do as a move and swift) and can't replace attacks/AoOs, you have to spend an action to "maintain" it each round or lose it and a 1 auto-fails, it's far less restrictive on the target (grapple no longer costs dex to AC, you can now use 1H weapons while grappled and attack other people), it takes only one check for someone to go from pinned to not grappled but still 2 to get them to pinned, pining no longer lets you silence someone, and...just... yeah. Grapple got super nerfed.
Trip no longer works at all on flying creatures, and many legged creatures don't cap their bonus at +4 anymore.
The entire system is completely borked.

Barbarian: Pretty decent overall. Main negative is that in PF rage is a morale bonus, causing stacking issues that it shouldn't. Also, in PF falling unconscious ends rage, which can easily KILL YOU at higher levels. There is a feat tax to fix this... :smallyuk:

Bard: Has better casting than 3E, but the performances took a huge nerf with the rounds per day. Other than that nerf, came out pretty well, though, is mostly just hurt for the lack of 3E splat love that all classes miss. Bard had some of the biggest splat love, such as the inspire courage optimization.

Cleric: Doing just fine, about as strong now as it was before.

Druid: Nerfed to the point where it might be the weakest of the 9-level casters now. Wildshape and companion took huge nerfs, and SNA is now blatantly inferior to SM. That said...they're still full casters, they need no help. I wouldn't mind "helping" them by nerfing SM a bit, though.

Fighter: He got more + #'s, whatever. Only interesting change was Armor Training to move in full plate like it's chain shirt. Could still use with 4 + int skill points and a better list, at a minimum. Is mostly hurt by nerfs to combat options, not in the class itself.

Monk: The weakest 3E core class is also probably the most nerfed PF class. No Imp. Natural Attack. No adding natural weapons to the end of flurry. No adding fast movement to anything other than land speed. No logical way to ever obtain the equivalent of 3E's Improved Trip/Disarm (since you now need "Greater" for that and thus his bonus feats do nothing to escape the Int 13 he can't afford). Higher BAB requirements on feats delay things for him. Tumble is now suicidal. All maneuvers were nerfed, but Grapple got hit especially hard. This class needs major, MAJOR help.

Paladin: Very well done. Smite is dangerous, lay on hands is useful, and the class is much less MAD. The only class change I truly like. Only things I'd fix is loosening up the rigid code of conduct, and giving some better options for fighting hordes of evil/undead. Smite is great, but single target only. A high level option to get smite on one attack only vs. one evil creature per Paladin level would be welcome.

Ranger: Eh... FE is buffed, companion is...I don't know if it's buffed for being level -3 or nerfed for PF's general companion nerfs. Bonus feats are generally nicer / some early entry. The camo and HiPS are nerfed by being limited to a handful of chosen terrains now. Not sure what if anything should be done w/ Ranger.

Rogue: Also very badly nerfed. Lost all its precious niche protection with the huge nerf to class skills' prestige. Trapfinding and disarming can be done by nearly anyone well now. Sneak attack works on more kinds of foes w/o need of splats, but is overall greatly weakened. Can't use it with splash weapons now; blinking does not grant it; grease will at best give you one sneak attack per round... In general, ranged SA took an incredible beating. Melee suffers, meanwhile, for the huge tumble nerfs. Rogue looks all spiffy at first, but in practice is nearly impossible to use well or shine at anything. You should re-instate all the more favorable 3E rules for SA and tumble, give rogue a good will save to reduce their MAD, give some sort of big bonuses to chosen skills so rogues can actually be the best at them, and probably some more. Also, the Flanking Foil feat is ridiculously broken and any houseruling of PF should include banning it.

Sorcerer: Aside from lack of broken and abundant 3E splat love, this class is outright stronger than in 3E. At the very least, ban Paragon Surge cheese, it lets sorc and oracle spont. cast nearly any spell.

Wizard: It's good to be the king! Gets powerful class features right from 1st level (like swift Su teleporting) and continuing on into mid levels (like 24/7 Su flight), and onwards. Can now cast from opposed schools at double spell slot cost (or no cost from wand, scroll, etc... protip) or if that gets too burdensome, can take a feat to un-oppose a school entirely. Yeah, these guys need to be reigned in a lot.

This is a really excellent critique. The tier4/5 players could be greatly improved if the CMB system was fixed and there werent so many mutually exclusive actions for mundanes. About 80% of feats are unbelievable trash, and the handful of useful ones are often too circumstantial to be useful. In general, way too much feat tax.

Personally, I think PF's nerfs to spells to a long way in bringing down the power of casters. Blood money, simulacrum, gate, and a few others are still far too ridiculous. Other than spot chcking the busted spells, I would focus on bringing mundanes up in power. Feinting should be a swift action when you take a feat, for instance, and even though freedom of movement now gives a bonus vs grapple, being good at grappling as a fighter has a very high feat tax. If fighter's got double the feats, they might fare a little better.

I would really consider integrating some of the more mundane maneuvers from Tome of Battle into the fighter.

[nyjastul69]

Um, you know there's a psionic conversion on 20PFSRD yes? It is technically third party, but it is done by the same people who did the excellent Hyperconscious stuff for 3.5. And now, you don't need to know most archetypes and spells. If you aren't using a specific archetype you don't need to know what it does. The same goes for spells.

Hyperconcious, Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionics all have the same author, Bruce R Cordell.

[Squirrel_Dude]

freedom of movement now gives a bonus vs grappleHuh? Freedom of movement doesn't give a bonus. The rules are pretty clear:

If you are subject of the spell:
- You can not be joined in any grapple.
+ You automatically succeed any check to escape a current grapple.

[Spuddles]

Huh? Freedom of movement doesn't give a bonus. The rules are pretty clear:

If you are subject of the spell:
- You can not be joined in any grapple.
+ You automatically succeed any check to escape a current grapple.

Huh. It's virtually identical to the 3.5 one. I wonder where I got that idea....

[sonofzeal]

Huh. It's virtually identical to the 3.5 one. I wonder where I got that idea....
Because that would have made sense? :smallamused::smallbiggrin::smallwink:

[Snowbluff]

Hyperconcious, Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionics all have the same author, Bruce R Cordell.

This is a bad thing, right? I've read CPsi, and I didn't like what I saw. :smallconfused:

[nyjastul69]

This is a bad thing, right? I've read CPsi, and I didn't like what I saw. :smallconfused:

It's not a good or bad thing. It's just a fact. He also authored the Psionics Handbook for 3.0. I was just pointing out that the highly rated stuff and the poorly rated stuff all have the same author. I don't know if most people know that.

Edit: He also authored the Mindscapes 3.0 supplement by Malhavoc Press.

[Divayth Fyr]

He also authored the Mindscapes 3.0 supplement by Malhavoc Press.
And the classic Illithiad.

[Turion]

This is a bad thing, right? I've read CPsi, and I didn't like what I saw. :smallconfused:

As far as I can tell, Cordell is not involved with Dreamscarred Press (the company that produces the Pathfinder Psionics conversion.) So, it could have been bad, as his stuff seems to be a bit of a mixed bag, except it really doesn't have any bearing on Pathfinder at all.

I do agree that DSP's stuff is quite good, though.

[nyjastul69]

As far as I can tell, Cordell is not involved with Dreamscarred Press (the company that produces the Pathfinder Psionics conversion.) So, it could have been bad, as his stuff seems to be a bit of a mixed bag, except it really doesn't have any bearing on Pathfinder at all.

I do agree that DSP's stuff is quite good, though.

I'm not familiar with DSP. The Hyperconcious I hear people touting is by Malhavoc Press correct? It's the only one I could find.

[Turion]

That's correct, yes. Hyperconscious is a 3rd-party 3.5 psionics suplement by Malhavoc. The Pathfinder Psionics rules, Psionics Unleashed and Psionics Expanded, (which the original comment was referring to) are published by Dreamscarred Press. (http://www.dreamscarredpress.com/)

[peacenlove]

Huh. It's virtually identical to the 3.5 one. I wonder where I got that idea....

PF Alpha/Beta version FoM gave +10 to saves and checks concerning anything that 3.5 FoM makes you immune to.


Hyperconcious, Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionics all have the same author, Bruce R Cordell.

Dreamscarred issued Untapped potential and various other psionic related books for 3.5 edition. Haven't read them, have heard that they are good by psionic fans.

[Spuddles]

PF Alpha/Beta version FoM gave +10 to saves and checks concerning anything that 3.5 FoM makes you immune to.

That must have been it. I had a copy of their beta.

[Prime32]

Apparently in the beta all those 3+ability mod/day abilities were at will, but they decided having anything at will was overpowered. And then they made cantrips at will... :smallconfused:

On the synthesist issue...
The standard summoner is a spellcaster with a pet that's better at combat than a fighter, allowing it cast spells and attack in the same round. The synthesist is just a spellcaster that's better at combat than a fighter, but since it's only one guy it has to choose whether to cast or fight each round. That is, synthesist is actually a nerf, but the combat strength attracts more attention when it's not on a pet.

[Gnaeus]

On the synthesist issue...
The standard summoner is a spellcaster with a pet that's better at combat than a fighter, allowing it cast spells and attack in the same round. The synthesist is just a spellcaster that's better at combat than a fighter, but since it's only one guy it has to choose whether to cast or fight each round. That is, synthesist is actually a nerf, but the combat strength attracts more attention when it's not on a pet.

This is true. Synthesist is better in a handful of highly unusual situations where the extra HP and AC make the summoner survivable where few other casters would be. But in a party, in a typical adventuring day? The guy who can cast Haste AND full attack owns the guy who can only do one.

[sonofzeal]

Isn't the problem with Synthesist also that it multiclasses extremely well?

[Squirrel_Dude]

*looks over class*
Probably. It gets a benefit at 6th level (Dimension door 1/day as an SLA, just cause), and then not many class features other than spells for a while. He could probably jump out at 4, 6, 10, or 12 without feeling too terrible about what was lost, while having gained:

- A bite attack
- Pounce
- Reach for one attack
- Grab for the bite attack
- 2 claw attacks
- Rend attack on the claw
- Flight and wing attacks

And a +2 circumstance bonus (so it stacks with everything, of course) to all saves while transformed
And Dimension Door 1/day as an SLA
And the Pathfinder equivalent of Wildshape

At level 6

[Snowbluff]

Isn't the problem with Synthesist also that it multiclasses extremely well?

I am probably going to regret this. "Why is that, Son of Zeal, the zealiest of all the sons?"

[Just to Browse]

This is a bad thing, right? I've read CPsi, and I didn't like what I saw. :smallconfused:

Bruce basically wrote everything in D&D to do with psionics and the far realms. It's all very hit-and-miss. Very hit-and-miss.

EDIT: It multiclasses well because you can dip as many levels as you need to rewrite your ability scores, get bonus HP, extra attacks, etc., and then move on to whatever class you actually wanted to take without feeling bad.

[Mithril Leaf]

Bruce basically wrote everything in D&D to do with psionics and the far realms. It's all very hit-and-miss. Very hit-and-miss.

EDIT: It multiclasses well because you can dip as many levels as you need to rewrite your ability scores, get bonus HP, extra attacks, etc., and then move on to whatever class you actually wanted to take without feeling bad.

I don't know, I'd say it's less hit-and-miss than the plain old SRD. No tier 6s or tier 1s. Plus the casting mechanic is just plain better than Vance's.

[Snowbluff]

Bruce basically wrote everything in D&D to do with psionics and the far realms. It's all very hit-and-miss. Very hit-and-miss.

EDIT: It multiclasses well because you can dip as many levels as you need to rewrite your ability scores, get bonus HP, extra attacks, etc., and then move on to whatever class you actually wanted to take without feeling bad.Hmm... I guess. It seems I'll have to examine it more closely.



I don't know, I'd say it's less hit-and-miss than the plain old SRD. No tier 6s or tier 1s. Plus the casting mechanic is just plain better than Vance's.

It's also absurdly messed up. Erudites are thing, Mithril Leaf, so it hit T1 pretty squarely.:smallsigh:

[Frosty]

Bruce basically wrote everything in D&D to do with psionics and the far realms. It's all very hit-and-miss. Very hit-and-miss.

EDIT: It multiclasses well because you can dip as many levels as you need to rewrite your ability scores, get bonus HP, extra attacks, etc., and then move on to whatever class you actually wanted to take without feeling bad.If you have too little levels though in Summoner though, your physical ability scores will suck.

[The Glyphstone]

If you have too little levels though in Summoner though, your physical ability scores will suck.
Maybe for a melee or archer class, but if you're, say, a Sorcerer or Wizard or Witch or...basically any class that only cares about their mental scores for spellcasting, a 1-level dip in Synthesist gets you guaranteed 12/16/13, 14/14/13, or 16/12/13, letting you stack your spellcasting stat to the roof even on a low point buy, and you can still use stat-boosting items as normal.

[ericgrau]

Nothing much... nor is much right with it either. The biggest thing is that they didn't change all that much. This is the old "over-glorified set of house rules" complaint. But it also works in their favor because I'd jump into a PF group almost as easily as a 3.5 group.

I do find it annoying that while 3.5 also has crazy combos, in Pathfinder they practically expect you to get them. And there's a lot of power creep to go with it. It's actually more of a threat to the game because mild power creep is less noticeable and thus harder to ban than incredibly broken combos, plus it happens in hundreds if not thousands of places. You just have to live with it and learning curves like that are not good for varying levels of player proficiency. It could easily ruin the fun for newcomers without a lot of help.

If you want to avoid this I would suggest all players own or borrow Core + Advanced Player's Guide. Until everybody is up to speed I'd allow additional material but check the build carefully to make sure nobody goes crazy with optimizing it. If later there is another book the whole group knows and likes, then add it to the go-as-crazy-as-you-want list.

[Mithril Leaf]

It's also absurdly messed up. Erudites are thing, Mithril Leaf, so it hit T1 pretty squarely.:smallsigh:

Here's the StPE (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070629a). Where's Brucey in the author list? Normally Erudites are generally considered tier 2.

[Tanuki Tales]

I...did not know that Snythesist Summoners were that bad. Well, another thing for the ban list.

[Larkas]

PF Alpha/Beta version FoM gave +10 to saves and checks concerning anything that 3.5 FoM makes you immune to.


Apparently in the beta all those 3+ability mod/day abilities were at will, but they decided having anything at will was overpowered. And then they made cantrips at will... :smallconfused:

I don't even... They had some good material in their hands, and completely eschewed them. What matter of madness overtook them? :smallconfused: It also happened in at least one other place: Universalist Wizards are actually useful in the beta, whereas it is mostly ignored in the release version. What kind of playtesting feedback did this guys get? :smalleek:


I...did not know that Snythesist Summoners were that bad. Well, another thing for the ban list.

Ah, it's not any worse than any other T2 (it's actually pretty close to the bottom of the tier), and only slightly worse than most other T3 classes. It can get broken, yes, but it normally won't. The main problem with the class itself is that it kind of makes melee characters redundant.

[Tanuki Tales]

Ah, it's not any worse than any other T2 (it's actually pretty close to the bottom of the tier), and only slightly worse than most other T3 classes. It can get broken, yes, but it normally won't. The main problem with the class itself is that it kind of makes melee characters redundant.

The basic stat customization is something I don't want in my game though, thus a candidate for the list.

[Larkas]

The basic stat customization is something I don't want in my game though, thus a candidate for the list.

Hmmm, got it! I wonder if something along the lines of the changes made to wildshape could be made to accommodate a more balanced synthesist? I'm afraid that would make it too bad when compared to the regular Summoner for it to be worth it, though...

[WhatBigTeeth]

Isn't the problem with Synthesist also that it multiclasses extremely well?
The unstacking BA makes it trickier to dip a Synthesist than most classes. You can get away with it in certain cases where you target touch ACs or dip briefly for major benefits, but generally speaking, it's not as multiclass friendly as a 3e barb or cleric.

[Snowbluff]

Here's the StPE (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070629a). Where's Brucey in the author list? Normally Erudites are generally considered tier 2.Excuse? How aren't they T1? They get a pretty huge selection, and are not limited to powers known from class levels.


I...did not know that Snythesist Summoners were that bad. Well, another thing for the ban list.

Which is sad, because the new broken stuff forms the entirety of my personal incentive for me to play PF.

[JadePhoenix]

The unstacking BA makes it trickier to dip a Synthesist than most classes. You can get away with it in certain cases where you target touch ACs or dip briefly for major benefits, but generally speaking, it's not as multiclass friendly as a 3e barb or cleric.

By BA do you mean BAB? Because it does stack, according to the FAQ. It's the same issue as a Monk's Flurry of Blows.

[StreamOfTheSky]

The main problems with dipping or multiclassing into Synthesist are that:

a) Whenever actually using the bio-suit, it will "hard code" your physical stats to 16/12/13 or 14/14/13 or the like, which will suck by mid levels.

b) There is seriously no martial class level that is as good as another Synthesist level, so you're kind of foolish for using it as a dip for some other class anyway.

Point a) is especially ironic given that a Synthesist by mid levels can EASILY sport the most insane physical stats (especially Strength) of any class. It just starts off...well, those arrays aren't even that bad. What's bad is still being stuck to them at level 12 or whatever.

[peacenlove]

I don't even... They had some good material in their hands, and completely eschewed them. What matter of madness overtook them? :smallconfused: It also happened in at least one other place: Universalist Wizards are actually useful in the beta, whereas it is mostly ignored in the release version. What kind of playtesting feedback did this guys get? :smalleek:


Death ward had the same treatment.
And that brings me to another complaint that kinda applies only to previous 3.5 edition players.
The hunt for small changes without any documentation (only forum posts), especially changes in mid development (like INA not stacking with monk weapons, paladin's smite evil vs evil outsiders/undead/dragons etc). Changes that sometimes make no sense (I can understand energy drain not inflicting permanent levels anymore, but why doesn't it remove spell slots / PP anymore? Now in PF what does threaten spellcasters effectively?).
Unnecessary nerf of dispel magic. Now no one takes it and they suffer the wrath of spellcasters with layered buffs.
Another example is Crafting skills that don't use a universal formula, like in 3rd edition (A gunslinger crafts with different cost alchemical cartridges (1/2 of price) than normal bullets (1/10 of price) than poison (1/3 of price)).

[Spuddles]

The main problems with dipping or multiclassing into Synthesist are that:

a) Whenever actually using the bio-suit, it will "hard code" your physical stats to 16/12/13 or 14/14/13 or the like, which will suck by mid levels.

b) There is seriously no martial class level that is as good as another Synthesist level, so you're kind of foolish for using it as a dip for some other class anyway.

Point a) is especially ironic given that a Synthesist by mid levels can EASILY sport the most insane physical stats (especially Strength) of any class. It just starts off...well, those arrays aren't even that bad. What's bad is still being stuck to them at level 12 or whatever.

Inherent and Enhancement bonuses would stack after fusing or synthesizing, though. You'd lose out on up to +5 to ability scores from leveling, but as a caster, you're putting all those in charisma, anyway. It's also a great opportunity to start in an older age category for even more mental juiciness.

[Kudaku]

To get back to the original topic: The problem with Pathfinder is that it is a compromise.

Paizo wanted to make a game system that built on the merits, and fixed the flaws, of 3.5, but they also wanted a system that was similar enough that they could win over the people who thought 4.0 was a mistake and wanted 3.75 instead.

That meant they had limited space to maneuver - if they changed too much the game system would look alien to the 3.5-fans they wanted to pick up, if they changed too little they wouldn't truly fix all the problems inherent to the system.

Paizo chose to err on the side of caution.

That having been said, I am an enthusiastic PF-player (currently GMing one weekly game and playing in another) and I really enjoy Pathfinder. I think it's a great game system.

[Amnestic]

Inherent and Enhancement bonuses would stack after fusing or synthesizing, though. You'd lose out on up to +5 to ability scores from leveling, but as a caster, you're putting all those in charisma, anyway. It's also a great opportunity to start in an older age category for even more mental juiciness.

I think he meant dipping Synthesist as a martial character (eg. Fighter, Rogue) to get a decent stat array. I'd agree with him that in that case it's not really worth it...but for any caster class? You can do a lot worse.

[Gnaeus]

I think he meant dipping Synthesist as a martial character (eg. Fighter, Rogue) to get a decent stat array. I'd agree with him that in that case it's not really worth it...but for any caster class? You can do a lot worse.

For any caster class, you would be better advancing your caster progression.

Dipping Synthesist Summoner sucks less than dipping those 3 classes over there is not an indication that SS is overpowered.

[Amnestic]

For any caster class, you would be better advancing your caster progression.

Dipping Synthesist Summoner sucks less than dipping those 3 classes over there is not an indication that SS is overpowered.

Some things are worth dropping one CL for - there's a reason that there are some 9/10 casting PrCs (or 4/5 or whatever) out there are still a desireable object. Dipping Synthesist Summoner gives you a stat array that is going to always be decent for a caster and, as pointed out, means you can drop to Venerable without losing anything - it's the Dragonwrought Kobold of dips. Are you really saying that going Str 16/12/13 or 14/14/13 with +3 to all mental stats along with a few other goodies is not overpowered for one level? :smallconfused:

[Gnaeus]

Some things are worth dropping one CL for - there's a reason that there are some 9/10 casting PrCs (or 4/5 or whatever) out there are still a desireable object. Dipping Synthesist Summoner gives you a stat array that is going to always be decent for a caster and, as pointed out, means you can drop to Venerable without losing anything - it's the Dragonwrought Kobold of dips. Are you really saying that going Str 16/12/13 or 14/14/13 with +3 to all mental stats along with a few other goodies is not overpowered for one level? :smallconfused:

I would say that a caster would be better off advancing his spells known than dipping SS to get better physical stats, yes. Absolutely. Would I rather fight a 9th level wizard casting 5th level spells but with awful physical stats or an 8th level wizard with decent not great physical stats but only 4th level spells. I'll fight the summoner please. Would I rather play a caster with 5th level spells or 4th levels and better physical stats? Again, in most circumstances, the SS dip is a nerf. There are times when it is not, but there are times when tier 2s are better than tier 1s (and curiously, those times are largely the same. They happen when you can't select your spell list to your advantage.)

[StreamOfTheSky]

To get back to the original topic: The problem with Pathfinder is that it is a compromise.

Paizo wanted to make a game system that built on the merits, and fixed the flaws, of 3.5, but they also wanted a system that was similar enough that they could win over the people who thought 4.0 was a mistake and wanted 3.75 instead.

That meant they had limited space to maneuver - if they changed too much the game system would look alien to the 3.5-fans they wanted to pick up, if they changed too little they wouldn't truly fix all the problems inherent to the system.

Paizo chose to err on the side of caution.

No, that's not the problem. Not at all.

The problem with PF, if you want to simplify it to one statement is:

"Casters were buffed, noncasters were nerfed."

In other words, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what anyone would expect of a "more balanced" product. Seriously, what part of "fixing" 3E required giving wizards freebies, making grapple take a standard action, churning an avalanche of mental stat boosting races out their asses, or any of the other changes they actually made? That is what angers people so much. They took a game that was already completely developed (easier than building a system from the ground up) but had issues with class balance, and made things worse. That is just plain infuriating. That they then marketed it as being more balanced and a "fix" certainly doesn't help, either.

[Augmental]

I would say that a caster would be better off advancing his spells known than dipping SS to get better physical stats, yes. Absolutely. Would I rather fight a 9th level wizard casting 5th level spells but with awful physical stats or an 8th level wizard with decent not great physical stats but only 4th level spells. I'll fight the summoner please. Would I rather play a caster with 5th level spells or 4th levels and better physical stats? Again, in most circumstances, the SS dip is a nerf. There are times when it is not, but there are times when tier 2s are better than tier 1s (and curiously, those times are largely the same. They happen when you can't select your spell list to your advantage.)

So what do you think would offer a caster enough power to be worth a CL loss? :smallconfused:

[Kudaku]

No, that's not the problem. Not at all

I'm not sure if I agree with that. When the CRB launched the DMM cleric was gone, Druid took significant hits, while most of the other classes improved. The paladin especially was strengthened significantly. Of course as more content was released the caster/noncaster gap increased, as it inevitably does.

Personally I believe the problem with class balance in 3.5/PF is that it's based on asymmetrical balance: casters get more powerful effects but can create them a limited amount of times per day, while noncasters get less powerful effects with no limitations on how often they are used.

Charm person vs diplomacy.
Levitate vs climb.
Invisibility vs Stealth.
Knock vs Disable Device.

That only works if the DM makes a conscious effort to keep the party challenged with numerous encounters and actively works to counter the infamous 15 minute work day.

From what i have seen, the Tome of Battle is controversial because it comes at this problem from a different angle by giving noncasters powers that resemble spells, blurring the line further between caster and noncaster. Personally I would have liked to see a similar line of thought at Paizo, instead of throwing more numbers at the fighter and calling it a day.

4.0 tries to solve this by making all classes work with the same resource system, which makes it easier to compare and balance. It didn't sit too well with the customers though.

[JadePhoenix]

From what I've seen, the problem with Pathfinder is that it sells, while the revisions made by its critics don't.

[Amnestic]

From what I've seen, the problem with Pathfinder is that it sells, while the revisions made by its critics don't.

Am I to correctly interpret that this statement is saying that people "hate" on Pathfinder solely because they're jealous of Paizo's success? :smallconfused:

[JadePhoenix]

Am I to correctly interpret that this statement is saying that people "hate" on Pathfinder solely because they're jealous of Paizo's success? :smallconfused:

Some people certainly do.

[The Grue]

... I'm not really sure what role druid is particularly meant to accomplish in PF. They're passable utility casters I suppose. But they aren't good in combat any more, they aren't good at summoning, and anything else was always better to go to a Cleric or Wizard.

This is a joke right?

Show me a level-appropriate combat encounter that can't be won by wildshaping into a Mammoth and ganging up on it with the second character you get as a free class feature.

[Frosty]

Umm...against a flying enemy? :smallwink:

[Gnaeus]

So what do you think would offer a caster enough power to be worth a CL loss? :smallconfused:


echoing the common sentiment:
- Extra actions tend to be worth it.
- Metamagic cost reduction (or effective higher level slots) tend to be worth it.
- Special and unique abilities, completely busted abilities like Supernatural Spell or (non-Material Plane-bound) Planar Bubble.

Pretty much that. If it makes you a better caster than the caster level would, its worth a CL loss. Gishes, by and large, are weaker than an equivalent level, equivalent optimization caster. This is more true in PF than in 3.5, both because the caster classes have abilities that make multiclassing out less favorable, and because the best gish options are gone (for example, this SS gish has stats that are something like 16/14/14, which is vastly worse than a 3.5 polymorph.)

Thats not to say that there is no place in the game for a gish, or a Synthesist Summoner 1/Caster x. But overpowered? Hardly!

[Amnestic]

Some people certainly do.

I would love to know how you came to that conclusion.

[Tanuki Tales]

This is a joke right?

Show me a level-appropriate combat encounter that can't be won by wildshaping into a Mammoth and ganging up on it with the second character you get as a free class feature.

Something that finds your +6 Strength and +6 Natural armor non-threatening (this is assuming just Wildshape and Animal Companion are being used, not any buffs or outside factors that could shore up how nerfed into the ground Wildshape became)?

[SowZ]

Umm...against a flying enemy? :smallwink:

Wild shape into a flyer, then.

[Tanuki Tales]

Wild shape into a flyer, then.

But what good flying combat forms does an 8th level Druid have open to them though? They only get up to huge animals and large Magical Beats. And the stat bumps are still underwhelming.

[The Grue]

But what good flying combat forms does an 8th level Druid have open to them though? They only get up to huge animals and large Magical Beats. And the stat bumps are still underwhelming.

Fair point, but with a flying animal companion and the mammoth's whatever-foot reach it's less of a concern.

The real draw from wildshaping is not the stat bumps. It's the other stuff.

My point is not that the Druid is the best class. It is merely that the Druid is far, far from the worst. I'll take a Druid over a Fighter any day.

[Amnestic]

But what good flying combat forms does an 8th level Druid have open to them though? They only get up to huge animals and large Magical Beats. And the stat bumps are still underwhelming.

Going off this (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1354.0), the Desmodu Hunting/Guard Bat or the Dire Eagle.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm not sure if I agree with that. When the CRB launched the DMM cleric was gone, Druid took significant hits, while most of the other classes improved. The paladin especially was strengthened significantly. Of course as more content was released the caster/noncaster gap increased, as it inevitably does.

The gap's been there since core.

And seriously... DMM Persist (at least, with dild... nightsticks also allowed) is generally considered TO. Banning the blatantly overpowered stuff isn't a big accomplishment. And PF never actually got rid of it. It's in 3E, PF is supposedly compatible. Whether or not you can use it in PF is just the same as it was in 3E: If your DM allows it. Nothing about PF actually prevents DMM Persist from happening. A DM might now allow 3E sources...and a 3E DM just as easily might not allow the combo, too.

Druid did take hits, but it's still a pretty good class. And it wasn't all nerfs. He can wildshape and gain natural spell, both 1 level earlier than 3E, and can become a Large pouncing lion or tiger at level 6 instead of 8. And all his items sans armor/shield/weapons continue functioning while wildshaped w/o needing to shell out a ton on wilding clasps.

[StreamOfTheSky]

But what good flying combat forms does an 8th level Druid have open to them though? They only get up to huge animals and large Magical Beats. And the stat bumps are still underwhelming.

Well, to be fair, arguably the most optimal nature bond choice for a druid is Feather (Animal) domain with Boon Companion feat.

In other words, "pick a domain or an animal companion? I'll take...both!"

And doing so adds some flying spells to his arsenal. So having a build that can stick Fly on a pouncer isn't even "building specifically for this specific challenge" sort of deal.

Also barring that, Air Walk is a thing.

[peacenlove]

I'm not sure if I agree with that. When the CRB launched the DMM cleric was gone, Druid took significant hits, while most of the other classes improved. The paladin especially was strengthened significantly. Of course as more content was released the caster/noncaster gap increased, as it inevitably does.

Try to dispel a caster's buffs in Pathfinder with the super nerfed dispel. Or without Mage Slayer. Buffs weren't nerfed much, if at all so the disparity of NPC's vs party just became that much bigger. A (non TO) DMM cleric could be shot down with an equally optimized dispel magic. Or with summon spam with Pierce magic protection. Or with other measures. Pathfinder has none of them.



Personally I believe the problem with class balance in 3.5/PF is that it's based on asymmetrical balance: casters get more powerful effects but can create them a limited amount of times per day, while noncasters get less powerful effects with no limitations on how often they are used.

Casters were balanced as such from 2nd edition (when I began playing). Thing is that at 2nd edition a fighter was reliable (Highest hit points, very good saves, excellent damage output, especially with grandmastery on a weapon) if boring. Also leadership as class feature :smallwink:
From 3.0 and onwards that isn't the case anymore. PF didn't fix it and raised the defenses of the casters even more (d6 HD, innate defenses amongst them +6 inherent constitution etc).


Charm person vs diplomacy.
Levitate vs climb.
Invisibility vs Stealth.
Knock vs Disable Device.

At later levels a wizard can summon the appropriate critter / create the relevant undead and solve the problem. PF didn't change that. What it did change is that you can be a diviner, enjoy a superior initiative bonus, which you needed to polymorph in 3.5 edition to get it, restrict conjuration / necromancy and get some scrolls and cast the required spells.
Result: Power creep. Something that 3.5 edition was bashed for mercilessly.




From what i have seen, the Tome of Battle is controversial because it comes at this problem from a different angle by giving noncasters powers that resemble spells, blurring the line further between caster and noncaster. Personally I would have liked to see a similar line of thought at Paizo, instead of throwing more numbers at the fighter and calling it a day.


I couldn't agree more with this. Seriously experiment more Paizo!

[Frosty]

How exactly was Dispel Magic nerfed in PF? Can someone explain it to me in detail?

[Carth]

In 3.5 there were lots more ways to boost caster level, and also a fair amount of things that explicitly boosted dispel checks, which were great because of the caster level caps on the dispel line.

[Lord Vukodlak]

DMM cleric could be shot down with an equally optimized dispel magic. Or with summon spam with Pierce magic protection. Or with other measures. Pathfinder has none of them.
Pathfinder doesn't have DMM last I checked.

[Starbuck_II]

How exactly was Dispel Magic nerfed in PF? Can someone explain it to me in detail?

It became single target.
3.5 had an area effect choice.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It became single target.
3.5 had an area effect choice.

Uh, yeah... that's hardly the only change.

Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell's caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.


Targeted Dispel: This functions as a targeted dispel magic, but it can dispel one spell for every four caster levels you possess, starting with the highest level spells and proceeding to lower level spells.

In 3E, both Dispel and Greater Dispel could attempt to take away EVERY SINGLE SPELL active on a creature. It was kind of like...the only counter-action for hyper-buffed casters, you know?

One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make a dispel check (1d20 + your caster level, maximum +10) against the spell or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature. The DC for this dispel check is 11 + the spell’s caster level. If you succeed on a particular check, that spell is dispelled; if you fail, that spell remains in effect.

So yeah, you could say the PF changes benefited casters a fair bit. :smallmad:

[TuggyNE]

It became single target.
3.5 had an area effect choice.

Far more importantly, it can only affect a single spell active on the target; GDM ups this to 1/4 CL. So if the target has a dozen buffs up? Too bad, you can only get one of them, and if you roll poorly on your single dispel check, no dispel for you! (You don't reroll until you get one; you roll once, and compare it to active spells' CLs.)

Edit: HRNG, celerity. :smallannoyed:

[StreamOfTheSky]

Well, the fact that you're stuck with the same poor roll for all the comparisons instead of (what I think most would expect) rolling against each is definitely worth pointing out, too. Chances are, all the spells on the target will be around the same CL so you'll just end up failing to get anything with that one unlucky roll.

[Tanuki Tales]

Going off this (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1354.0), the Desmodu Hunting/Guard Bat or the Dire Eagle.

Aaaaand that's a 3.5 handbook.

We're talking Pathfinder here, where Wildshape was pretty much nerfed into the ground because the developers saw it as being something that was meant more for utility than to actually be a significant combat role (don't quote me, this is just what I've heard every time the subject comes up).

That Desmodu Guard Bat only gets you +4 Strength, +4 Natural Armor, a bite attack, a 60 foot flight speed and that's about it. Doesn't really look terribly impressive.

Which book was Dire Eagle in?

[Kudaku]

The gap's been there since core.

And seriously... DMM Persist (at least, with dild... nightsticks also allowed) is generally considered TO. Banning the blatantly overpowered stuff isn't a big accomplishment. And PF never actually got rid of it. It's in 3E, PF is supposedly compatible. Whether or not you can use it in PF is just the same as it was in 3E: If your DM allows it. Nothing about PF actually prevents DMM Persist from happening. A DM might now allow 3E sources...and a 3E DM just as easily might not allow the combo, too.

Druid did take hits, but it's still a pretty good class. And it wasn't all nerfs. He can wildshape and gain natural spell, both 1 level earlier than 3E, and can become a Large pouncing lion or tiger at level 6 instead of 8. And all his items sans armor/shield/weapons continue functioning while wildshaped w/o needing to shell out a ton on wilding clasps.

You're making my arguments for me :). Keeping the door ajar to using 3E content in PF is one of many examples of how Paizo wanted to make PF attractive to players who were growing tired with 3.5 but didn't want to start 4e.

Like I mentioned earlier, personally I would have liked to have seen significant changes made to the non-casting classes to bring them up on par with the casters by giving them access to powers and abilities that are not easily replicated with low level spells - Tome of Battle was one way to do this.

However, if Paizo had taken the martial classes and given them the ToB treatment, they'd lose a lot of the interchangeability that they needed in order to attract 3.5 players - many players do enjoy playing fighters and barbarians after all.

Instead, they (tried to) pruned away some of the more obnoxious problems with 3.5 core (wildshape, polymorph, Decipher Script etc) while keeping the system more or less intact.

Again, they needed to balance two different aspects: One was making significant changes to the system in order to make it more enjoyable to play non-caster classes at higher levels, and one was making those changes small enough that Pathfinder was similar enough to 3.5 that it would still feel comfortable to D&D veterans.

[peacenlove]

Pathfinder doesn't have DMM last I checked.

DMM cleric isn't the only way to stack buffs. Spells with 10 min / level or greater duration exist.
NPC spellcasters with Perception worth a damn and adequate warning (lets say the screams of battle next room) now have virtually no reason not to use all but the 2 highest level slots to buff themselves before the PC confront them.
Unless anyone suggests Scry and Die tactics becoming the norm...



However, if Paizo had taken the martial classes and given them the ToB treatment, they'd lose a lot of the interchangeability that they needed in order to attract 3.5 players - many players do enjoy playing fighters and barbarians after all.


Tome of Battle can't be replicated due to OGL reasons. They tried to mimic it with - guess what - feat chains (the style feats). Problem is, they all need I.Unarmed Strike.

Next complaint. Cost to get permanent abilities. In 3.5 we had skill tricks (= 2 skill points), Magic locations (some of your WBL) and even rituals (various form of payment, LA in savage species, ability scores for lords of darkness etc)
In PF everything new MUST be in the form of a feat.

[Larkas]

Okay, guys, a little tangent here. With all the discussions about where Pathfinder dropped the ball, I've been meaning to make a little handbook, pointing the silly, the broken, and the unnecessary changes (okay, so maybe not so little). The point of the handbook is not to bash the system, it is to increase awareness of the issues before they become a real issue in a real game table. Players and GMs may then choose to live with the issue, import the 3.5 ruling, or houserule it away however they want.

However, while I offer myself to organize that handbook, I can't possibly do it by myself. I need help from the community. I wanted to make something not unlike the series of "Why each class is in it's tier" threads (sample (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=camh7jirugv3oi9v56ss2isfm7&topic=4874.0)), where people argue whether something is an issue and I add it to the main post if it seems to be agreed upon by other people.

Is there any interest for something like that?

[Squirrel_Dude]

Small things:
- Wizards can select immortality as a feat at 20th level, as well as remove a school from their opposed list at 10th level. Not as a feat, but as an Arcane Discovery or whatever, in place of a feat.

- Be careful when using the d20pfsrd. It doesn't seem to remove material from small splat books that was replaced by later, larger books. Especially traits.

- Be careful when using the d20pfsrd. Third Party content is sometimes mixed in with the rest of the content. Last I checked, this was especially prominent in the templates section. Be on the lookout for the third party markings/check the source of questionable material at the bottom of a page.

- Gunpowder + gunsmithing can completely break wealth per level.

- Friends don't let friends use the fire lance.

Bigger things:
- Magic Item creation can totally break WPL

- Seriously consider the risks of allowing advanced firearms into your game.

[Tanuki Tales]

- Be careful when using the d20pfsrd. Third Party content is sometimes mixed in with the rest of the content. Last I checked, this was especially prominent in the templates section.


It's pretty much all clearly labeled as such though.

[sonofzeal]

Okay, guys, a little tangent here. With all the discussions about where Pathfinder dropped the ball, I've been meaning to make a little handbook, pointing the silly, the broken, and the unnecessary changes (okay, so maybe not so little). The point of the handbook is not to bash the system, it is to increase awareness of the issues before they become a real issue in a real game table. Players and GMs may then choose to live with the issue, import the 3.5 ruling, or houserule it away however they want.

However, while I offer myself to organize that handbook, I can't possibly do it by myself. I need help from the community. I wanted to make something not unlike the series of "Why each class is in it's tier" threads (sample (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=camh7jirugv3oi9v56ss2isfm7&topic=4874.0)), where people argue whether something is an issue and I add it to the main post if it seems to be agreed upon by other people.

Is there any interest for something like that?
I'd approve. I'd personally like to submit how Ride now suffers ACP, so all you Knights on Horseback have to jump through hoops not to take a significant penalty there. There's a few ways, but it's still a really subtle and unnecessary change that could seriously inconvenience a character who wasn't aware of it.

[TuggyNE]

I'd approve. I'd personally like to submit how Ride now suffers ACP, so all you Knights on Horseback have to jump through hoops not to take a significant penalty there. There's a few ways, but it's still a really subtle and unnecessary change that could seriously inconvenience a character who wasn't aware of it.

It's also (forgive me) pretty stupid. Why is it harder for a fully-armored knight to stay on or control a warhorse? :smallconfused:

[Sith_Happens]

It's also (forgive me) pretty stupid. Why is it harder for a fully-armored knight to stay on or control a warhorse? :smallconfused:

Because a horse is a nice thing, and therefore melee can't have it?:smallsigh:

[Squirrel_Dude]

It's also (forgive me) pretty stupid. Why is it harder for a fully-armored knight to stay on or control a warhorse? :smallconfused:Because the ride skill also determines your ability hang alongside your mount and use it as cover, negate fall damage, or speedily dismount from the horse. Those things are all harder to do in plate armor than leather.

[Raven777]

Small things:
- Wizards can select immortality as a feat at 20th level,

Yeah, that always annoyed me. Wizards get a free pass to become immortal just through leveling, no questions asked, but good luck becoming immortal as anything else without jumping through dozen of story driven DM hoops to get a Vampire to bite you or finding your one of a kind ritual to Lichdom.

It's like they went out of their way to put special provisions in everything else to prevent immortality. For exemple, the Monk's Timeless Body :


At 17th level, a monk no longer takes penalties to his ability scores for aging and cannot be magically aged. Any such penalties that he has already taken, however, remain in place. Age bonuses still accrue, and the monk still dies of old age when his time is up.

Or the Steal Years spell :


[...]This stolen youth does not actually change your age or prolong your life; you will still die at your allotted time, no matter how youthful you appear.[...]

It makes no sense to me. It's not like not dying of old age even affects game balance. If anything, immortality is an excellent (if cliché'd) motivation for a character to have, especially once their heroics starts making them living legends.

[TuggyNE]

Because the ride skill also determines your ability hang alongside your mount and use it as cover, negate fall damage, or speedily dismount from the horse. Those things are all harder to do in plate armor than leather.

Hmm. OK, those are a little trickier.

I'm sorely tempted to put the control functions of Ride in Handle Animal, and leave the trick-riding stuff in Ride; the result would be that most practical heavy cavalry or similar would invest almost entirely in Handle Animal to the exclusion of Ride (and use special saddles and stirrups and what-not to be sure to stay in the saddle and strike hard), while light cavalry would push skill points into both.

However, skill multiplication seems like not the best thing, on the whole, so I dunno.

[Larkas]

I'd approve. I'd personally like to submit how Ride now suffers ACP, so all you Knights on Horseback have to jump through hoops not to take a significant penalty there. There's a few ways, but it's still a really subtle and unnecessary change that could seriously inconvenience a character who wasn't aware of it.

Nice! See? This is exactly why I think a handbook detailing such changes is needed. Such a small change can certainly fall through the cracks for anyone less attentive (in this case, myself included!). I also have the blessings of peacenlove, I'll get to writing it first thing in the morning.

[TuggyNE]

Nice! See? This is exactly why I think a handbook detailing such changes is needed. Such a small change can certainly fall through the cracks for anyone less attentive (in this case, myself included!). I also have the blessings of peacenlove, I'll get to writing it first thing in the morning.


the blessings of peacenlove

Someone should sig that. :smallamused:

[3WhiteFox3]

Okay, guys, a little tangent here. With all the discussions about where Pathfinder dropped the ball, I've been meaning to make a little handbook, pointing the silly, the broken, and the unnecessary changes (okay, so maybe not so little). The point of the handbook is not to bash the system, it is to increase awareness of the issues before they become a real issue in a real game table. Players and GMs may then choose to live with the issue, import the 3.5 ruling, or houserule it away however they want.

However, while I offer myself to organize that handbook, I can't possibly do it by myself. I need help from the community. I wanted to make something not unlike the series of "Why each class is in it's tier" threads (sample (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=camh7jirugv3oi9v56ss2isfm7&topic=4874.0)), where people argue whether something is an issue and I add it to the main post if it seems to be agreed upon by other people.

Is there any interest for something like that?
I'll +1 this, I've been looking for a comprehensive list of all things problematic in Pathfinder. It would be a terrific resource for my home games. Perhaps a mix of balance issues/dysfunctional rules/overpowered tricks? Though, that might be a bit much for a single handbook.

[Katasi]

I'm in the middle of constructing house rules for a game I will be running at the end of this month (knock on wood; it was supposed to start back in March but then a player tore her ACL) and I want to keep adding to them and tweaking them to make a unique and fun experience for my players and for myself.

To this end, I want to hear from everyone what they think Pathfinder has or had done wrong (not Paizo as a company, but the game itself) and at least some justification behind said opinions.

I want your beefs/issues/opinions/hang ups/etc. with the system to be as brutal and honest as possible (as I know folks like Snowbluff will love to oblige :smalltongue:) and I don't want any punches pulled. I want to see Pathfinder completely run through the ringer so that I can take a step back and view the varying intricacies of the game from as many different view points and angles as possible so I can see new avenues to add to my own rules. Just try not to pointlessly bash the system please (i.e. "Gunslingers suck" is not alright, but "I think Gunslingers would have served better as an archetype for either the Fighter or Ranger. The Grit and Deed mechanics are not so intricate as class features that they couldn't have just been given to either of those two classes instead of devoting a whole class to them" is what we're aiming for).

Thank you in advance! :smallsmile:

I think you are asking the wrong question. You've stated you're playing PF, not 3.5. So the questions you need to ask is "What did 3.5 do more INTERESTING, without being more powerful than I'm willing to deal with" figure those things out, and use them as your house rules. Then apply any rules that would shift play more toward how you prefer it- for example I like to house rule armor as DR, not because of balance issues either way, but because I like the feel it gives. Lastly, house rule for or against anything that doesn't fit or you know your players will abuse or that you personally feel is stupid (if you're doing a realistic combat game it's ok to get rid of wizards and druids and such. It's also ok to rule that it's ok for characters to sleep in armor even if it's not realistic.) Anything else that is breaking your game you should deal with as it comes, by talking with your players about it. No need to try and house rule every fix to the system, just deal with what makes the game FEEL best to you, and those things that cause problems. And most of the things that cause problems, either underpowered or overpowered, can usually be fixed if you change your DMing and encounter setups to support the group you have. That's why you're there and it's not all randomly generated or done by flipping pages in a book.

[Chained Birds]

Okay, guys, a little tangent here. With all the discussions about where Pathfinder dropped the ball, I've been meaning to make a little handbook, pointing the silly, the broken, and the unnecessary changes (okay, so maybe not so little). The point of the handbook is not to bash the system, it is to increase awareness of the issues before they become a real issue in a real game table. Players and GMs may then choose to live with the issue, import the 3.5 ruling, or houserule it away however they want.

However, while I offer myself to organize that handbook, I can't possibly do it by myself. I need help from the community. I wanted to make something not unlike the series of "Why each class is in it's tier" threads (sample (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=camh7jirugv3oi9v56ss2isfm7&topic=4874.0)), where people argue whether something is an issue and I add it to the main post if it seems to be agreed upon by other people.

Is there any interest for something like that?

I look forward to seeing this.

It would be nice if people could just post a link to a handbook whenever the "Is PF bad compared to 3.5?" stuff comes up, instead of bringing up the same arguments that last over 5+ pages.

I am curious as to what will actually be in the handbook. Though I expect fair comparisons and reasonable arguments about why one thing is inherently flawed.

[TuggyNE]

I am curious as to what will actually be in the handbook. Though I expect fair comparisons and reasonable arguments about why one thing is inherently flawed.

5+ pages of arguments?

Seriously though, a condensed, clinical compendium could counsel countless confused.

… sorry, the alliteration got away from me there.

Anyway, yeah, give it a go, but try to minimize the editorializing.

[137beth]

Because a horse is a nice thing, and therefore melee can't have it?:smallsigh:

Huh, so I guess that druid with a ton of self-buffs shifted into a giant whatever with natural spell fighting in melee range doesn't have nice stuff:smallconfused:


- Be careful when using the d20pfsrd. It doesn't seem to remove material from small splat books that was replaced by later, larger books. Especially traits.

- Be careful when using the d20pfsrd. Third Party content is sometimes mixed in with the rest of the content. Last I checked, this was especially prominent in the templates section. Be on the lookout for the third party markings/check the source of questionable material at the bottom of a page.
I'm having a hard time seeing how either of these are disadvantages outside of an optimization forum thread. At my table, everything is checked by the DM before play. Having easy access to more content is a good thing. It is always easier to remove stuff than to write new stuff, so there's no reason not to include more content.
(also, it says at the top of the page who the publisher is for everything on d20pfsrd, so even if you are doing a forum optimization challenge it is really easy to look...)


Okay, guys, a little tangent here. With all the discussions about where Pathfinder dropped the ball, I've been meaning to make a little handbook, pointing the silly, the broken, and the unnecessary changes (okay, so maybe not so little). The point of the handbook is not to bash the system, it is to increase awareness of the issues before they become a real issue in a real game table. Players and GMs may then choose to live with the issue, import the 3.5 ruling, or houserule it away however they want.
This has me excited. I want to see how it turns out.

[lord_khaine]

Huh, so I guess that druid with a ton of self-buffs shifted into a giant whatever with natural spell fighting in melee range doesn't have nice stuff

The druid is a spellcaster, not a melee, so of course he can have nice things.

Even if those things should have belonged to someone else :smalltongue:

[137beth]

The druid is a spellcaster, not a melee, so of course he can have nice things.

Even if those things should have belonged to someone else :smalltongue:

The druid can fight in melee. You're thinking martial (i.e. nonmagical). Melee is up-close fighting. An archer is not melee, even if it is martial.

[lord_khaine]

The druid can fight in melee. You're thinking martial (i.e. nonmagical). Melee is up-close fighting. An archer is not melee, even if it is martial.

Just because the druid can fight in melee doesnt make it a melee class, its still a spellcaster.

A melee is someone who is stuck in melee because they cant do anything else. Something that with the general nerfs they have suffered in the current edition then lead to the saying, "melee cant have nice things"

[137beth]

Just because the druid can fight in melee doesnt make it a melee class, its still a spellcaster.

A melee is someone who is stuck in melee because they cant do anything else. Something that with the general nerfs they have suffered in the current edition then lead to the saying, "melee cant have nice things"
So then there are no melee classes. A fighter, the primary "melee" class example, could also be an archer. Same goes for every other martial class, they just might not do it as well. Barbarian might be the only actual "melee class" under your restrictive notion of what a melee class is.

[TuggyNE]

A melee is someone who is stuck in melee because they cant do anything else. Something that with the general nerfs they have suffered in the current edition then lead to the saying, "melee cant have nice things"

Like most popular saying, it's technically inaccurate, but largely gets the point across.

Can we just let it go already? I'm as fond of pedantry as the next guy, but seriously, there's no real sense to hashing this out.

[T.G. Oskar]

Little late on this discussion, but I think I need to clarify this:

I think the argument against PF Maneuvers is overblown. I wouldn't call them worse, just different.

Take Trip:
3.5: Improved Trip is 1 feat + a feat tax (combat expertise). It works on flyers and some critters if you focus on it. It gives you a followup attack.

After that, you really arent getting better at tripping. A dedicated trip build is likely to take some battle field control feats, like combat reflexes, thicket of blades, etc, but they really aren't doing anything but getting more AOOs for enemies who politely provoke.

PF. Improved trip is functionally 2 feats + feat tax. It doesn't work on flyers, or work well on some monster types. On the other hand, it provokes an AOO from anyone around the target, potentially generating a number of followup attacks.

After that, there are lots of trip feats that you can take if you want to be a better tripper. Free trip on a Power attack or critical hit. Add dex to the CMB. Entangle an enemy with a trip. Throw an opponent into an adjacent square, to drop them off a bridge or dump them in the middle of your party for a mess of AOOs. Free grapple after a trip. Also, things that give you bonuses to hit also give bonuses to CMB, so the route to being a successful tripper does not require Enlarge Person/Polymorph.

If you expect to be in a campaign with a lot of humanoid opponents, you could do much worse than make a tripper. It might not be optimal in other games. I'm not sure that it a bad thing.

The problem I find with this argument is that PF options are presented, but no 3.x options. Note I mention 3.x for one reason.

For example: why not mention Knockdown? You might argue it's on Deities and Demigods, and thus 3rd Edition material, but it crossed into the SRD, so it's essentially grandfathered into 3.5. This is essentially the same trait wolves have, of enabling a free trip with a successful attack, except that it requires a Strength of 15, a BAB of +2, the Improved Trip feat (and thus, Combat Expertise), and only works if you deal 10 or more points of damage on your attack. However, IF you do that, you can combine it with Improved Trip for the +4 to trip checks AND the extra attack. Standing from prone enables another AoO, so it's a solid start to trip-locking an enemy. This option in 3.5 is, IMO, superior to some of the options presented in PF. The PA/crit-enabled trip attempt requires you to be good with your attack rolls (in the same way your CMB increases if you gain bonuses to attack rolls, it decreases with penalties; ergo, PA effectively hinders your trip, in comparison to 3.x), and as Amnestic mentions:


Swift action trip on a power attack. And it costs a feat.

Knockdown, in comparison to Felling Smash or Tripping Strike, is cost-efficient, as it combines the benefits of the latter two, and the enabling cost is pretty easy to work out.

Regarding Fury's Fall: I agree that it should have been an option regardless of the system. In fact, I still wonder why Improved Trip requires you to have Combat Expertise. Allow me to explain.

From what I've seen, Combat Expertise was meant to be the combat style for fencers, because it collapses three of the maneuvers you'd expect from a fencer: disarm, feint, and trip. Note that all three require Combat Expertise, as well as Intelligence 13 or higher. If you're aiming for fencing, there's two ways to handle it: one, using a polearm, and another, using a rapier or a similar fencing weapon. The first most likely would prefer Strength; the latter inclines towards Dexterity. Yet, disarming and tripping require Strength, not Dexterity, to execute (you can use Dexterity to defend, though). This isn't effective, but it's sensible; if you're attempting to simulate real life, it's a good approach (though I can think of ways why Dexterity could easily be explained as a way to execute a trip).

However, Combat Expertise requires no Strength or Dexterity; it requires Intelligence. This may exist to explain that the character is smart enough to use these maneuvers with great effectiveness...except that neither disarm, nor trip, nor feint, use Intelligence. Two use Strength, the latter uses Charisma. So, since mechanically there's no reason to add Intelligence, it's all fluff-based...which leads to the second problem. If a pikeman attempts to trip an opponent, does it imply that it's smarter than the norm, or that it was trained to exploit that combat maneuver? The former would imply the need for Intelligence, the latter is perfectly explained through feats.

Thus: both in terms of mechanics and fluff, there's little reason to bind Combat Expertise to Improved Disarm, Improved Trip or Improved Feint. The only sensible reason is that the developers intended the feats to balance fencers with spear-wielders in terms of tripping...but considering the long-term game, Improved Trip becomes a necessity, and fencers aren't the most optimal choice for a tripper (because they depend on Dexterity more than on Strength).

These are the kinds of problems PF *could* have solved; instead, it addressed the problem from a different perspective. The change in perspective turned out to be so radical, it introduced its own set of problems, it provides a solution in one way, it doesn't solve the problem in another way, and it brings a whole set of new problems and options in a third way.

Regarding Fury's Snare: note that a broken weapon isn't as bad as in 3.5. In PF, a broken weapon is simply less effective (-2 to attack and damage rolls, only crits in a nat 20 roll, has a x2 modifier, sells as an item of 75% of its base cost). That said: it takes 3-4 feats to function (CE, Imp. Trip, Fury's Fall, and proficiency with a whip, which might require another feat), for a VERY specific effect, and it's very easy to escape from. Remember Knockdown? This isn't very cost-effective, as it requires 4 feats, which means that unless you're a fighter or a human, you have to wait until 5th-7th level to use this, by which monsters are already competitive in terms of tripping AND might have enough Str to easily succeed on the check, thus you end up with a broken whip several times.

Regarding Ki Throw: it's obviously designed for a Monk, a Ninja, or a class that gains Ki, because that way you can move creatures one size larger than you. Also: it's ANOTHER feat chain, and to gain the best benefit out of it, you need YET ANOTHER feat chain. As in:

The first feat chain is to be an effective tripper, which requires Combat Expertise, Improved Trip and Greater Trip (for the extra attack, of course, and the +2 to trip checks). Note that "effective" in this case isn't "can actually trip", but "can do stuff with trip other than merely tripping".

Then, you need Improved Unarmed Strike in order to actually GAIN Ki Throw. Sure, you don't need Greater Trip for Ki Throw, but you DO need it if you want to make an attack after a trip...unless you're a Monk, in which case you get Enhanced Ki Throw to add your unarmed strike when you use the Ki Throw.

If you want Improved Ki Throw, which is the one that enables you to bull rush a creature into another, you need the Improved Bull Rush feat. This is ANOTHER feat chain of its own, though a shorter one (Power Attack -> Imp. Bull Rush), but it also implies a Strength modifier of 13 or higher. So you already need Str 13 and Int 13.

Now, if you want to grapple after a trip, you need Ki Throw, period. Binding Throw also requires Improved Grapple, which requires Dex 13+. That's ALSO a short feat chain (Imp. Unarmed Strike -> Imp. Grapple), but you already have IUS (because of Ki Throw), so it's not really a feat chain at all. You need a swift action to make the grapple check, though.

And, finally, you gain the "final" technique of Ki Throw: Spinning Throw. Since you already got Improved Ki Throw, you already have all required feats to qualify. Not just that, because you get Improved Ki Throw, you get a boost to this super-maneuver. It requires a swift action after you succeed on a trip, THEN you have to succeed on a bull rush in order to move it and then make it end up prone. So it's either THIS maneuver or Binding Throw.

So, end result? Str 13+, Dex 13+, Int 13+, and 10 feats (Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Ki Throw, Improved Ki Throw, Binding Throw, Spinning Throw) in this branch, which is exactly the number of feats you get. Unless you're a fighter or a monk, you'll be left without feats real fast. However, you get the ability to throw an opponent into others, or trip and THEN grapple an opponent. I mean, just the first one! Surely 3.5 can't do anything like this! If only...

Damn you, Setting Sun!

...because that's exactly what the maneuver chain that starts with Mighty Throw and ends up with Tornado Throw does. Really:
Mighty Throw allows you to use Strength OR Dexterity, you gain a +4 on the check, and you automatically move the enemy 10 ft. PF edges out a bit in that the moved opponent enables AoOs.
Devastating Throw is essentially a combined trip + bull rush check, you have to move, and the enemy automatically takes fixed damage.
Comet Throw works as Devastating Throw, except the damage is 4d6, can be used against a second opponent, and BOTH fall prone (though the second target is allowed a Reflex save)
Ballista Throw works like Mighty Throw, except you move the enemy in a fixed 60-ft. line, AND both the target and all enemies in line take 6d6 points of damage.
Soaring Throw works exactly as Devastating Throw, except you deal 8d6 points of damage against the opponent.
And finally, Tornado Throw works just like Devastating Throw, except you ALSO move up to twice your speed, your bonus on trip checks increases based on your movement distance DURING YOUR TURN, and you can trip multiple opponents (or the same enemy multiple times)

With Combat Expertise and Improved Trip, you require between 3-5 feats (the latter three with Martial Study) to essentially duplicate what you need 10 in Pathfinder. Sure, it only works 1/encounter (unless you get a way to recover them), but you do manage to duplicate the effects of several feats, and much faster (with CE, Imp. Trip and the first Martial Study feat, you can access this feat by 6th level, which is one level earlier than PF).

What I wanted to explain with this is that, if you look carefully, you can enable options for certain maneuvers just as PF does. The difference is that you don't require that many feats, or waiting that much, to get them. To easily dismiss 3.5's options in favor of Pathfinder makes a great disservice to the system. Ironically? It's exactly what Amnestic mentions!


Which brings me to my final point: You can make a decent tripper in 3.5 with far fewer feats than in PF. PF gives you more feats, but it also gives you far more trip specialisation feat dumps for something which is more easily countered in PF than 3.5.

About the only thing that PF did better than 3.5 was to increase the numbers for your trip...but if you consider how CMB grows compared to CMD, this isn't exactly a solution.

Also, this argument...


So, since I said that PF tripping was very useful in a campaign with predominantly humanoidish opponents, pretty much means that you are agreeing with me.

...what.

H-how does this count as an argument at all? What you imply in here is that tripping is only useful against a small subsection of opponents, and this is considered consent to agreement?

Assuming for a moment that Amnestic was responding to THAT specific argument, then it might make sense. However, I have the impression that Amnestic's argument was different: it didn't take into consideration that specific argument, and went mostly towards the reasons on how trip optimization wasn't really optimization, as the options are subpar at most. The closing bit was essentially a summary of the argument, not a direct response to that bit.

After proving how 3.5 can resemble at least THAT feat branch with LESS feats, it brings to question just how the feat branches made by PF can be considered worthwhile.

I believe I mentioned once that Pathfinder didn't make much vertical improvement (i.e., that it solved the problems of 3.5), but horizontal improvement (i.e., it offers a larger wealth of options on what it already exists). Horizontal improvement, however, doesn't necessarily involve vertical improvement: having a wealth of different options doesn't mean all will be automatically better.

[eggynack]

I don't really know the extent to which you can do this in pathfinder, because I haven't played it, but the combat expertise prerequisite on improved trip is really easy to bypass. Barbarian 2 is a perfectly viable part of any melee build, particularly because of pounce and whirling frenzy, and wolf totem gets you improved trip without a need for prerequisites. This means that you can get most of the stuff you'd want for a tripping build, combat reflexes, improved trip, and knock-down, all by level three. As a human, you could even add in power attack, and after level two you can start moving in on other things by taking a couple of fighter levels. As I previously mentioned, I don't know how this compares to pathfinder. However, I felt that 3.5 melee builds were being a bit misrepresented. The fact that a one level barbarian dip is one of the most common aspects of non-ToB melee builds, means that the stuff I suggested is pretty far from being a corner case.

[sonofzeal]

I don't really know the extent to which you can do this in pathfinder, because I haven't played it, but the combat expertise prerequisite on improved trip is really easy to bypass. Barbarian 2 is a perfectly viable part of any melee build, particularly because of pounce and whirling frenzy, and wolf totem gets you improved trip without a need for prerequisites. This means that you can get most of the stuff you'd want for a tripping build, combat reflexes, improved trip, and knock-down, all by level three. As a human, you could even add in power attack, and after level two you can start moving in on other things by taking a couple of fighter levels. As I previously mentioned, I don't know how this compares to pathfinder. However, I felt that 3.5 melee builds were being a bit misrepresented. The fact that a one level barbarian dip is one of the most common aspects of non-ToB melee builds, means that the stuff I suggested is pretty far from being a corner case.
Even better, there's a feat "Wolf Berserker" that only requires ability to rage and "Wolf berserker lodge" membership (easily fluff'd), that {a} gives +4 to Trip, and {b} automatically qualifies you for Improved Trip.

Any Tripper who doesn't take this feat is srsly missing out.

[eggynack]

Even better, there's a feat "Wolf Berserker" that only requires ability to rage and "Wolf berserker lodge" membership (easily fluff'd), that {a} gives +4 to Trip, and {b} automatically qualifies you for Improved Trip.

Any Tripper who doesn't take this feat is srsly missing out.
The +4 to trip is definitely better than the effective nothing that you get from combat expertise. Still, if the argument is about who can get the furthest on feat chains with the lowest feat expenditures, I think that my method is more effective. With wolf totem, you're effectively getting two feats for the cost of one class level. Wolf berserker has both the prerequisite feat cost, as well as the cost of the feat itself. Wolf berserker is definitely worth some consideration though, especially for builds with more feats than class levels to spare.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I'm having a hard time seeing how either of these are disadvantages outside of an optimization forum thread. At my table, everything is checked by the DM before play. Having easy access to more content is a good thing. It is always easier to remove stuff than to write new stuff, so there's no reason not to include more content.
(also, it says at the top of the page who the publisher is for everything on d20pfsrd, so even if you are doing a forum optimization challenge it is really easy to look...) I said to be careful, not that it was a bad website. I use it pretty often. I've just had plenty of players accidentally use it simply because they were unaware to look for third party content being mixed in, or ask if they could use something that wasn't fully developed on the site (there was some weapon that didn't have any actual stats for it).

As for the obsolete stuff not being removed. That stuff is much harder to spot as a GM. E.G. Desert Child vs Desert Nomad. Which one is obsolete? You have to know that they are the same trait, and not like Demon Slayer and Demon Eradicator, which simply have a similar name.

But maybe that's only annoying for people like me who would prefer it all be erratad for me. :smalltongue:

[Larkas]

Alright, guys, I'm drafting the handbook right now. Should have something to present in a few hours, but I want to hear from The Glyphstone first to double-check what's the site's policy on double posting for handbooks (I wanted to reserve one or two replies so the guide can grow). As soon as it's posted, I'll let you guys know. :smallsmile:

[137beth]

I said to be careful, not that it was a bad website. I use it pretty often. I've just had plenty of players accidentally use it simply because they were unaware to look for third party content being mixed in, or ask if they could use something that wasn't fully developed on the site (there was some weapon that didn't have any actual stats for it).
I still don't understand why it is an issue if someone finds an interesting character option which happens to be 3rd party...


As for the obsolete stuff not being removed. That stuff is much harder to spot as a GM. E.G. Desert Child vs Desert Nomad. Which one is obsolete? You have to know that they are the same trait, and not like Demon Slayer and Demon Eradicator, which simply have a similar name.
What do you mean by "obsolete" content? Of the two examples you gave, demon slayer/demon eradicator do completely different things, and I can't see why you couldn't allow both in the same game, or why a single character shouldn't be able to take both. Neither of them are obsolete.

As for desert child vs. desert nomad...am I missing something, or do those have identical crunch? It wouldn't make sense for one character to have both of them, but it doesn't matter which one they use. The answer to your question "which one is obsolete?" is "whichever one you want, they're identical."

[Larkas]

Okay, guys, I've just posted the handbook! It can be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=284344). Please, go over there and tell me if I've missed something! And help regarding the other rulebooks would be greatly appreciated too (such as things regarding the Summoner!). Oh, and feel free to critique! :smallsmile:

[Man on Fire]

Here is what's wrong with Pathfinder:

Goblins gets +4 DEX, -2 INT and -2 CHA.
Orcs get +4 STR, -2 INT, -2 CHA and -2 WIS

How is that supposed to be fair?

[hamishspence]

Maybe Pathfinder made the same mistake as 3rd ed- in valuing Str higher than any other ability adjustment.

[Man on Fire]

In my games I just let Orc players either take +2 CON or drop one of the -2 of their choice.

[StreamOfTheSky]

If you think that's unfair, look at kobold...

I would suggest dropping the -2 wis, it makes the least sense of the three, and fits with the old 3E half-orc who had int and cha penalties.

[Amnestic]

Orcs get +4 STR, -2 INT, -2 CHA and -2 WIS


Clearly +4 Strength and net -6 to mental stats is equal to or greater than +2 to a stat of your choice, one feat and +1 Skill Point per level. Who couldn't see that?

[TuggyNE]

Maybe Pathfinder made the same mistake as 3rd ed- in valuing Str higher than any other ability adjustment.

But… but carrying capacity!

[The Boz]

Clearly +4 Strength and net -6 to mental stats is equal to or greater than +2 to a stat of your choice, one feat and +1 Skill Point per level. Who couldn't see that?

Just imagine all the one-shot kills at level 1 two-handed weapon charges!
And what if they're barbairans! Most orcs are barbarians!? So much blood!

[Frosty]

Just imagine all the one-shot kills at level 1 two-handed weapon charges!
And what if they're barbairans! Most orcs are barbarians!? So much blood!
Plus Powa Attack!

[Chained Birds]

In my games I just let Orc players either take +2 CON or drop one of the -2 of their choice.

You can't give them CON! Are your crazy! Then Scarred Witch Doctors would be unbeatable!

[StreamOfTheSky]

I know that's in blue text, but Half-Orcs and Humans with Racial Emulation (I think that's the name?) feat can take the archetype and get +2 con anyway. Just for those who don't know.

[Kudaku]

I know that's in blue text, but Half-Orcs and Humans with Racial Emulation (I think that's the name?) feat can take the archetype and get +2 con anyway. Just for those who don't know.

I believe the feat you're thinking of is Racial Heritage (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/arg-feats/racial-heritage), which does indeed let you qualify for archetypes of other races. It is, however, not allowed in PFS.

[Frosty]

Out of curiosity, can a Half-elf take the Racial Heritage feat but choose say...Dwarf as the related race?

[Kudaku]

There's an ongoing discussion on the paizo forums on exactly what "effect related to race" means in Pathfinder, so that question is not something I'll dare to give a definitive answer to.

That having been said, looking at the wording of the 'elf blood' racial trait and the wording of racial heritage, I'd personally have no issue with it.

[Tanuki Tales]

Out of curiosity, can a Half-elf take the Racial Heritage feat but choose say...Dwarf as the related race?

Personally? I'd say yes. I love giving Half-Elves as much love as possible (Half-Orcs as well) after how bad they got shafted in 3rd edition.

Officially? Dunno. Reads that way to me, but I could see arguments to the contrary.

[Amnestic]

On a note of races, I find the fact that they created a codified race builder system with "race points" and then proceeded to make it so some (Aasimar - 15RP) were drastically different to others (Kobold - 5RP).

Equal points does not necessarily mean equal power, but it'd be closer. Why create the systems if you didn't intend to balance the races around it? :smallsigh:

[Larkas]

On a note of races, I find the fact that they created a codified race builder system with "race points" and then proceeded to make it so some (Aasimar - 15RP) were drastically different to others (Kobold - 5RP).

Equal points does not necessarily mean equal power, but it'd be closer. Why create the systems if you didn't intend to balance the races around it? :smallsigh:

They tried analyzing and forcing all standard races to conform to a 10 RP total in the playtest. I actually think that it is something good that they didn't carry on with that idea. If you're referring as to why they didn't design races to conform to 10 RP from the start, that is simple: they came up with this system way after the game was done and being played.

[137beth]

On a note of races, I find the fact that they created a codified race builder system with "race points" and then proceeded to make it so some (Aasimar - 15RP) were drastically different to others (Kobold - 5RP).

Equal points does not necessarily mean equal power, but it'd be closer. Why create the systems if you didn't intend to balance the races around it?
They decided that particular groups should decide for themselves if a race is too powerful/weak. Notice that they also did away with LA. It caused enough issues in 3.5, since a high LA couldn't always match up with class levels, so they got rid of it, and left it up to agreement between players/DM. The racial points system is a method to estimate relative power which is a bit more finely tuned than LA (whether or not it is more accurate is anyone's guess), and DMs get to decide which to use.

[The Glyphstone]

Personally? I'd say yes. I love giving Half-Elves as much love as possible (Half-Orcs as well) after how bad they got shafted in 3rd edition.

Officially? Dunno. Reads that way to me, but I could see arguments to the contrary.

Half-Elf Monks, however, are banned from taking the feat. Because it would be overpowered.

[Tanuki Tales]

Half-Elf Monks, however, are banned from taking the feat. Because it would be overpowered.

Is that a crack at the terribad Monk capstone or...?

[StreamOfTheSky]

(Not so) funny story...

Originally, the Cloud Step feat was totally kick ass and finally gave monks a true, amazing capstone class feature - infinite air walk speed (it's equal to half of your slow fall distance, and half of infinite is still infinite). Level 20 monks could pseudo-teleport anywhere on earth they could physically access as a move action!

...PF did not like the monk being able to at will "teleport" 11 character levels after wizards could start doing it x times per day, so they nerfed it and Spider Step to the basically worthless (cap at move 50 ft) feats we have today.

:smallfrown:

[Raineh Daze]

(Not so) funny story...

Originally, the Cloud Step feat was totally kick ass and finally gave monks a true, amazing capstone class feature - infinite air walk speed (it's equal to half of your slow fall distance, and half of infinite is still infinite). Level 20 monks could pseudo-teleport anywhere on earth they could physically access as a move action!

...PF did not like the monk being able to at will "teleport" 11 character levels after wizards could start doing it x times per day, so they nerfed it and Spider Step to the basically worthless (cap at move 50 ft) feats we have today.

:smallfrown:

You turn into an outsider, but you're still expected to conform to vaguely realistic logic? :smallsigh:

[Amnestic]

(Not so) funny story...

Originally, the Cloud Step feat was totally kick ass and finally gave monks a true, amazing capstone class feature - infinite air walk speed (it's equal to half of your slow fall distance, and half of infinite is still infinite). Level 20 monks could pseudo-teleport anywhere on earth they could physically access as a move action!

...PF did not like the monk being able to at will "teleport" 11 character levels after wizards could start doing it x times per day, so they nerfed it and Spider Step to the basically worthless (cap at move 50 ft) feats we have today.

:smallfrown:

I'm not sure that rates as cooler than the Truenamer's capstone, but as far as capstones go, infinite movement speed is pretty damn cool, and you probably deserve something that cool after 20 levels of Monk.

Shame they nerfed it.

[Raineh Daze]

Actually, it is logical. There is a definite cause and effect. Realism has nothing to do with logic.

Realistic logic. Such as 'having trained my entire life for this, I can now fall safely from high distances' rather than 'having trained my entire life for this, I no longer count as human and can teleport everywhere due to my ability to absorb falls!'

[StreamOfTheSky]

If anyone is interested in this side rant, here I a post by the author of the feats in the thread that brought the topic up (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l6yc?20th-level-monk-and-Spider-StepCloud-Step).

I think it is worth noting that while he obviously did not intend for it to give infinite movement, he also didn't seem to be so against it, either:

HOWEVER, I am somewhat swayed by the notion that it's not completely bananas for monks to get infinite speed at 20th level. They are supernatural manga maniacs at that level, so at a certain level, why not?

It *is* kind of a cool notion for a capstone monk ability. It just wasn't what was intended here.

If your DM is open to houseruling things.

[Acanous]

Pathfinder works as a system so long as you have a sensible group and a leniant DM.
It's when you have rules-lawyers and RAW bible thumpers that it breaks down.

I've said it before that the "White Tower" article proved the trap options in 3.5 were dev malintent. There is no such defense for Pathfinder- the treap options that exist (Vital Strike and anything related to Combat Maneuvers, most Teamwork feats, Goblin racial feats and traits, mundanes in general, really) is done accidentally and with poor writing. Mostly in the wording.

This could actually be a good thing- Correcting the poor wording in Pathfinder is less houseruling and more applying an editor to a book series that needs it badly.
If we could get an "Pathfinder Appropriate House Rule Field-Guide" on the forums, it would be much appreciated, and a project I would take part in.