Pathfinder's Peculiar Permutations

[Larkas]

Pathfinder's Peculiar Permutations

A guidebook for the good, the bad and the ugly changes introduced in Pathfinder

A very common theme in discussions brought up by people meaning to do the jump from 3.5 to Pathfinder is “what did Pathfinder change?”. The short answer is “a lot more than first meets the eye”. This guidebook aims to give the longer answer as best as it can. We want to list here all the relevant changes, especially those that might have affected the game balance and the character creation process, either positively or negatively. With all the big and small changes, however, we are sure to be missing lots of things. If you think we’ve missed something (as we surely will!), be sure to give us some pointers, saying what we did miss and why you do think that deserves to be listed here! We are also actively looking for explanations and examples showing how a new ruling affects the game, so feel free to expand even on what has already been listed! We’ll be sure to quote and link back to the relevant post in the thread. :smallsmile:

That said, please note that this guidebook was not made for bashing Pathfinder or any of its developers. We like Pathfinder and the idea behind it (i.e.: carrying the torch for 3.5, and expanding and fixing the available material). What we want is to increase awareness about both the system’s shortcomings and its strong points. This way, if potential DMs and players find some addition that doesn’t seat well in their game, they can deal with them however they want, be it by houseruling them, importing the original 3.5 ruling or, just as important, living with it, but with knowledge of the impacts that it might have. Likewise, we want to make this a resource for 3.5 players and DMs too. If those find something here that can fix something in their game, they can just as easily import Pathfinder’s rule!

This guidebook will be organized using the Pathfinder sourcebooks as templates. This means that we’ll be following their chapter and subchapter structures. If you want to check if there’s anything new for barbarians, for example, you’ll find it under Core Rulebook -> Classes -> Barbarian. This should make it fairly easy to spot what you’re looking for. What’s more important, this enables us to classify things more rationally: changes made to Improved Grapple, for example, are not necessarily connected with changes concerning the grapple maneuver as a whole.

Furthermore, this guidebook will follow the below format to explain changes and innovations:

Change (C,B): Explanation [#]

- Changes impacting characters will be indicated by C’s color;

- Changes impacting game balance will be indicated by B ’s color;

- Positive changes will be marked in blue letters;

- Negative changes will be marked in red letters;

- Changes with unexpected consequences will be marked in orange letters;

- Changes with no appreciable impacts will be marked in black letters.

- Links to posts that hinted at the change are given in superscript numbers, like this: [#].

1


Core Rulebook

Classes


Half-Orcs (C,B): This race now gives a +2 bonus to any ability score the player chooses. Furthermore, it gives the character a bonus to Intimidate, proficiency and familiarity with a few weapons, and a new racial ability that lets a half-orc fight for an extra round when brought below 0 hit points (but not killed) as if it were disabled. [1]


Classes


Barbarian


Rage and Unconsciousness (C,B): An impacting change made to barbarians is the interaction between rage and unconsciousness: in Pathfinder, being knocked unconscious automatically drops a barbarian out of his rage. This is important because raging increases a character’s Constitution score, which in turn adds extra hit points per hit die. When the barbarian ends his rage, he loses those extra hit points immediately; when the barbarian is forced out of his rage due to going unconscious, he will lose those hit points exactly when he’s the most vulnerable. In fact, due to the multiplicative effect (incremental Constitution score x Hit Die), the higher level the barbarian is, the more likely he is to die immediately when knocked unconscious. This means that barbarians must be more mindful than ever of their hit points; their hit point totals are, in a sense, effectively lower than they were in 3.5.

Bard


Bardic Knowledge (C,B): This ability now gives a bonus equal to half the bard’s level to knowledge checks and allows her to make those untrained. This does streamline things and ensure that the bard will be able to discover obscure bits of information every now and then, but to play a “loremaster” type of character, she will have to actively invest in knowledge skills.

Bardic Performance Uses per Day (C,B): Pathfinder introduced an important change regarding this ability: unlike in 3.5, bards now perform for a set number of rounds/day. This doesn’t impact the combat usage of the ability much, as there has been an increase to the available uses per day to compensate for the change, but it does make using performances like Inspire Competence somewhat trickier, since skills can take a lot of time to be used.

Bardic Performance Duration (C,B): This is, we believe, the most important change made to bardic performance in Pathfinder. The ability doesn’t have a duration now, which means that as soon as the bard stops performing, her music loses effect. This implies that you can’t stack multiple effects (such as those from Inspire Courage and Inspire Heroics) any more. Coupled with the other aforementioned change, this also means that a bard must be very mindful to not run out of uses per day at the most critical of moments.

Cleric


Weapon and Armor Proficiency (C,B): Clerics are no longer proficient with heavy armor. [1]


Domains


(See Squirrel_Dude's analysis here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15403353&postcount=546)!)


Druid


Share Spells (C,B): This ability has lost one of its applications, namely the option to have a spell that the caster uses on herself to also affect her bonded creature. The other application has also been modified slightly, as the caster can't use spells with a target of "You" on her bonded creature if those spells come from a class that doesn't grant that kind of creature. [1]

Wild Shape (C,B): This ability has been heavily modified. It follows the revamped rules to polymorphing. This means you do not substitute your own physical ability scores with those of the chose form. Instead, you gain static bonuses to your own scores. Furthermore, you do not automatically gain any special statistic the form may have, such as natural armor, movement modes and extraordinary special attacks. The only exception to this are the form’s natural attacks. You only gain those statistics if the spells the ability references says you do. You also do not regain lost hit points when changing form, though you main gain additional hit points if the form taken increases your Constitution score. On the other hand, wild shape is available a level sooner than in 3.5, and at 20th level a druid may use it at will. Elemental and plant forms follow the regular usage of the skill and are available sooner, and you gain access to new sizes faster than in 3.5. Lastly, you may now take a diminutive animal’s form. [1]

Monk


Flurry of Blows (C,B): In Pathfinder, the monk’s flurry of blows counts as Two-Weapon Fighting, which means that a monk can’t increase his number of attacks in a turn by taking that feat chain. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since those attacks would have low accuracy anyways.

Monk’s Base Attack Bonus when Flurrying (C,B): This is an important change: a monk’s base attack bonus is equal to his class level when flurrying. This means that the monk will have more attacks and greater accuracy than otherwise. This is just a “virtual” increase, however, and the monk must still qualify for feats using his regular attack bonus, for example.

Rogue


Trapfinding (C,B): This ability now gives ½ the class level as a bonus to Perception (when locating traps) and Disable Device. It still allows a rogue to disarm magic traps. [1]

Wizard


Share Spells (C,B): (See the druid's ability with the same name.)

Specialization Penalties (C,B): The greatest dilemma faced by specialist wizards has been somewhat alleviated: spells from opposing schools are not forbidden, just harder to cast (they take two spell slots instead of one). This also means that any specialist wizard can use spell-completion and spell-trigger items containing spells from his opposing schools, at no increased cost.

Universalist Wizards (C,B): With the changes made to the specialization drawbacks, being a universalist wizard became a comparatively lackluster choice. When you take into account the special abilities acquired by a universalist (two vs. the three possessed by the specialists, with Hand of the Apprentice being relatively subpar) and the extra spell slots enjoyed by specialists, there might be little mechanical incentive to play as one. (If you have access to it, we recommend importing the “Mastery of All Schools” ability held by universalists in Pathfinder Beta.)


Favored Class (C,B): In Pathfinder, characters no longer face experience penalties associated with multiclassing and favored classes. Instead, when making a character, the player chooses which will be its favored class. Whenever that character gains a level in that class, it receives the player's choice of either + 1 hit point or + 1 skill rank.


Skills


Skill Consolidation (C,B): Some skills have been consolidated: Balance, Jump and Tumble into Acrobatics, Decipher Script, Forgery and Speak Language into Linguistics, Hide and Move Silently into Stealth, and Listen, Search and Spot into Perception. Furthermore, Gather Information was folded into Diplomacy and Open Lock into Disable Device. [1]

Skill Ranks (C,B): In Pathfinder, your maximum rank in a skill is equal to your character level, regardless of it being class or cross-class. Furthermore, you gain a rank for each skill point invested in the latter. However, class skills receive a +3 bonus as long as the character has at least one rank in it. To accompany that change, there is no longer a x4 multiplier for skill points at 1st level. [1]


Fly (C,B): In Pathfinder, flight no longer has an intrinsic maneuverability. In its place, a Fly skill was introduced to govern how well a flying character can move while airborne. The use of this skill is subject to armor check penalty, and unlike other skills, you may only take ranks in it if you can fly due to racial traits, or if you have reliable means of flying every day, either through spells or other special abilities. This is a class skill for druids, sorcerers, wizards and any other character with a flight speed. [1][2]

Perception (C,B): Anyone may use this skill to find traps. [1]

Ride (C,B): Ride is now subject to armor check penalty. Characters wearing heavier armor might have a harder time with this skill. [1]


Feats


Deadly Aim (C,B): This feat, new to Pathfinder, is not unlike Power Attack. By selecting it, characters may trade accuracy for damage when making a ranged attack. [1]

Power Attack (C,B): A handful of changes have been made to this feat. On the one hand, it now gives a bonus on damage rolls equal to double the penalty you take on attack rolls. This means that you will be sacrificing comparatively less accuracy to gain the same increase in damage. On the other hand, it no longer offers a choice of how large a bonus and penalty you’ll take, as that is fixed by your base attack bonus. Either you’re using the feat at full power or you’re not using the feat at all, there is no middle ground. Furthermore, the maximum bonus provided by the feat is calculated differently, with the end result being a smaller bonus available per base attack bonus. Also, you can add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon in Pathfinder. Lastly, and this we feel is a very important change, it now has a prerequisite of “base attack bonus +1”. This might not mean much for most front line characters, but a few, such as those based on a monk chassis, will have to wait until second level to get this feat, and any of the numerous other feats that have it as a prerequisite. [1]

Improved Bull Rush (C,B): The bonus to bull rush checks provided by this feat has been halved. Furthermore, the prerequisites mean that a character built on a chassis with less than full base attack bonus progression will have to wait a few more levels to choose this feat when compared to its 3.5 counterpart.

Greater Bull Rush (C,B): This feat gives a +2 bonus to bull rush checks, bringing the character’s total bonus up to par with what it received with Improved Bull Rush in 3.5. Furthermore, it makes an opponent provoke attacks of opportunity when moved with the maneuver, recovering a functionality that was removed from bull rush in Pathfinder. The feat’s prerequisites mean that characters will not be able to qualify for it until at least 6th level.

Improved Disarm (C,B): The bonus to disarm checks provided by this feat has been halved.

Greater Disarm (C,B): This feat gives a +2 bonus to disarm checks, bringing the character’s total bonus up to par with what it received with Improved Disarm in 3.5. Furthermore, it makes a disarmed opponent’s gear land 15 ft. away from it, an effect new to Pathfinder. The feat’s prerequisites mean that characters will not be able to qualify for it until at least 6th level.

Improved Grapple (C,B): The bonus to grapple checks provided by this feat has been halved.

Greater Grapple (C,B): This feat gives a +2 bonus to grapple checks, bringing the character’s total bonus up to par with what it received with Improved Grapple in 3.5. Furthermore, it lets a character maintain a grapple as a move action, allowing it to make two grapple checks per round, recovering part of a functionality that was removed from grapple in Pathfinder. The feat’s prerequisites mean that characters will not be able to qualify for it until at least 6th level.

Improved Overrun (C,B): The bonus to overrun checks provided by this feat has been halved. On the other hand, this feat makes it so that overrunning doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, something new to Pathfinder. However, the prerequisites mean that a character built on a chassis with less than full base attack bonus progression will have to wait a few more levels to choose this feat when compared to its 3.5 counterpart.

Greater Overrun (C,B): This feat gives a +2 bonus to overrun checks, bringing the character’s total bonus up to par with what it received with Improved Overrun in 3.5. Furthermore, it makes opponents provoke attacks of opportunity as they are knocked prone when overran, an effect new to Pathfinder. The feat’s prerequisites mean that characters will not be able to qualify for it until at least 6th level.

Improved Sunder (C,B): The bonus to sunder checks provided by this feat has been halved. Furthermore, the prerequisites mean that a character built on a chassis with less than full base attack bonus progression will have to wait a few more levels to choose this feat when compared to its 3.5 counterpart.

Greater Sunder (C,B): This feat gives a +2 bonus to sunder checks, bringing the character’s total bonus up to par with what it received with Improved Sunder in 3.5. Furthermore, it lets a character apply any excess damage done to an item to the item’s wielder, but only if it chooses to destroy said item, an effect new to Pathfinder. The feat’s prerequisites mean that characters will not be able to qualify for it until at least 6th level.

Improved Trip (C,B): The bonus to trip checks provided by this feat has been halved. Furthermore, tripping with this feat no longer provides a free melee attack against the tripped opponent.

Greater Trip (C,B): This feat gives a +2 bonus to trip checks, bringing the character’s total bonus up to par with what it received with Improved Trip in 3.5. Furthermore, it makes a tripped opponent provoke attacks of opportunity, something similar to, but not quite like, the functionality removed from Improved Trip in Pathfinder. The feat’s prerequisites mean that characters will not be able to qualify for it until at least 6th level.

Quick Draw (C,B): This feat can no longer be used to quick draw alchemical items, potions, scrolls and wands. [1][2]


Equipment


Spiked Chain (C,B): This weapon no longer has reach.


Combat


Combat Maneuvers


Bull Rush (C,B): Aside from using the new unified combat maneuver system, the bull rush maneuver has also been completely overhauled. First off, attempting a bull rush without the Improved Bull Rush feat provokes an attack of opportunity only from the target of the maneuver. This means that, by taking that feat, you don’t provoke attacks of opportunity from attempting the maneuver at all. Secondly, you don’t need to move into the defender’s space to bull rush him, which means that you can effectively knockback the opponent without moving from where you stand. You can still move with the opponent to push him further if you so choose, however. Furthermore, you can attempt to extend the bull rush to opponents that stand in the way of your original target’s path, but can’t bull rush a target into a square occupied by a solid obstacle. Thirdly, the target of a bull rush doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity unless the character attempting the bull rush has the Greater Bull Rush feat. The attacking character might still provoke attacks of opportunity by moving with the target, however, though not from the target itself. Lastly, there is no longer a 25% chance to hit the wrong participant of a bull rush with an attack of opportunity.

Disarm (C,B): You no longer provoke an opposed disarm on a failed check any more. Instead, if you fail your check by 10 or more, you drop the weapon you were using to attempt the disarm (if you were armed to begin with). Furthermore, the category of the weapon used in the attempt doesn’t have any impact on the check anymore, so bonuses and penalties due to weapon size are gone (aside from unarmed strikes; those still impose a -4 penalty on the attack). There is no longer an explicit mention to grabbing items worn by a target of a disarm maneuver. This doesn’t mean, however, that this is no longer a valid use of disarm. You can make the target drop a carried item of your choice. As “worn items” are presumably “carried items”, you can still attempt to disarm an opponent of any item it is wearing, just as you could in 3.5. If you want to automatically grab said item, all you have to do is attempt the check unarmed. There isn’t a provision for a bonus due to an exceptionally secured item any more.

Grapple (C,B): Aside from using the new unified combat maneuver system, the grapple maneuver has also been rebuilt from the ground up. We’ll list the most important changes here. First off, attempting a grapple check takes a standard action, instead of a melee attack. This means, for example, that you can’t start a grapple during an attack of opportunity. The only exception to this is when you make a check to maintain the grapple and have the Greater Grapple feat. Secondly, you may only damage the target when making a check to maintain the grapple, though you can do so using unarmed strikes, natural attacks or light and one-handed weapons. The damage can be lethal or nonlethal. Thirdly, “grappled” and “pinned” are defined conditions. A “grappled” creature no longer loses its dexterity bonus, though it now takes a -4 penalty to dexterity. A “pinned” creature loses its dexterity bonus and is given a -4 penalty to dexterity. “Grappled” and “pinned” characters must succeed on a concentration check to cast a spell, with a DC of 10 + the opponent grappler’s CMB + spell level, but there is no longer a provision for silencing pinned characters. Furthermore, you must attempt a grapple check to maintain a grapple in order to pin the opponent. On the other hand, by succeeding on a single grapple check to escape a grapple, you escape both the “pinned” and the “grappled” conditions at once. Another notable change is that extra grapplers just add +2 to the allied creature’s combat maneuver check through the use of the “aid another” action. Also, you may grapple creatures of any size in Pathfinder. Lastly, you may tie up a pinned, restrained or unconscious opponent using a grapple check. The DC to escape those bindings is 20 + the character’s CMB, and if high enough, those bonds might be inescapable. [1]

Overrun (C,B): You only knock an opponent prone if you beat its CMD by 5 or more; if you beat it by 4 or less, you merely move through its space without harming it. The opponent may not try to knock you prone in case you fail at your attempt. Lastly, each leg (not pair of legs) in excess of two adds +2 to the target’s CMD when defending against being overrun.

Sunder (C,B): You may try to sunder an item without destroying it. If in doing so you take out more than half the item’s total hit points, it gains the “broken” condition and is left with at least 1 hit point.

Trip (C,B): Each leg (not pair of legs) in excess of two adds +2 to the target’s CMD when defending against being tripped. Some creatures, “such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures”, cannot be tripped. If you fail on your trip attempt by 10 or more, you are knocked prone. [1][2]


Thrown Splash Weapon (C,B): You no longer can use these to deal precision-based damage, such as that from a sneak attack.


Spells


Blink (C,B): This spell has been slightly changed from 3.5. A character under the effects of blink is no longer considered invisible, and its targets are no longer denied their Dexterity bonuses to AC. [1]

Dispel Magic (C,B): This spell no longer has an area dispel option. Furthermore, the targeted dispel option can only dispel a single spell. On the other hand, there isn’t a cap to the caster level when making a dispel check anymore. [1]

Dispel Magic, Greater (C,B): This spell recovers a little of the lost functionality from 3.5’s regular dispel magic, being able to dispel up to one spell for every four caster levels on a targeted dispel. Furthermore, it recovers the area dispel option entirely. It also gives a +4 bonus on dispel checks to counter spells. [1]

Grease (C,B): This spell suffered two important changes. It no longer causes a reflex save for creatures within its area every round on the caster’s turn while its duration lasts, though it still does so when it’s cast. On the other hand, its duration has been increased from one round per level to one minute per level. [1]

Invisibility (C,B): This spell’s wording is equivalent to its 3.5 counterpart’s. However, due to the consolidation made to skills, it gives +20 to the correspondent of Move Silently in Pathfinder. [1]

Wish (C,B): Like other spells, wish no longer has an experience cost. In its place, the spell now has a diamond costing 25,000 gp as a material component. Furthermore, it can duplicate non-sorcerer/wizard spells from up to a level higher than it could in 3.5.


Magic Items


Magic Item Creation (C,B): A character no longer has to pay an XP cost to craft magic items. This means that the only theoretical limit a character has to making his party’s gear is how much gold they have. [1][2]


Glossary


Energy Drain and Negative Levels (C,B): Negative levels have been revamped. First, affected casters no longer lose access to spell slots from their highest available spell level. Furthermore, negative levels can no longer translate into real level loss; there are now permanent negative levels, which can be removed using spells such as restoration. Lastly, characters slain through excess of negative levels no longer automatically turn into wights. [1]


1


Advanced Player's Guide

Races


Racial Traits (C,B): These are alternative racial abilities, made to substitute something the original race might have. These are not the same as Race Traits, discussed later in the same book.


Half-Orc - Toothy (C,B): A half-orc with this trait gains a primary natural attack in the form of a bite that deals 1d4 points of piercing damage. This replaces the Ferocity racial trait. [1]



Favored Class Options (C,B): These are alternative favored class bonuses for a race that takes levels in them. They substitute the normal +1 hit point or +1 skill rank bonus.


Half-Elf - Summoner (C,B): A summoner with this favored class option receives +1/4 to his eidolon's evolution pool. This means that, at 20th level, a half-elf summoner's eidolon will have 5 extra evolution points. [1]

Human - Sorcerer (C,B): A sorcerer with this favored class option receives a bonus spell at least one level below the highest spell level it can cast. This means that, at 20th level, a human sorcerer will have 20 extra spells known.


Feats


Additional Traits (C,B): This feat lets you select two traits of your choice, meeting their normal prerequisites.

Dazing Spell (C,B): This feats lets a caster modify any damaging spell to also daze its target for a number of rounds equal to the original level of the spell. [1]

Improved Share Spells (C,B): This feat recovers part of the functionality lost from the Share Spells ability. The caster can have a spell she casts on herself also affect the bonded creature, even if it normally doesn't affect creatures of that type. However, the spell can't have a duration of instantaneous, and any duration it has is halved. Note that according to the wording of the feat, these spells don't have to come from the class that provides the bonded creature. The feat's prerequisites mean that characters will not be able to qualify for it until at least 10th level, and it can only be taken by characters with the ability to acquire an animal companion, eidolon, familiar os special mount. [1]

Persistent Spell (C,B): This feat lets a caster modify a spell that calls for a saving throw to demand a second save against the same DC. If the target fails this, it suffers the full effects of the spell. [1]


New Rules


Traits (C,B): Traits are abilities tied to your character's background but not to your character's class or level. They are, however, supposed to be worth half a feat, and as such give palpable benefits to characters that have access to them. The rulebook's advice is to give new player characters two traits on creation, which would be worth roughly half a feat. PCs who want more than two traits and NPCs, however, should get the Additional Traits feat. There are various types of traits, and you can only get one trait from each list. [1]


Reactionary (C,B): This is a combat trait. The fluff is that you were bullied as a child, and hence you can react to danger faster than most others. It gives you a +2 trait bonus on Initiative checks.

Dangerously Curious (C,B): This is a magic trait. The fluff is that you were always fascinated by magic, and thus liked to tinker with magical components and devices when young. It gives you a +1 untyped bonus to Use Magic Device and makes that skill always be a class skill to you.

Magical Knack (C,B): This is a magic trait. The fluff is that you were constantly exposed to magic when young. It gives you a +2 trait bonus to your caster level with a class as long as it doesn't raise you caster level above your current HD.

Magical Lineage (C,B): This is a magic trait. The fluff is that one of your parents was a spellcaster prodigy. It lets you choose one spell. Every time you cast that spell with metamagic applied to it, you reduce its final adjusted level by one. There has been clarification indicating that this can't lower a spell below its original unmodified level. [1][2][3] (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9qns)


1


Advanced Race Guide

Featured Races


Favored Class Options


Goblin - Summoner (C,B): A summoner with this favored class option receives +1/4 to his eidolon's evolution pool, but these points must be spent on evolutions that deal fire damage or protect the eidolon from fire. This means that, at 20th level, a goblin summoner's eidolon will have 5 extra evolution points to spend on fire-related evolutions. [1]


1


Ultimate Magic

Spellcasting Class Options


Wizard


Arcane Discoveries: A wizard may select an arcane discovery in place of a regular feat or wizard bonus feat.


Opposition Research (C,B): By taking this arcane discovery, a specialist wizard can ignore all the penalties associated with an opposed school. [1][2]


1


Pathfinder Companions

Feats


Piranha Strike (C,B): This feat functions similarly to Power Attack. By selecting it, characters may trade accuracy for damage when making melee attacks, but only with light weapons. Unlike the aforementioned feat, however, this feat doesn't have a prerequisite of Str +13, but does need Weapon Finesse in order to be selected. Light weapons can't be wielded two-handed, however, so there isn't a provision for a +50% increase in damage. (Sargava, the Lost Colony) [1][2]


Traits


Desperate Focus (C,B): This is a magic trait. The fluff is that you had some trauma in the past relating to losing a spell. It gives you a +2 trait bonus on concentration checks. (Cheliax, Empire of Devils) [1]

Nonchalant Thuggery (C,B): This is a social trait. The fluff is that you are adept at keeping witnesses from noticing that anything is wrong. It gives you a +4 trait bonus on Bluff checks to keep others from noticing aggressive actions. (Cheliax, Empire of Devils) [1]

Metamagic Master (C,B): This is a regional trait. The fluff is that you're somehow better than most at applying metamagic to a spell. It lets you choose one spell. Every time you cast that spell with metamagic applied to it, you reduce its final adjusted level by one. There hasn't been any clarifications made to this trait as of yet. (Dragon Empires Primer) [1][2] (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/regional-traits/wayang-spellhunter-minata)


Spells


Snowball (C,B): This is a 1st level spell that isn't affected by spell resistance, deals 1d6 points of cold damage per caster level on a ranged hit (maximum 5d6) and makes the target staggered if it fails a Fortitude save. (People of the North) [1]


1

Changelog:

06/09/2013 - Added a fair bit about traits and favored class options, Piranha Strike, Snowball and Persistent Spell. Revised Power Attack, adding the information that now you can use it with light weapons.

05/25/2013 – Added changes made to Cleric, Druids and Rogues, to Half-Orcs, to Wish and to the skill system and Perception. Added a comment on Deadly Aim.

05/23/2013 - Added Opposition Research, Blink, Dispel Magic, Grease, Invisibility, Magic Item Creation, Fly, Ride, Quick Draw, Energy Drain, Dazing Spell, Share Spells and Improved Share Spells to the guidebook. Revised Grapple and Trip.

05/22/2013 - Overhauled the guidebook, using a more neutral approach

05/19/2013 – Posted the guidebook with the changes I could find myself.

[Larkas]

Reserved post #1

[Larkas]

Reserved post #2

You may post now!

[137beth]

Two things:
1. You listed "unnecessary" twice, with the same color, but with a different description.

2 (pet peeve): I request that the sentence "melee can't have nice things" be changed to "martial can't have nice things." A full caster druid/cleric/whatever can still fight in melee, and be really good at it. A martial archer (fighter with a bow, ranger, etc) isn't good, though. The problem isn't with close-range fighting, it is with martial vs magic.

[TheIronGolem]

I feel like the problems with the Trip maneuver are at least in part due to the fact that it's called "Trip" and not "Knockdown". I get the impression that the devs simply reasoned that you can't "trip" flying creatures, etc, and made changes purely on that basis. Had someone thought to rename the maneuver, we might have been spared the effort of houseruling away a rather pointless nerf.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Check out the links in the Trip section of combat on d20pfsrd.com and note the change that now any weapon can trip. Follow the links and you'll find the original source that the change came from, this blog post (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcom). Note that the blog also stated:

There is a special exception to the above rules. If you’re using a weapon with the trip special feature, and you’re attempting a drag or reposition combat maneuver (Advanced Player’s Guide 321–322), you may apply the weapon’s bonuses to the roll because trip weapons are also suitable for dragging and repositioning (this also means we don’t have to add “drag” and “reposition” weapon properties to existing weapons).

This update has not been made as far as I can tell on either d20pfsrd nor the PRD, and yet comes from the exact same source as the change to how tripping with weapons works, so is presumably every bit as RAW.

Paizo has an awesome way of updating/changing the rules, eh? :smallbiggrin:

[3WhiteFox3]

I'd like to submit the Share Spells ability for consideration.

In 3.5 Share Spells simply allowed you to cast a spell you cast on yourself and shared the effect with your familiar/animal companion. Both got the full duration of the spell, but you couldn't move your companion more than 5' away (if the duration wasn't instantaneous) without losing the spell on it. You also had the option of just casting a spell with a target of "You" directly on the companion. (You could also Share Spells that normally wouldn't effect your creatures type.)

In Pathfinder, Share Spells only allows you use it's second ability. You have to take Improved Share Spells (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/improved-share-spells) to get a heavily nerfed version of 3.5's Share Spells. Namely, you have to share the duration of the spell with your companion, halving it for both of you. It's also a feat that can't be picked until 7th level. And if they make another companion besides the ones not covered by the feat already, and give it Share Spells, it won't be able to take the feat thanks to the wording of the prerequisites. (Only eidolons, familiars, special mounts, and animal companions can get the benefit of the feat.)

This isn't a terrible nerf by any stretch of the word, in fact, most casters probably won't notice the difference (until they want to use it like the old 3.5 ability of course). But that's part of the awfulness of it, it was completely unnecessary, and it seems to be one of the few outright nerfs given to casters. (So while melee was getting almost every good option nerfed into the ground, the casters loses minor things for the sake of 'balance'.) It's just baffling to me, especially as the feat came in the APG, so unlike the other improved feats, you couldn't even get it in the book it came out in.

[navar100]

Why do you feel the need to make this post? If you don't like Pathfinder, hooray for you. Don't play it. Enjoy your gaming with whatever system you care to use. There is no need to malign it.

[Tanuki Tales]

Why do you feel the need to make this post? If you don't like Pathfinder, hooray for you. Don't play it. Enjoy your gaming with whatever system you care to use. There is no need to malign it.

The idea is to have this as a quickly linked to answer in Pathfinder discussions. That way threads don't need to spend 10 pages explaining what issues people have with Pathfinder and can instead be spent on discussing the validity and other aspects of those issues.

At least, I believe that was what was mentioned in the thread this idea came from.

[Amnestic]

Why do you feel the need to make this post?

...this was answered in the original post. Like...the second paragraph explains exactly why. It's a resource which can be more than useful for people who do enjoy Pathfinder - it's a compendium of quirks and oddities which groups may want to look at and consider making houserules to change.

[3WhiteFox3]

Why do you feel the need to make this post? If you don't like Pathfinder, hooray for you. Don't play it. Enjoy your gaming with whatever system you care to use. There is no need to malign it.


With all that’s been said, however, please note that this guidebook was not made for bashing Pathfinder or, what’s even more important, any of its developers. We actually like Pathfinder and the idea behind it (i.e.: carrying the torch for 3.5, and expanding and fixing the available material), and we certainly don’t think that it is an utter and complete failure. Quite the contrary, actually. We just want to increase awareness about the system’s shortcomings, so potential DMs and players can deal with them however they want, be it by houseruling them, importing the original 3.5 ruling or, just as important, simply ignoring them. We are not here to judge anyone: if you feel any of those changes are good, use them!

We aren't maligning anything, we are compiling information for the betterment of DMs and players. So everyone has access to everything that they need to know about if they want to play Pathfinder and any issues that might come up. This isn't all that different from the Dysfunctional Rules Handbook, the Dirty Trick Handbook, the Test of Spite banlist (except we aren't banning anything, just putting the info out there), the Broken Psionic Tricks Handbook, etc... We aren't picking on Pathfinder, people have done the same to 3.5. If a DM wants to move from 3.5 to Pathfinder more power to him, but he should know what he's getting into, with the facts stated plainly and for each individual to decide for him/herself what is best for their game.

P.S. As I've said before I love Pathfinder. I've moved over from 3.5, and I won't look back. (Well, mostly, I still like lots of the 3.5 Homebrew, and the love 3.5 still gets on this forums in terms of analysis and optimization.) So for me at least telling me to not play it is strange, seeing I want to play it and I enjoy it. Please do not mistake, what we feel is, honest criticism for hating Pathfinder. I'm a critic, I analyse even the things I love to learn from it's mistakes and to hope that it can be made better. :smallsmile:

[TuggyNE]

I like the tone of this; it's casual without being overly opinionated.

A few minor suggestions: first, might you see your way clear to changing the title to "Pathfinder's Perplexing Permutations"? Alliteration is cool. :smallcool:

Secondly, Barbarian Rage and Unconsciousness — last sentence should end in "we", not "us".

Thirdly, didn't PF Beta have some change to freedom of movement that was reversed? Seems like that'd be good to mention.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Add to the changes about opposed schools that specialist wizards can now also take an Arcane Discovery, Opposition Research, at 9th level removing one of the schools from their opposed list.


Select one Wizard opposition school; preparing spells of this school now only requires one spell slot of the appropriate level instead of two, and you no longer have the –4 Spellcraft penalty for crafting items from that school.

Now as a mid-level specialist wizard, you only have to give up one school and a featto get an extra spell each day. It's not like casters have feats to spare, oh wait. :smallmad:

[StreamOfTheSky]

Add to the changes about opposed schools that specialist wizards can now also take an Arcane Discovery, Opposition Research, at 9th level removing one of the schools from their opposed list.

Now as a mid-level specialist wizard, you only have to give up one school to get an extra conjuration/ transumation/ or illusion spell each day. :smallmad:

Or you can be a specialist based on the Eastern "elements" system, prohibit only one school, and at level 10 have no prohibited schools anymore.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Crafting and Wealth Per Level:
The removal of crafting experience requirement (something I actually am fan of), has made it so that crafting can seriously break the wealth per level of a party. Get 32,000 gold? Don't go buy two +4 cloaks of resistance, make 4, so the whole party can get a +4 to all their saves. Then have them sell their old cloaks and finance you to make them something more new stuff. Then sell the stuff that you just replaced and finance some more new stuff. Then sell the stuff that you just replaced and finance some more new stuff...


I'd add something about gunpowder crafting, but that's not so much of a change as it is an addition, and it's more my own personal bugaboo.

Changes to Stealth
Because of changes to how move silently and hide are one skill, the party wizard will be better at stealth for most of the game than any other rogue. In fact, getting invisibility is pretty much essential for any stealth build now, as it gives a +20 bonus to stealth when moving, and not just hide. Now a wizard is blessed with the ability to run through a room of chains and not make a noise because he can't be seen.

E.G.
Level 7 halfling rogue
22 dex, +6 bonus
7 ranks, +7 rank bonus, +3 trained bonus
+3 skill focus
+4 small size
+2 feat bonus
= Total bonus of +25

Level 7 elf wizard
16 dex, +3 bonus
+20 invisibility bonus when moving, +40 when standing still
= Total bonus of +23 or +43

Unless the rogue is totally built for stealth, the wizard will be better at stealth for most of the early game, if he doesn't put any ranks into it, and after that the wizard will just teleport to where he needs to go.

Honestly, there needs to be a much larger section devoted to the rogue, and what happened to it in Pathfinder.

[Neo Tin Robo]

Feint: “To feint, make a Bluff skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher.” So, even if an opponent isn’t trained in Sense Motive, it still has a great chance to resist your feint. Just peachy. Melee nerf at its worst, and something that can be severely noxious for Rogues.

How is this a nerf? They just changed it from an opposed roll to a DC (base 10 vs rolling a d20). If anything it lowers the difficulty of feinting because they no longer add Sense Motive and BAB, just the better of the two.

[Amnestic]

Crafting and Wealth Per Level:
The removal of crafting experience requirement (something I actually am fan of), has made it so that crafting can seriously break the wealth per level of a party. Get 32,000 gold? Don't go buy two +4 cloaks of resistance, make 4, so the whole party can get a +4 to all their saves. Then have them sell their old cloaks and finance you to make them something more new stuff. Then sell the stuff that you just replaced and finance some more new stuff. Then sell the stuff that you just replaced and finance some more new stuff...


This is...I think, by design:
PC Wealth By Level: If a PC has an item crafting feat, does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?

It counts as the item's Cost, not the Price. This comes into play in two ways.

If you're equipping a higher-level PC, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise the character isn't getting any benefit for having the feat. Of course, the GM is free to set limits in equipping the character, such as "no more than 40% of your wealth can be used for armor" (instead of the "balanced approach" described on page 400 where the PC should spend no more than 25% on armor).

If you're looking at the party's overall wealth by level, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise, if you counted crafted items at their Price, the crafting character would look like she had more wealth than appropriate for her level, and the GM would have to to bring this closer to the target gear value by reducing future treasure for that character, which means eventually that character has the same gear value as a non-crafting character--in effect neutralizing any advantage of having that feat at all.


Link (http://paizo.com/products/btpy88yj/faq?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Rulebook#v5748eaic9ouz)

Obviously we could debate the validity of SKR's statement here but the point of it is that: Crafting is by design intended to break standard WBL. It's not a bug, it's a feature. That's a pretty major point which I think could do with a place in the handbook.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I agree, PF has a lot of nerfs for rogues, but feint is not one of them.

It sucked horribly in 3E, it sucks slightly less in PF.

[sonofzeal]

Request that "Ride suffering from ACP" get mentioned.

[avr]

The introduction of the Fly skill is a minor nerf for non-spellcasters. I'd call it unnecessary due to Acrobatics being right there in the skill list.

[StreamOfTheSky]

The introduction of the Fly skill is a minor nerf for non-spellcasters. I'd call it unnecessary due to Acrobatics being right there in the skill list.

Specifically, the fact that you're not ALLOWED to take ranks in it w/o having a reliable means of flying. The rule exists to screw over the martials who only fly when the wizard casts it on them or they click their winged boot heels together.

[Sylthia]

I felt that PF would have been a good opportunity to fix the dying at higher levels due to negative HP being a lot easier than low-mid levels. It was nice to go with negative HP=Con score, but that's still not much of a buffer at high levels. One of the good things that 4th ed did was take negative HP equal to half your max HP be the cut-off for death, which I felt made a lot more sense.

Say you have a Lvl 12 Fighter with 20 Con, he'll have around 136 HP on average, even more if he took the extra HP per level. Under the current rules, he dies at -20 HP, that's not much of a buffer. It's actually less relatively than what he was at level one. Why does the difference between knocked out and dead not scale with level?

[StreamOfTheSky]

High level death reminds me...

Paizo incomprehensibly reverted to 3.0 from the sensible change of 3.5 whereby barbarian rage now ends if you fall unconscious. The higher in level you get (and the more Con rage grants and more HD you have to multiply it by), the greater the chance a barb could go unconscious for a round and suddenly drop dead.

They also nerfed rage to be morale bonuses instead of untyped, so it now has all sorts of stacking issues...even with other rage powers (superstition says hi).

[Ashtagon]

I'm pretty sure the issue with thrown splash weapons was also the same in 3.5. Maybe it was an experimental option in the PF beta only?

[Starbuck_II]

You haven't mentioned Grease, Blink, etc nerfs.

They no longer benefit Sneak attack for one.
Grease lowers Dex only on enemy turn.

You mention Power attack, but not Combat expertise?

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm pretty sure the issue with thrown splash weapons was also the same in 3.5.

No, no it wasn't. Not at all.

Flask rogue was perfectly legal in 3E. Jason Bulmahn thought it was "cheesy," so he removed it. Likewise, and missing from the OP, paizo specifically went out of their way to not let you use Quickdraw with splash weapons and indeed, define them as not weapons at all.


Quick Draw (Combat)

You can draw weapons faster than most.

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action. You can draw a hidden weapon (see the Sleight of Hand skill) as a move action.

A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow).

Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be drawn quickly using this feat.

Normal: Without this feat, you may draw a weapon as a move action, or (if your base attack bonus is +1 or higher) as a free action as part of movement. Without this feat, you can draw a hidden weapon as a standard action.

Like...holy hell. PF game design gives pettiness whole new freaking meaning!

[TuggyNE]

Paizo incomprehensibly reverted to 3.0 from the sensible change of 3.5 whereby barbarian rage now ends if you fall unconscious. The higher in level you get (and the more Con rage grants and more HD you have to multiply it by), the greater the chance a barb could go unconscious for a round and suddenly drop dead.

That was mentioned, yes.


I'm pretty sure the issue with thrown splash weapons was also the same in 3.5. Maybe it was an experimental option in the PF beta only?

No, in 3.5 splash weapons are ranged touch attacks that do damage, so by default they can do sneak attack damage. So far as I know there is no specific bar in 3.5 to this.

In PF, however, they are explicitly noted to be unable to deal precision damage.

[Sylthia]

This is...I think, by design:
PC Wealth By Level: If a PC has an item crafting feat, does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?

It counts as the item's Cost, not the Price. This comes into play in two ways.

If you're equipping a higher-level PC, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise the character isn't getting any benefit for having the feat. Of course, the GM is free to set limits in equipping the character, such as "no more than 40% of your wealth can be used for armor" (instead of the "balanced approach" described on page 400 where the PC should spend no more than 25% on armor).

If you're looking at the party's overall wealth by level, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise, if you counted crafted items at their Price, the crafting character would look like she had more wealth than appropriate for her level, and the GM would have to to bring this closer to the target gear value by reducing future treasure for that character, which means eventually that character has the same gear value as a non-crafting character--in effect neutralizing any advantage of having that feat at all.


Link (http://paizo.com/products/btpy88yj/faq?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Rulebook#v5748eaic9ouz)

Obviously we could debate the validity of SKR's statement here but the point of it is that: Crafting is by design intended to break standard WBL. It's not a bug, it's a feature. That's a pretty major point which I think could do with a place in the handbook.

I think in a setting where magic items are readily available for purchase, getting them cheaper is the only reason to get the crafting feats. If your DM doesn't like the idea of a magic item shop, then it might have a bit more value.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Combat Maneuver feats: The BAB +6 for greater [maneuver] (equal to what you'd get for Imp [maneuver]) hurts monks, and the way they didn't change their bonus feats means it is now basically impossible for a monk to get greater improved trip/disarm because he actually needs Int 13 and a worthless expertise feat.

Bull Rush: The difficulty of beating CMD means the +5 ft per 5 you win by is a rare event. On the plus side, you can now bull rush w/o moving with the target.

Grapple: The good – you can grapple ANY sized foe now. The bad – Oh my... Besides the action costs (which includes no AoO use), needing to maintain each round (w/ a 1 auto-failing) is a hindrance. You now only do damage after in a grapple w/ a check specifically to do damage (in 3E, the intial and other checks all inflicted damage). Escaping a pin now also escapes the entire grapple, but pinning still takes at least two checks.

Trip: The stability bonus for legs no longer caps at +4. Many legged creatures can technically be tripped, but good luck beating CMD 100.

[peacenlove]

From a DM's perspective, casters now are more secure in their power, and more dangerous to deal with.
Dispel magic removes one spell while greater dispel removes up to 5-6 spells.
Energy drain doesn't remove spell slots/prepared spells anymore.
Those 2 factors make NPC casters not penalized by utilizing all their spell slots save their 2 highest level ones to stack buffs to them with adequate warning (starting but not limited to the screams of battle next room)
Mage slayer and it's following feat chain does not exist in any usable form.
Innate caster defenses, that are un-dispellable.
Dazing spell can stunlock most of the party at higher levels for 3+ rounds.
Nerfed (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/dampen-presence) Darkstalker
As mentioned before "Specialist wizard" is the new generalist. You now pick a specialization to choose your inherent buffs. Thassilonian wizard is the new focused specialist, an ACF that most optimizers considered better than the regular, only better. Uncanny forethought (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/c-d/magaambyan-arcanist), the prestige class.
If you need something in pathfinder, spend a feat. No more skill tricks, rituals, magic locations and so on.
Inner sea organizations give free Practiced spellcaster to its members for a low cost, amongst other benefits. This has no precedent in any 3.5 edition affiliation.

edit: add piranha strike (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/piranha-strike-combat) to the "power attack" feats

edit 2:


2 (pet peeve): I request that the sentence "melee can't have nice things" be changed to "martial can't have nice things." A full caster druid/cleric/whatever can still fight in melee, and be really good at it. A martial archer (fighter with a bow, ranger, etc) isn't good, though. The problem isn't with close-range fighting, it is with martial vs magic.

I really think that this guide should convey that attack / damage ratio in PF was increased (A druids Damage / round is actually less than a well built fighters IF they hit a stationary target and the fighter sports a better AC) but battlefield control / mobility (loss of pounce for example) is weaker, as if they were afraid that actually applying this extra damage would unbalance encounters

[Psyren]

...we certainly don’t think that it is an utter and complete failure.

The saying "damning with faint praise" comes to mind.

However much a "guide" like this may not be intended to bash the system, it will undoubtedly be used/pointed to by detractors for that very purpose. Particularly since the thread is going out of its way to avoid any positive changes PF has made.

[eggynack]

The saying "damning with faint praise" comes to mind.

However much a "guide" like this may not be intended to bash the system, it will undoubtedly be used/pointed to by detractors for that very purpose. Particularly since the thread is going out of its way to avoid any positive changes PF has made.
I think it's a really cool guide, personally. I know what I'd consider a fair amount about the idiosyncrasies of 3.5, to the extent that I feel comfortable arguing about them on the internet. By contrast, I know virtually nothing about the weird stuff that goes on in pathfinder. Obviously this handbook is going to ignore the good things that PF has done, because that kinda stuff is pointless to talk about for the most part. What are we going to do? Just spend all of our time talking about various mechanics in pathfinder that don't have glaring bugs? People don't need to know about the logical changes that pathfinder made, because any change that they made is rationally assumed to have been one made for the better. Additionally, this thread isn't meant to cause fighting over pathfinder; it's meant to be a resource for people who want to know about it's problems, thus taking preventative measures towards stopping future edition wars. I'm going to be following the hell out of this, because it seems like a supremely useful handbook. Thusly, unfaint praise has been issued.

[Keneth]

Spiked Chain: No longer does it have reach, nor give a bonus to disarm, nor lets you attempt a trip and drop it to not be tripped. Why did they even keep this weapon? It’s completely useless, and definitely not worth the feat you’d need to use it. Complete, definite nerf, and one that hits mundanes almost exclusively at that.

While it doesn't have reach, you still get a bonus to disarm and the ability to drop it when tripping. Without reach it's still not worth the feat investment, but you're seeing nerfs that aren't there. :smallconfused:

I didn't really go through the rest of the post since some complaints make no sense and I didn't feel like reading another whiny thread about PF. Maybe I'll get back to it later.

[eggynack]

While it doesn't have reach, you still get a bonus to disarm and the ability to drop it when tripping. Without reach it's still not worth the feat investment, but you're seeing nerfs that aren't there. :smallconfused:

I didn't really go through the rest of the post since some complaints make no sense and I didn't feel like reading another whiny thread about PF. Maybe I'll get back to it later.
The entire content of the weapon is here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/chain-spiked). Where does it say anything about granting a bonus to disarm? I think that the dropping ability is an innate feature of tripping weapons though.

Edit: Ah, they're both components of the abilities. I don't see why you have to call a handbook with an apparently even tone whiny though. You can just note problems, and make this largely collaborative work better.

[Psyren]

it's meant to be a resource for people who want to know about it's problems, thus taking preventative measures towards stopping future edition wars.

If you think this or any other thread will stop those, I have a lovely bridge for sale. Regardless, I've said my piece on the matter and will exit.

[eggynack]

If you think this or any other thread will stop those, I have a lovely bridge for sale. Regardless, I've said my piece on the matter and will exit.
It's not like it's going to be a perfect measure towards the ending of these wars. It's just a resource that could be a useful aid. We already have several (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283778) of these kinds of threads for 3.5. Is pathfinder such a sacred cow that it can't endure one?

[Belial_the_Leveler]

(i.e.: increasing the gap between casters and non-casters; staying true to the mentality that “melee can’t have nice things”
Not true. A correctly built martial character is both much tougher defensively and much more reliable offensively at high levels. For example, a fighter 20 with +27 saves, 54 AC, DR 8/-, +48 attack bonus and 7 attacks/round doing 1d8+30 with high critical chance doesn't need the wizard's bells and whistles; you can drop him in the middle of a pack of 4 Balors and he will kill all of them with less than 100 damage dealt to him and only one save reroll expended.


It's just that most people have the "ah, it's a fighter so its builds have to be easier than the wizard's" mentality. Nope, sorry. If you want to be as effective as the guy that needed 2 hours to choose the right spells/archetypes/items combo for his wizard, you'll also need to spend 2 hours to choose the right feats/archetypes/items combo for your fighter.

[Keneth]

I don't see why you have to call a handbook with an apparently even tone whiny though.

Because that's what all these threads devolve into. And I didn't have to read past the "unconscious barbarian" to know that this one wasn't any different. Not being able to continue raging while unconscious is an entirely logical change, one which was already being widely used in 3.5 as a houserule. Was it necessary? Yes, I think so. Raging is a conscious decision, you decide to rage each round in Pathfinder, unlike in 3.5 where raging had a set duration. If you're unconscious, you generally can't decide to keep raging. But even so, all you have to do to "fix" this issue, is take the Raging Vitality feat. Or, you know, don't fall unconscious if you're gonna rage. Or get an ability that let's you live until you're over twice your Con score in the negatives.

[eggynack]

Because that's what all these threads devolve into. And I didn't have to read past the "unconscious barbarian" to know that this one wasn't any different. Not being able to continue raging while unconscious is an entirely logical change, one which was already being widely used in 3.5 as a houserule. Was it necessary? Yes, I think so. Raging is a conscious decision, you decide to rage each round in Pathfinder, unlike in 3.5 where raging had a set duration. If you're unconscious, you generally can't decide to keep raging. But even so, all you have to do to "fix" this issue, is take the Raging Vitality feat. Or, you know, don't fall unconscious if you're gonna rage. Or get an ability that let's you live until you're over twice your Con score in the negatives.
First of all, how about you at least base your criticisms on stuff that's actually there, instead of what could hypothetically happen. Second, his argument seems completely reasonable. The flavor of a barbarian is that you charge into battle, heedless of risks. This change causes incentives for the exact opposite, forcing them to retreat every time they get close to unconsciousness. There might be some gain to verisimilitude, but it seems to me like another pointless nerf to a class that doesn't need one. It's not that it sucks in terms of flavor. It sucks in terms of the actual mechanics of it.

Really, you can make any criticisms of this handbook that you want. I could just do without the name calling while you do it. Maybe every single problem he listed is non-existent, but you could just continue to point out issues with his comments, instead of insulting him for trying to generate an information repository.

[W3bDragon]

Thanks for your work on this guide. I'd like to add some commentary based on my experiences with Pathfinder.


Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus: In Pathfinder, a Monk’s BAB is equal to his class levels when flurrying, which is, in and of itself, nice. But why didn’t they take the chance to make the Monk’s BAB equal to his class levels period?

Between Maneuver Training and Flurry of Blows, the monk has full BAB most of the time. Sure, its not as much as we'd like, but its a significant improvement. Also, leaving aside the issue of two-weapon fighting, the monk's baseline flurry of blows in Pathfinder has a higher number of attacks at a higher attack bonus than the 3.5 monk. Its perplexing to me why that's considered as "Strange" and "Silly".


Improved and Greater Disarm: Again, you need two feats and BAB +6 to get the same numerical bonuses that a character in 3.5 would get with a single feat. As if disarm wasn’t already an extremely circumstantial maneuver. You at least get a new effect with the second feat, but really, how often does an enemy fetch his weapon on the ground in your games?

Funnily enough, I'm running a city campaign right now that includes a disarming melee specialist. His disarms were always a worthwhile contribution to every encounter, and in several encounters, Greater Disarm's secondary effect won the day. Most opponents that fight with a weapon usually carry only one, with maybe a dagger or something as a backup. Once that main weapon is eliminated, the danger of the opponent drops significantly. Unlike disarming the target normally, causing him to use a move action to pick up the weapon and still get an attack in on his next turn, with Greater Disarm, he has to move to reach his weapon, usually triggering an AoO, and still can't get an attack that round. In some of these fights, the enemies got virtually no attacks in with their specialized weapon because they kept getting continually disarmed and their weapons thrown 15 feet away.

Unless a DM goes out of his way to invalidate that tactic, by having opponents equally as good with multiple weapons and having quickdraw, or just relying solely on natural attacks, it is a sound tactic and as far as feats go, isn't that bad.


Feint: “To feint, make a Bluff skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher.” So, even if an opponent isn’t trained in Sense Motive, it still has a great chance to resist your feint. Just peachy. Melee nerf at its worst, and something that can be severely noxious for Rogues.

Actually, succeeding on feint check is rarely an issue. Take a gander at most of the entries on the Bestiary or most NPCs written for adventures. You will find a distinct lack of wisdom above 12, most at 9. So on average, the target is resisting with 10+HD. In an average encounter, you'll have almost as many skill ranks as they have hit dice, plus or minus 3 let's say. Your bluffer will also have +3 from bluff being a class skill, and say +4 from Charisma. So on average, the bluffer needs to roll 0 to 6 to succeed.

If the player really wants to get RNG out of it, throw in a trait bonus of +1, racial bonus of +2, and skill focus for +3. By 10th level when skill focus hits +6, you're reliably bluffing opponents 7 Hit Dice greater than you on a 1. At the same 10th level bracket, a target 3 Hit Dice higher than the bluffer with 16 wisdom and full ranks in Sense Motive still only needs a roll of 3 to feint against. A character with only imp feint and no other bluff boosters still has a 50/50 chance to bluff a tough opponent who is also specifically resistant to being feinted against.

[Keneth]

First of all, how about you at least base your criticisms on stuff that's actually there, instead of what could hypothetically happen.

I'm sorry, how exactly is the case of hypothetically falling unconscious without taking precautions any less hypothetical than falling unconscious with abilities that prevent the hypothetical death? If you're not gonna look at the issue as a whole, then there's no point of calling it an issue. It's logical, and there are ways of avoiding it, that's the extent of it as I see it.

And if the fluff of the barbarian is to charge into a battle, heedless of risks, then it stands to reason there actually should be risks to begin with. And don't bring up the -2 penalty to AC, because we both know that's entirely inconsequential to the vast majority of barbarians. If anything, it forces you to roleplay the recklessness.


Maybe every single problem he listed is non-existent, but you could just continue to point out issues with his comments, instead of insulting him for trying to generate an information repository.

I'm terribly sorry, but information without all the facts is useless. If you don't point out the bad as well as the good, and provide the necessary context, then you've just created yourself the basis for every hate group that exists in the world. I'm not calling anyone names, I'm sorry if you somehow misunderstood my disdain for this thread for animosity against its participants. But I do see this thread as a bad idea in its current state.

[eggynack]

It may have been unclear, but when I was asking you to base your criticisms on real stuff, I was referring to the fact that you called this handbook whining. It just seemed inaccurate and unnecessary. You're right. Information without all the facts is useless. If you think that, then point out all of the facts. Getting a balanced perspective on things is always worthwhile, and if you see a reason, pointing out mistakes can always be helpful. I disagree with you about the barbarian's rage change being a good thing, because it's just perpetuating an environment in which casters dominate. Barbarians need all the help they can get. That doesn't mean that your critique can't expand our knowledge. However, tossing the whole idea of a catalogue of illogical pathfinder changes on the premise of a couple of mistakes doesn't make sense to me.

[TuggyNE]

Is pathfinder such a sacred cow that it can't endure one?

Probably. Ah well.

[eggynack]

Probably. Ah well.
Damn. I guess we have to do something else then. Pathfinder is a flawless masterpiece, so making a list of things to look out for in the system is a fool's errand. Someone should probably PM a mod to get this thread locked.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Getting back on topic. If we want some positive changes:

- Clerics and Druids were hit with the nerf stick. The Druid most of all because of the change to wildshape. Both because of the increases in hit dice for most classes, except the divine casters. Clerics from losing turning and heavy armor prof.
- Archery became a far better style than previously, though some would say that's because of the weaker melee.
- Half Orcs aren't terrible
- Wish now costs some absurd amount of money to cast


As for other negative changes:
The Rogue class
Skill system consolidation:
What was formerly Disable Device, Open Lock, Search, Spot, Listen, Speak Language, Decipher Script, Hide, and Move Silenty has become Disable Device, Perception, Linguistics, and Stealth. The change makes it so that the iconic rogue skills, which were once 9, had been brought down to 4. This means that in terms of skills, it is much easier for a party to compensate without needing a rogue at all. A I mentioned earlier, wizards, sorcerers, and bards are also better at stealth because there is no move silently skill.

PF rank system
Just as importantly, the change to where every class can put 20 ranks into a skill, and only lose a +3 bonus if it is not a class skill kills the rogue on certain skills. Druids, Clerics, Rangers and other Wis. based classes will destroy the rogue at perception, unlike in previous editions where they could only get +10 from ranks. Perception is the most used skill in the game, so expect every class to put max ranks into it once they can afford it. Wizards are better at linguistics.

Trapfinding
The change of disable device to a dex only skill does help the rogue, but it is then also hindered by the change of trapfinding. Now anyone can search for traps using perception. The only advantage the rogue gains is in being able to find magical traps.



I should note that I think most of the above changes were overall good changes to the game, but that they ended up greatly hurting the rogue, who didn't get enough to compensate. At least the designers seem to have noticed the problem with trapfinding, and have made it a commonly changed ability in rogue archetypes. They've also made it so that archetypes of other, better, classes can get trapfinding also, so it's probably a wash.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

weaker melee
And again I ask; where do you get this idea?

Melee is not weaker. With the exception of the rogue, all of the other base melee classes have been significantly upgraded.

[Amnestic]

And again I ask; where do you get this idea?

Melee is not weaker. With the exception of the rogue, all of the other base melee classes have been significantly upgraded.

I dunno about "significant"...but putting that aside, I believe that the monsters you face received similar 'significant' upgrades, except with some of the other mundane problems (maneuvers, some casters being just as strong if not stronger), then in a PF game they are relatively weaker compared to 3.5 melee in a 3.5 game.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Not so sure about that. In a level 20 game I just applied for, my sorceress can't guarantee-kill a Balor with an 8th level slot like she used to because;

1) Metamagic feats like Twin, Energy Admixture, Split Ray and Persistent Spell don't exist in Pathfinder.
2) There are no blanket metamagic reducers or easy/cheap automatic metamagic effects.
3) There are far fewer spells that ignore Spell Resistance or saves that are nearly as powerful. I.e. no orb spells or killer ray spells.
4) There are not spells that significantly improve your caster level or SR checks like Assay Resistance, Truecasting and Lower Resistance thus spell resistance actually matters.
5) Archmage, Hierophant, IotSF, Incantatrix and classes just as powerful don't exist.
6) Polymorph-line spells have been entirely rebalanced to not be any stronger than most spells of their level.
7) Immunity-type spells have been significantly rebalanced or entirely removed.




All the above mean that, while casters have more class features, they are significantly weaker than they used to be and their optimization cap is an order of magnitude less than it used to be.

[Larkas]

Whew! Finally answered all the replies, spoilered below for length! I've made some minor corrections to the guidebook now, but I'll only have time to add stuff you guys suggested later on today or tomorrow!


Two things:
1. You listed "unnecessary" twice, with the same color, but with a different description.

2 (pet peeve): I request that the sentence "melee can't have nice things" be changed to "martial can't have nice things." A full caster druid/cleric/whatever can still fight in melee, and be really good at it. A martial archer (fighter with a bow, ranger, etc) isn't good, though. The problem isn't with close-range fighting, it is with martial vs magic.

1. I... Did? Would you mind being more specific? I'm suffering from severe reading comprehension here, as I'm simply not seeing it! :smalleek:

2. Hmmmm, indeed... I changed it to "mundanes", is it ok now?



I feel like the problems with the Trip maneuver are at least in part due to the fact that it's called "Trip" and not "Knockdown". I get the impression that the devs simply reasoned that you can't "trip" flying creatures, etc, and made changes purely on that basis. Had someone thought to rename the maneuver, we might have been spared the effort of houseruling away a rather pointless nerf.

Indeed. I think they kept the naming to ensure backwards compatibility, though it did have that downside...


Check out the links in the Trip section of combat on d20pfsrd.com and note the change that now any weapon can trip. Follow the links and you'll find the original source that the change came from, this blog post (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcom). Note that the blog also stated:

This update has not been made as far as I can tell on either d20pfsrd nor the PRD, and yet comes from the exact same source as the change to how tripping with weapons works, so is presumably every bit as RAW.

Paizo has an awesome way of updating/changing the rules, eh? :smallbiggrin:

Hey, that's nice! They should seriously have at least a master document of updates. Cool things like that and this (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5le61?Monkeying-Around) can get lost pretty quickly with all the sheer amount of blog posts.


I'd like to submit the Share Spells ability for consideration.

In 3.5 Share Spells simply allowed you to cast a spell you cast on yourself and shared the effect with your familiar/animal companion. Both got the full duration of the spell, but you couldn't move your companion more than 5' away (if the duration wasn't instantaneous) without losing the spell on it. You also had the option of just casting a spell with a target of "You" directly on the companion. (You could also Share Spells that normally wouldn't effect your creatures type.)

In Pathfinder, Share Spells only allows you use it's second ability. You have to take Improved Share Spells (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/improved-share-spells) to get a heavily nerfed version of 3.5's Share Spells. Namely, you have to share the duration of the spell with your companion, halving it for both of you. It's also a feat that can't be picked until 7th level. And if they make another companion besides the ones not covered by the feat already, and give it Share Spells, it won't be able to take the feat thanks to the wording of the prerequisites. (Only eidolons, familiars, special mounts, and animal companions can get the benefit of the feat.)

This isn't a terrible nerf by any stretch of the word, in fact, most casters probably won't notice the difference (until they want to use it like the old 3.5 ability of course). But that's part of the awfulness of it, it was completely unnecessary, and it seems to be one of the few outright nerfs given to casters. (So while melee was getting almost every good option nerfed into the ground, the casters loses minor things for the sake of 'balance'.) It's just baffling to me, especially as the feat came in the APG, so unlike the other improved feats, you couldn't even get it in the book it came out in.

Hmmmm, that's interesting. I didn't know about it. It really isn't a terrible nerf, but I'll list it to increase awareness about it.


Why do you feel the need to make this post? If you don't like Pathfinder, hooray for you. Don't play it. Enjoy your gaming with whatever system you care to use. There is no need to malign it.

But I do like Pathfinder! That's exactly why I made this. I think that we need to know the shortcomings of stuff we like much more than of stuff we don't like. I draw no satisfaction from criticizing something I don't care about.


The idea is to have this as a quickly linked to answer in Pathfinder discussions. That way threads don't need to spend 10 pages explaining what issues people have with Pathfinder and can instead be spent on discussing the validity and other aspects of those issues.

At least, I believe that was what was mentioned in the thread this idea came from.


...this was answered in the original post. Like...the second paragraph explains exactly why. It's a resource which can be more than useful for people who do enjoy Pathfinder - it's a compendium of quirks and oddities which groups may want to look at and consider making houserules to change.


We aren't maligning anything, we are compiling information for the betterment of DMs and players. So everyone has access to everything that they need to know about if they want to play Pathfinder and any issues that might come up. This isn't all that different from the Dysfunctional Rules Handbook, the Dirty Trick Handbook, the Test of Spite banlist (except we aren't banning anything, just putting the info out there), the Broken Psionic Tricks Handbook, etc... We aren't picking on Pathfinder, people have done the same to 3.5. If a DM wants to move from 3.5 to Pathfinder more power to him, but he should know what he's getting into, with the facts stated plainly and for each individual to decide for him/herself what is best for their game.

P.S. As I've said before I love Pathfinder. I've moved over from 3.5, and I won't look back. (Well, mostly, I still like lots of the 3.5 Homebrew, and the love 3.5 still gets on this forums in terms of analysis and optimization.) So for me at least telling me to not play it is strange, seeing I want to play it and I enjoy it. Please do not mistake, what we feel is, honest criticism for hating Pathfinder. I'm a critic, I analyse even the things I love to learn from it's mistakes and to hope that it can be made better. :smallsmile:

Precisely! Thanks for the explanation, guys! :smallsmile:


I like the tone of this; it's casual without being overly opinionated.

A few minor suggestions: first, might you see your way clear to changing the title to "Pathfinder's Perplexing Permutations"? Alliteration is cool. :smallcool:

Secondly, Barbarian Rage and Unconsciousness — last sentence should end in "we", not "us".

Thirdly, didn't PF Beta have some change to freedom of movement that was reversed? Seems like that'd be good to mention.

1 - Hey! That's perfect! I'll be changing the topic's name right now! Aliterations are always awesome! :smallbiggrin:

2 - Fixed!

3 - I actually left some provisions for that from the start but... Turns out that it didn't. Double-checking the beta rulebook, I noticed that its FoM is exactly the same as in 3.5. Unless that was a change present in some specific version of the playtest book, it seems like they never had that idea. :smallfrown:


Add to the changes about opposed schools that specialist wizards can now also take an Arcane Discovery, Opposition Research, at 9th level removing one of the schools from their opposed list.

Now as a mid-level specialist wizard, you only have to give up one school and a featto get an extra spell each day. It's not like casters have feats to spare, oh wait. :smallmad:

... Seriously? Man, I love Ultimate Magic, but that only adds insult to injury. I'll add it to next revision of the guidebook.


Or you can be a specialist based on the Eastern "elements" system, prohibit only one school, and at level 10 have no prohibited schools anymore.

It literally makes it a moot point to be an universalist. :smallfrown:


Crafting and Wealth Per Level:
The removal of crafting experience requirement (something I actually am fan of), has made it so that crafting can seriously break the wealth per level of a party. Get 32,000 gold? Don't go buy two +4 cloaks of resistance, make 4, so the whole party can get a +4 to all their saves. Then have them sell their old cloaks and finance you to make them something more new stuff. Then sell the stuff that you just replaced and finance some more new stuff. Then sell the stuff that you just replaced and finance some more new stuff...

I'd add something about gunpowder crafting, but that's not so much of a change as it is an addition, and it's more my own personal bugaboo.

Changes to Stealth
Because of changes to how move silently and hide are one skill, the party wizard will be better at stealth for most of the game than any other rogue. In fact, getting invisibility is pretty much essential for any stealth build now, as it gives a +20 bonus to stealth when moving, and not just hide. Now a wizard is blessed with the ability to run through a room of chains and not make a noise because he can't be seen.

E.G.
Level 7 halfling rogue
22 dex, +6 bonus
7 ranks, +7 rank bonus, +3 trained bonus
+3 skill focus
+4 small size
+2 feat bonus
= Total bonus of +25

Level 7 elf wizard
16 dex, +3 bonus
+20 invisibility bonus when moving, +40 when standing still
= Total bonus of +23 or +43

Unless the rogue is totally built for stealth, the wizard will be better at stealth for most of the early game, if he doesn't put any ranks into it, and after that the wizard will just teleport to where he needs to go.

Honestly, there needs to be a much larger section devoted to the rogue, and what happened to it in Pathfinder.

@Crafting: Hmmmm, that is a hard one to codify. I actually thought about adding something on this to the guide, but I was frankly at a loss about how. It isn't so much about the rules changes (which I also like, btw) as about your playstyle. Even though you're crafting your stuff, it still depends on a "magic mart" world to work, so you have buyers to your items. Anyways, thoughts?

@Stealth: Good point. I'll add it to the spell section. The problem about the Rogue nerfs is that they're not confined to the class at all. You can spot fairly easily what was done to the Barbarian or the Bard, but to truly understand what was made to the Rogue, you have to seriously delve into the system. Which makes the changes even more harmful.


How is this a nerf? They just changed it from an opposed roll to a DC (base 10 vs rolling a d20). If anything it lowers the difficulty of feinting because they no longer add Sense Motive and BAB, just the better of the two.


I agree, PF has a lot of nerfs for rogues, but feint is not one of them.

It sucked horribly in 3E, it sucks slightly less in PF.

*facepalm* I'm very very sorry, guys! :smallfrown: It's one of those cases of a houserule being used for so long that it turns into official ruling in your mind. In the games I played, the DMs always ruled that BAB didn't get added to the opposed check. Fixed.


This is...I think, by design:
PC Wealth By Level: If a PC has an item crafting feat, does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?

It counts as the item's Cost, not the Price. This comes into play in two ways.

If you're equipping a higher-level PC, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise the character isn't getting any benefit for having the feat. Of course, the GM is free to set limits in equipping the character, such as "no more than 40% of your wealth can be used for armor" (instead of the "balanced approach" described on page 400 where the PC should spend no more than 25% on armor).

If you're looking at the party's overall wealth by level, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise, if you counted crafted items at their Price, the crafting character would look like she had more wealth than appropriate for her level, and the GM would have to to bring this closer to the target gear value by reducing future treasure for that character, which means eventually that character has the same gear value as a non-crafting character--in effect neutralizing any advantage of having that feat at all.


Link (http://paizo.com/products/btpy88yj/faq?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Rulebook#v5748eaic9ouz)

Obviously we could debate the validity of SKR's statement here but the point of it is that: Crafting is by design intended to break standard WBL. It's not a bug, it's a feature. That's a pretty major point which I think could do with a place in the handbook.

I... Don't think this is such a big problem at all. The guy does have a point. This is mainly a problem for characters created above first level, as they sometimes weren't part of a party yet. It has the problem of skewing things in casters favor, though that is tempered by the fact that PF does have a feat that lets mundanes craft their stuff for the most part. If you think this is worthy of an entry, I'll add it to the list, but I could use some help writing it.


Request that "Ride suffering from ACP" get mentioned.

Totally forgot about it! I'll be adding it to the next revision.


The introduction of the Fly skill is a minor nerf for non-spellcasters. I'd call it unnecessary due to Acrobatics being right there in the skill list.


Specifically, the fact that you're not ALLOWED to take ranks in it w/o having a reliable means of flying. The rule exists to screw over the martials who only fly when the wizard casts it on them or they click their winged boot heels together.

True. Any advice on how I should word it?


I felt that PF would have been a good opportunity to fix the dying at higher levels due to negative HP being a lot easier than low-mid levels. It was nice to go with negative HP=Con score, but that's still not much of a buffer at high levels. One of the good things that 4th ed did was take negative HP equal to half your max HP be the cut-off for death, which I felt made a lot more sense.

Say you have a Lvl 12 Fighter with 20 Con, he'll have around 136 HP on average, even more if he took the extra HP per level. Under the current rules, he dies at -20 HP, that's not much of a buffer. It's actually less relatively than what he was at level one. Why does the difference between knocked out and dead not scale with level?

Hmmmm, that is an interesting thought. It isn't so much about changes, though, but about the lack of change. And unlike FoM and WW, the small negative hit points pool can be annoying, but not downright disruptive in normal gameplay (eh, save for Barbarians, anyways)... I'm not sure if it has a place here. :smallfrown: It can be a cool houserule, though!


High level death reminds me...

Paizo incomprehensibly reverted to 3.0 from the sensible change of 3.5 whereby barbarian rage now ends if you fall unconscious. The higher in level you get (and the more Con rage grants and more HD you have to multiply it by), the greater the chance a barb could go unconscious for a round and suddenly drop dead.

They also nerfed rage to be morale bonuses instead of untyped, so it now has all sorts of stacking issues...even with other rage powers (superstition says hi).

This is one of those things that I think are part of common sense but not part of actual history. I was going to mention that, but I decided to go on and take a look at 3E's SRD (found here (http://systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd3/theraven/SRDBasicRules/srdbasiccharacterclassesi.html)), and turns out that 3E never had that ruling. It is actually original to PF. The morale bonus is a thing to note, however, and I'll add it to the next revision. It does make sense, but also creates those dreaded stacking issues.


I'm pretty sure the issue with thrown splash weapons was also the same in 3.5. Maybe it was an experimental option in the PF beta only?


No, no it wasn't. Not at all.

Flask rogue was perfectly legal in 3E. Jason Bulmahn thought it was "cheesy," so he removed it. Likewise, and missing from the OP, paizo specifically went out of their way to not let you use Quickdraw with splash weapons and indeed, define them as not weapons at all.

Like...holy hell. PF game design gives pettiness whole new freaking meaning!


No, in 3.5 splash weapons are ranged touch attacks that do damage, so by default they can do sneak attack damage. So far as I know there is no specific bar in 3.5 to this.

In PF, however, they are explicitly noted to be unable to deal precision damage.

These. :smallsmile: It isn't a build I personally liked, as it sounded strange at times, but I know plenty of people who loved it, and, well, it did enable Rogues somewhat as AoE damage dealers, something that is now pretty much reserved to spellcasters (and Alchemists, who can do now what Rogues could do in 3.5, unless I'm mistaken? :smallconfused: ).


You haven't mentioned Grease, Blink, etc nerfs.

They no longer benefit Sneak attack for one.
Grease lowers Dex only on enemy turn.

You mention Power attack, but not Combat expertise?

Ah, true. I'll be sure to add them!


I think in a setting where magic items are readily available for purchase, getting them cheaper is the only reason to get the crafting feats. If your DM doesn't like the idea of a magic item shop, then it might have a bit more value.

Indeed! And if your DM doesn't like magic marts, you're still screwed a little, since you won't be able to sell your goods.


Combat Maneuver feats: The BAB +6 for greater [maneuver] (equal to what you'd get for Imp [maneuver]) hurts monks, and the way they didn't change their bonus feats means it is now basically impossible for a monk to get greater improved trip/disarm because he actually needs Int 13 and a worthless expertise feat.

Bull Rush: The difficulty of beating CMD means the +5 ft per 5 you win by is a rare event. On the plus side, you can now bull rush w/o moving with the target.

Grapple: The good – you can grapple ANY sized foe now. The bad – Oh my... Besides the action costs (which includes no AoO use), needing to maintain each round (w/ a 1 auto-failing) is a hindrance. You now only do damage after in a grapple w/ a check specifically to do damage (in 3E, the intial and other checks all inflicted damage). Escaping a pin now also escapes the entire grapple, but pinning still takes at least two checks.

Trip: The stability bonus for legs no longer caps at +4. Many legged creatures can technically be tripped, but good luck beating CMD 100.

Ah, totally missed those points. The grapple changes are specially harmful, I think. I'll be sure to add them in.


From a DM's perspective, casters now are more secure in their power, and more dangerous to deal with.
Dispel magic removes one spell while greater dispel removes up to 5-6 spells.
Energy drain doesn't remove spell slots/prepared spells anymore.
Those 2 factors make NPC casters not penalized by utilizing all their spell slots save their 2 highest level ones to stack buffs to them with adequate warning (starting but not limited to the screams of battle next room)
Mage slayer and it's following feat chain does not exist in any usable form.
Innate caster defenses, that are un-dispellable.
Dazing spell can stunlock most of the party at higher levels for 3+ rounds.
Nerfed (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/dampen-presence) Darkstalker
As mentioned before "Specialist wizard" is the new generalist. You now pick a specialization to choose your inherent buffs. Thassilonian wizard is the new focused specialist, an ACF that most optimizers considered better than the regular, only better. Uncanny forethought (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/c-d/magaambyan-arcanist), the prestige class.
If you need something in pathfinder, spend a feat. No more skill tricks, rituals, magic locations and so on.
Inner sea organizations give free Practiced spellcaster to its members for a low cost, amongst other benefits. This has no precedent in any 3.5 edition affiliation.

edit: add piranha strike (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/piranha-strike-combat) to the "power attack" feats

edit 2:


I really think that this guide should convey that attack / damage ratio in PF was increased (A druids Damage / round is actually less than a well built fighters IF they hit a stationary target and the fighter sports a better AC) but battlefield control / mobility (loss of pounce for example) is weaker, as if they were afraid that actually applying this extra damage would unbalance encounters

All great points! Thanks peace! I'm a bit at a loss on where to put "general" changes, though. The loss of pounce, for example, is something that's not fit to go anywhere in any book, I think.


The saying "damning with faint praise" comes to mind.

However much a "guide" like this may not be intended to bash the system, it will undoubtedly be used/pointed to by detractors for that very purpose. Particularly since the thread is going out of its way to avoid any positive changes PF has made.

I actually thought about adding green to mark good changes, but... That's not actually where I wanted to focus on here. I then thought about later making a handbook detailing the good changes, but I can only focus on one thing at a time (I do have a RL, after all)! But I seriously, honestly don't want this to be used to bash the system. :smallfrown: Do you have any advice on how to best convey this? Maybe mark that paragraph with another color?


I think it's a really cool guide, personally. I know what I'd consider a fair amount about the idiosyncrasies of 3.5, to the extent that I feel comfortable arguing about them on the internet. By contrast, I know virtually nothing about the weird stuff that goes on in pathfinder. Obviously this handbook is going to ignore the good things that PF has done, because that kinda stuff is pointless to talk about for the most part. What are we going to do? Just spend all of our time talking about various mechanics in pathfinder that don't have glaring bugs? People don't need to know about the logical changes that pathfinder made, because any change that they made is rationally assumed to have been one made for the better. Additionally, this thread isn't meant to cause fighting over pathfinder; it's meant to be a resource for people who want to know about it's problems, thus taking preventative measures towards stopping future edition wars. I'm going to be following the hell out of this, because it seems like a supremely useful handbook. Thusly, unfaint praise has been issued.

Thanks for the support. :smallsmile: I think that Pathfinder is robust enough to endure some criticizing, and it has added to and fixed enough of the system to be worth way more than a look. I won't lie, though, maybe a positive changes handbook is in order after this one. :smallfrown:


While it doesn't have reach, you still get a bonus to disarm and the ability to drop it when tripping. Without reach it's still not worth the feat investment, but you're seeing nerfs that aren't there. :smallconfused:

I didn't really go through the rest of the post since some complaints make no sense and I didn't feel like reading another whiny thread about PF. Maybe I'll get back to it later.


The entire content of the weapon is here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/chain-spiked). Where does it say anything about granting a bonus to disarm? I think that the dropping ability is an innate feature of tripping weapons though.

Edit: Ah, they're both components of the abilities. I don't see why you have to call a handbook with an apparently even tone whiny though. You can just note problems, and make this largely collaborative work better.

Can you spell "reading comprehension failure"? *facepalm* I didn't notice that the weapons' properties are listed in the equipment table, and not in the weapon description. While I might argue that that's counter-intuitive at least, it doesn't excuse my mistake. Sorry, and fixed.

But please, try reading the guidebook in its entirety. It's not meant to be "another whiny thread about PF" by any extension of the expression. It is actually meant to keep those threads at a minimum! I won't complain about criticism, though, as eggynack said, this is a collaborative work, and even that has its place. Just be sure that it adds to the discussion, and not merely means to silence it. :smallfrown:


If you think this or any other thread will stop those, I have a lovely bridge for sale. Regardless, I've said my piece on the matter and will exit.

Well, one can hope, can't he? :smallfrown:


It's not like it's going to be a perfect measure towards the ending of these wars. It's just a resource that could be a useful aid. We already have several (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283778) of these kinds of threads for 3.5. Is pathfinder such a sacred cow that it can't endure one?

I actually think that some Pathfinder supporters severely underestimate its robustness. It is a good system! It is built on a good base! It is far from perfect, though, but what isn't? Criticism isn't a bad thing, and unlike many other things, most of its shortcomings can actually be fixed when it's used!


Not true. A correctly built martial character is both much tougher defensively and much more reliable offensively at high levels. For example, a fighter 20 with +27 saves, 54 AC, DR 8/-, +48 attack bonus and 7 attacks/round doing 1d8+30 with high critical chance doesn't need the wizard's bells and whistles; you can drop him in the middle of a pack of 4 Balors and he will kill all of them with less than 100 damage dealt to him and only one save reroll expended.

It's just that most people have the "ah, it's a fighter so its builds have to be easier than the wizard's" mentality. Nope, sorry. If you want to be as effective as the guy that needed 2 hours to choose the right spells/archetypes/items combo for his wizard, you'll also need to spend 2 hours to choose the right feats/archetypes/items combo for your fighter.

It's not just that, Belial... No one doubts that Fighters can be built to be very effective killing machines, severely out-damaging any spellcaster and taking much less damage to boot. It's that you have to invest all your resources to do that, with very little if anything left. The same Fighter who can kill 4 balors and hardly break a sweat will be at a loss if he needs to negotiate a truce with the powers of the lower planes. Or infiltrate an enemy base and retrieve something without being detected. The Wizard, meanwhile, can probably obviate any of these challenges, even if it's not built for it. This is a problem with the core of the system itself, it's not exclusive to Pathfinder and I'll certainly not criticize the decision to build upon it. The main problem, I think, is that PF did at times widen that gap, instead of trying to close it.


Because that's what all these threads devolve into. And I didn't have to read past the "unconscious barbarian" to know that this one wasn't any different. Not being able to continue raging while unconscious is an entirely logical change, one which was already being widely used in 3.5 as a houserule. Was it necessary? Yes, I think so. Raging is a conscious decision, you decide to rage each round in Pathfinder, unlike in 3.5 where raging had a set duration. If you're unconscious, you generally can't decide to keep raging. But even so, all you have to do to "fix" this issue, is take the Raging Vitality feat. Or, you know, don't fall unconscious if you're gonna rage. Or get an ability that let's you live until you're over twice your Con score in the negatives.

The main problem, I think, is that such a logical change doesn't exactly contribute to this system's gameplay. It might make sense in a system where all the characters are being measured by the same stick. In 3.5/PF, however, some characters are being measured by the "realism" stick while others are being measured by the "it's magic!" stick. And that's natural! We live in a real world, so it makes sense for us to know what can be done by a real person! But that means absolutely nothing when magic enters the picture. Magic is supposed to be extraordinary. It is supposed to be game changing. In literature, it makes sense for a sorcerer to be the most powerful being in existance. 3.5/PF, however, is a game. A game where being a Barbarian and being a Sorcerer are supposed to be equally valid choices, and equally powerful. I won't argue about how well that assumption translates to gameplay, but I will ask you this: is it fair that a Barbarian is having his stick made worse while the Sorcerer only sees his increased in effectiveness? I don't think so. This isn't only about verissimilitude, it's also about game balance. And by making that change, the developers in Pathfinder did worsen it.

As an aside, a Barbarian rage can be equally rationalized as a supernatural, if unconscious, control the Barbarian has over its hormones. By entering a rage, it tells its body to release as much adrenaline to its blood as possible. It controls that somewhat, and can consciously end a rage. But why would its body end the rage when going unconscious if it meant putting itself at risk? Logic, it seems, can go both ways here.

Oh, and about Raging Vitality: that is practically admiting they screwed up. Feat taxes are generally considered bad game design. If your character needs it to function properly or reliably, then why isn't that feat part of the class features?


First of all, how about you at least base your criticisms on stuff that's actually there, instead of what could hypothetically happen. Second, his argument seems completely reasonable. The flavor of a barbarian is that you charge into battle, heedless of risks. This change causes incentives for the exact opposite, forcing them to retreat every time they get close to unconsciousness. There might be some gain to verisimilitude, but it seems to me like another pointless nerf to a class that doesn't need one. It's not that it sucks in terms of flavor. It sucks in terms of the actual mechanics of it.

Really, you can make any criticisms of this handbook that you want. I could just do without the name calling while you do it. Maybe every single problem he listed is non-existent, but you could just continue to point out issues with his comments, instead of insulting him for trying to generate an information repository.

Thanks, eggynack. That's exactly my point. Do you think that everything I said is wrong? Then just point it out, having in mind the issues that made me list them in the first place. We're trying to be constructive here.


Thanks for your work on this guide. I'd like to add some commentary based on my experiences with Pathfinder.

Between Maneuver Training and Flurry of Blows, the monk has full BAB most of the time. Sure, its not as much as we'd like, but its a significant improvement. Also, leaving aside the issue of two-weapon fighting, the monk's baseline flurry of blows in Pathfinder has a higher number of attacks at a higher attack bonus than the 3.5 monk. Its perplexing to me why that's considered as "Strange" and "Silly".

Funnily enough, I'm running a city campaign right now that includes a disarming melee specialist. His disarms were always a worthwhile contribution to every encounter, and in several encounters, Greater Disarm's secondary effect won the day. Most opponents that fight with a weapon usually carry only one, with maybe a dagger or something as a backup. Once that main weapon is eliminated, the danger of the opponent drops significantly. Unlike disarming the target normally, causing him to use a move action to pick up the weapon and still get an attack in on his next turn, with Greater Disarm, he has to move to reach his weapon, usually triggering an AoO, and still can't get an attack that round. In some of these fights, the enemies got virtually no attacks in with their specialized weapon because they kept getting continually disarmed and their weapons thrown 15 feet away.

Unless a DM goes out of his way to invalidate that tactic, by having opponents equally as good with multiple weapons and having quickdraw, or just relying solely on natural attacks, it is a sound tactic and as far as feats go, isn't that bad.

Actually, succeeding on feint check is rarely an issue. Take a gander at most of the entries on the Bestiary or most NPCs written for adventures. You will find a distinct lack of wisdom above 12, most at 9. So on average, the target is resisting with 10+HD. In an average encounter, you'll have almost as many skill ranks as they have hit dice, plus or minus 3 let's say. Your bluffer will also have +3 from bluff being a class skill, and say +4 from Charisma. So on average, the bluffer needs to roll 0 to 6 to succeed.

If the player really wants to get RNG out of it, throw in a trait bonus of +1, racial bonus of +2, and skill focus for +3. By 10th level when skill focus hits +6, you're reliably bluffing opponents 7 Hit Dice greater than you on a 1. At the same 10th level bracket, a target 3 Hit Dice higher than the bluffer with 16 wisdom and full ranks in Sense Motive still only needs a roll of 3 to feint against. A character with only imp feint and no other bluff boosters still has a 50/50 chance to bluff a tough opponent who is also specifically resistant to being feinted against.

Thanks for all your input, W3bDragon! I'll try to address them each in order:

1 - It's a significant improvement indeed! It went in the direction that Monks sorely needed. The first is marked as "Strange", though, only because of the ruling of FoB-as-TWF. It is a strange ruling, is it not? Not particularly deleterious, since if you stacked FoB with TWF you'd be doing the very familiar "flurry of misses", but it does close this option. It's not necessarily bad. It's just strange! :smallsmile: And the second is marked as "Silly" because of just one thing: while the new mechanic of full BAB for FoB is indeed an upgrade, by not making the change to full BAB period doesn't move the Monk from the hard spot of having to take combat feats at the same time as a Cleric. The Monk wants to be a primary melee combatant, why not let the guy pick his feats at the same time as the Fighter?

2 - That is indeed some interesting evidence. I guess that in a balanced campaign Greater Disarm can be nice, and in a campaign primarily involving humanoids it can be very great. Hmmmm... I think that I might change the second feat's coloring to purple. I still think they could be rolled into a single feat, but they aren't as bad by themselves, even if Improved Disarm is just a prerequisite for Greater Disarm.

3 - Ehm, you raise a good point sir, which adds to my previous mistakes regarding Feint. :smallredface:


I'm sorry, how exactly is the case of hypothetically falling unconscious without taking precautions any less hypothetical than falling unconscious with abilities that prevent the hypothetical death? If you're not gonna look at the issue as a whole, then there's no point of calling it an issue. It's logical, and there are ways of avoiding it, that's the extent of it as I see it.

And if the fluff of the barbarian is to charge into a battle, heedless of risks, then it stands to reason there actually should be risks to begin with. And don't bring up the -2 penalty to AC, because we both know that's entirely inconsequential to the vast majority of barbarians. If anything, it forces you to roleplay the recklessness.

I'm terribly sorry, but information without all the facts is useless. If you don't point out the bad as well as the good, and provide the necessary context, then you've just created yourself the basis for every hate group that exists in the world. I'm not calling anyone names, I'm sorry if you somehow misunderstood my disdain for this thread for animosity against its participants. But I do see this thread as a bad idea in its current state.


It may have been unclear, but when I was asking you to base your criticisms on real stuff, I was referring to the fact that you called this handbook whining. It just seemed inaccurate and unnecessary. You're right. Information without all the facts is useless. If you think that, then point out all of the facts. Getting a balanced perspective on things is always worthwhile, and if you see a reason, pointing out mistakes can always be helpful. I disagree with you about the barbarian's rage change being a good thing, because it's just perpetuating an environment in which casters dominate. Barbarians need all the help they can get. That doesn't mean that your critique can't expand our knowledge. However, tossing the whole idea of a catalogue of illogical pathfinder changes on the premise of a couple of mistakes doesn't make sense to me.

I'll agree that it might be nice to add an aside saying that it adds to realism, which is a nice thing in and of itself. It's still bad from a balance perspective, though. And being more vulnerable the stronger you get is also strange, though it might account for an even more crazy rage.


Probably. Ah well.


Damn. I guess we have to do something else then. Pathfinder is a flawless masterpiece, so making a list of things to look out for in the system is a fool's errand. Someone should probably PM a mod to get this thread locked.

:smallbiggrin:


Getting back on topic. If we want some positive changes:

- Clerics and Druids were hit with the nerf stick. The Druid most of all because of the change to wildshape. Both because of the increases in hit dice for most classes, except the divine casters. Clerics from losing turning and heavy armor prof.
- Archery became a far better style than previously, though some would say that's because of the weaker melee.
- Half Orcs aren't terrible
- Wish now costs some absurd amount of money to cast


As for other negative changes:
The Rogue class
Skill system consolidation:
What was formerly Disable Device, Open Lock, Search, Spot, Listen, Speak Language, Decipher Script, Hide, and Move Silenty has become Disable Device, Perception, Linguistics, and Stealth. The change makes it so that the iconic rogue skills, which were once 9, had been brought down to 4. This means that in terms of skills, it is much easier for a party to compensate without needing a rogue at all. A I mentioned earlier, wizards, sorcerers, and bards are also better at stealth because there is no move silently skill.

PF rank system
Just as importantly, the change to where every class can put 20 ranks into a skill, and only lose a +3 bonus if it is not a class skill kills the rogue on certain skills. Druids, Clerics, Rangers and other Wis. based classes will destroy the rogue at perception, unlike in previous editions where they could only get +10 from ranks. Perception is the most used skill in the game, so expect every class to put max ranks into it once they can afford it. Wizards are better at linguistics.

Trapfinding
The change of disable device to a dex only skill does help the rogue, but it is then also hindered by the change of trapfinding. Now anyone can search for traps using perception. The only advantage the rogue gains is in being able to find magical traps.



I should note that I think most of the above changes were overall good changes to the game, but that they ended up greatly hurting the rogue, who didn't get enough to compensate. At least the designers seem to have noticed the problem with trapfinding, and have made it a commonly changed ability in rogue archetypes. They've also made it so that archetypes of other, better, classes can get trapfinding also, so it's probably a wash.

Great points, all around. I'm now seriously considering pointing towards positive changes in the mix. What do you guys think?


And again I ask; where do you get this idea?

Melee is not weaker. With the exception of the rogue, all of the other base melee classes have been significantly upgraded.


I dunno about "significant"...but putting that aside, I believe that the monsters you face received similar 'significant' upgrades, except with some of the other mundane problems (maneuvers, some casters being just as strong if not stronger), then in a PF game they are relatively weaker compared to 3.5 melee in a 3.5 game.

The melee classes might have been upgraded, but some melee tactics have actually been hit with a nerf stick. The PF mundane classes would for the most part have a great time in a 3.5 environment, but PF is its own system after all.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

The same Fighter who can kill 4 balors and hardly break a sweat will be at a loss if he needs to negotiate a truce with the powers of the lower planes. Or infiltrate an enemy base and retrieve something without being detected. The Wizard, meanwhile, can probably obviate any of these challenges, even if it's not built for it. This is a problem with the core of the system itself, it's not exclusive to Pathfinder and I'll certainly not criticize the decision to build upon it. The main problem, I think, is that PF did at times widen that gap, instead of trying to close it.
Common misconception;

1) No amount of enchantment spells will help you "negotiate" with fiends, or most other high-level enemies really as they are immune to mental control and influence (anyone with unholy aura, protective aura, protection from alignment, undead, constructs, oozes, plants, vermin, Far Outsiders, demodands, qliphoth and anyone with magic or items to get protection from evil).

2) No amount of magic will help you infiltrate a place really serious about its magical security. Lead-lining blocks many divinations. Hallow/Unhallow will block teleports, prevent you from controlling/influencing anyone inside, prevent you from calling or summoning creatures and purge any invisibility - and it cannot be dispelled. Passwords will negate impersonation without having previously gathered information.




In high-level PF games, skills are very important in both stealth and social interaction. The wizard is an exception in casters not being good in such because his primary casting stat is Intelligence, allowing for significant boost to skill points - but other casters aren't as effective skill-wise.

[eggynack]

@Belial, My real question is how this fighter got right between first place. They have (good) flight, greater teleport, enough general defense to survive all in your full attack routine hitting, and some pretty good long range casting abilities. It only takes you to die against the force of balors. Mundane folks can always do a ton of damage. It's what they do best. However, whenever a situation comes up that can't be solved by just charging in and stabbing it to death, they're rather useless.

To be honest, I don't know much about specific caster tactics in pathfinder. I'm mostly hanging out here to broaden my knowledge base. I have a druid set up inkill aas athough, if that counts for anything. Those tactics probably don't work at all in pathfinder, because of the druid nerfs, but I'm sure that a more experienced fellow could construct some caster builds that can take out most situations pretty easily. What I'm saying is, casters were way more powerful than mundane folks in 3.5, and I haven't seen much indication that that's changed much in PF. Thus, casters are a dominating presence in pathfinder as well.

[CTrees]

Amusing note on tripping: you can't trip flying creatures because the devs felt that would make no sense, but you can absolutely trip swimming creatures, so long as they have legs (ex., a swimming human).

Also, on crafting discounts being a feature vs. a bug: adding class/race/alignment restrictions to an item reduces costs. If you're crafting for your party, you know the details of what they can activate/use without UMD, so there's almost no reason not to further discount your items by saying, "okay, this cloak of resistance can only be used by elves. Good thing our rogue is an elf!"

Those may be more towards disfunctional rules than odd changes/lafk thereof, so some legitimate oddities:

-Dust of Sneezing and Choking and Rod of Thunder and Lightning: known to be borked, easy to fix (add a save and add a duration, respectively), but completely unchanged.

-Assassin: nerfed to the point of "is there any reason to take this class?" Only thing I can really see is a +1d6 SA at level one, which is somewhat hard to get in PF from sources that don't stack with rogue levels (i.e., a Rogue1/Sorceror4/Assassin1 would qualify for Arcane Trickster, whereas a Rog1/Sor4/Vivisectionist1 wouldn't. If for some reason you wanted to be an arcane trickster)

-Minor quibble: PF's iconic barbarian uses a large greatsword. This is literally impossible for a medium sized character to do in Pathfinder, even with Titan Mauler (which, per the NPC Codex, is an archetype she doesn't have).

-The rules for monstrous PCs. Sure, it's simple. Sure, the 3.5 rules were complicated, oft misunderstood, and occassionally overly punitive. And the example of a minotaur barbarian works out pretty well, balance-wise. But when you start looking deeper... well:
-monstrous humanoid RHD may not be great, but how about dragon or outsider RHD? Which a monstrous PC would usually have more of than their base CR. Before getting bonus class levels as they progress.
-something like an azer or minotaur balance nicely in a party. How about a quickling in a party of level three characters? Or a Fey Velociraptor (with, remember, stat bonuses and normal WBL) in the same party? It gets worse from there - look at the outsiders with caster levels, which still get bonus character levels as they progress.
-templates! Vampire was never worth it in 3.5, but in PF? You get a heck of a lot flin exchange for two levels. Young+Advanced? Why would a Wizard ever not take those two?
And so on. Really, it just breaks so, so easily, I can't see why they ever thought it was a positive change. Was hoping the Advanced Race Guide would provide better rules, but nope.

[Larkas]

Common misconception;

1) No amount of enchantment spells will help you "negotiate" with fiends, or most other high-level enemies really as they are immune to mental control and influence (anyone with unholy aura, protective aura, protection from alignment, undead, constructs, oozes, plants, vermin, Far Outsiders, demodands, qliphoth and anyone with magic or items to get protection from evil).

2) No amount of magic will help you infiltrate a place really serious about its magical security. Lead-lining blocks many divinations. Hallow/Unhallow will block teleports, prevent you from controlling/influencing anyone inside, prevent you from calling or summoning creatures and purge any invisibility - and it cannot be dispelled. Passwords will negate impersonation without having previously gathered information.




In high-level PF games, skills are very important in both stealth and social interaction. The wizard is an exception in casters not being good in such because his primary casting stat is Intelligence, allowing for significant boost to skill points - but other casters aren't as effective skill-wise.

Hey, I'm glad you took this as an incentive to discuss things in a friendly way! :smallsmile: Let's see if I can argue either way...

1) True enough, that was a point brought up more about the Fighter's shortcomings than about the Wizard's omnipotence. The "right" character for the job would be someone built for Diplomacy, such as a Bard, who could still do something if that wasn't necessary. However, the Wizard still has tricks up his sleeves. Glibness is a great spell that simply adds to Bluff, and can go a great way towards making the encounter easier. Wish is an option, if only a very expensive one. You could argue that Limited Wish could help here, but it's a very open-ended spell, so it's hard to say.

2) Again, this was brought up more because of the Fighter, but even in such a scenario, the Wizard can auto-win -- if it is willing to pay the price. Those effects can't stop a Wish-based teleportation effect, for example. If it's something important enough to be protected by all those failsafes, it may be important enough to warrant the 25,000 gp expenditure.

I'm glad that your experience has been of an increased importance of skills! It is certainly a good thing, as it might take the focus away from the casters a bit. The problem still stands, however, that an overly specialized Fighter (as any Fighter should be in this system, IMHO) will probably sit on the sidelines at any time battle prowess isn't called for. Which is a pity, because many classes can be good in battle and still contribute when combat isn't an issue.

[137beth]

Probably. Ah well.


Damn. I guess we have to do something else then. Pathfinder is a flawless masterpiece, so making a list of things to look out for in the system is a fool's errand. Someone should probably PM a mod to get this thread locked.
Now you guys are just being whiny...

I like the idea of this thread--to provide a repository of information about changes. However, I think it would also be useful to have a repository for positive changes. Yes, most people would probably assume that most changes were positive unless otherwise specified, but it would be helpful to have a collection of what those changes actually were.

I dunno about "significant"...but putting that aside, I believe that the monsters you face received similar 'significant' upgrades, except with some of the other mundane problems (maneuvers, some casters being just as strong if not stronger), then in a PF game they are relatively weaker compared to 3.5 melee in a 3.5 game.
The monsters get mundane boosts, along with the mundane players (no, melee can still be obscenely powerful--it's called spells.)
If mundane characters are boosted so that they can fight more powerful monsters, that is a boost.

[sonofzeal]

If mundane characters are boosted so that they can fight more powerful monsters, that is a boost.
Well, PF made classes/races almost universally a bit stronger, and made monsters almost universally a bit weaker... so.... yay? :smallconfused:

[137beth]

Well, PF made classes/races almost universally a bit stronger, and made monsters almost universally a bit weaker... so.... yay? :smallconfused:

It is a boost, I did not specify whether I think it is good or not.
(also, I was responding to someone who was under the impression that monsters got stronger in PF...)

[Reverent-One]

If you think this or any other thread will stop those, I have a lovely bridge for sale. Regardless, I've said my piece on the matter and will exit.

*Brofist*

Really Larkas, I understand you had good intentions about this, but given that this thread is already turning into a rehash of the same arguments by the same people as not one, but two other still active threads are, it isn't going to actually prevent repeating the same arguments in the future. Since there is no consensus on a lot of the value judgements made in this and the other threads, we can't simply link to this thread in furture PF debates to settle things, as it will just provoke the same counter-arguements. Basically, this XKCD strip (http://xkcd.com/927/), only referring to edition wars.

However, to not just be a negative nancy, I do have a constructive suggestion. If you were to remove most of the value judgement system ("this sucks", "this is good") and use this as a guide simply for pointing out changes that pathfinder made (basically a more up-to-date version of Saph's 3.5/Pathfinder guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890)) and other situations where things interact differently than in 3.5, that would be pretty much inarguably useful. Something that could be easily linked to when someone new shows up and asks "Hey guys, I've only heard of pathfinder, how is it different than 3.5?" without actively prompting the edition war bits.

[eggynack]

*Brofist*

Really Larkas, I understand you had good intentions about this, but given that this thread is already turning into a rehash of the same arguments by the same people as not one, but two other still active threads are, it isn't going to actually prevent repeating the same arguments in the future. Since there is no consensus on a lot of the value judgements made in this and the other threads, we can't simply link to this thread in furture PF debates to settle things, as it will just prvoke the same counter-arguements. Basically, this XKCD strip (http://xkcd.com/927/), only referring to edition wars.

However, to not just be a negative nancy, I do have a constructive suggestion. If you were to remove most of the value judgement system ("this sucks", "this is good") and use this as a guide simply for pointing out changes that pathfinder made (basically a more up-to-date version of Saph's 3.5/Pathfinder guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890)) and other situations where things interact differently than in 3.5, that would be pretty much inarguably useful. Something that could be easily linked to when someone new shows up and asks "Hey guys, I've only heard of pathfinder, how is it different than 3.5?" without actively prompting the edition war bits.
I think that there's some value to having a handbook that's evaluative rather than descriptive. It might be harder to pull off, but it tells players what to look out for rather than what just exists. I've already brought this up, but I believe we're currently up to our third 3.5 dysfunctional rules thread. If there's no point to value judgement, then why not just have a rules thread that links to the SRD, and sites where you can buy various D&D books?

I also think that there's some value to showing the negative differences between 3.5 and PF. Pathfinder is different from an entirely new rules system, and has to be evaluated as such. Unlike 3.5 they had years of play testing before they created their system, so there's a reasonable expectation that the new system's changes will be positive ones. I feel like analyzing whether that expectation plays out has its own value. Moreover, if we analyze pathfinder from the perspective of 3.5, we can take many of the problems of 3.5 as given, and move on from there. Evaluating a whole new system is far harder than evaluating an adapted system. Arguments about whether magic or mundane is more powerful don't necessarily have to occur, because that work has already been done for us. That doesn't mean that that sort of argument won't occur, just that it'll happen in the context of a larger understanding.

This isn't just a rehash of past arguments; it's a compilation of them. There's a valid purpose behind digging through those simultaneously existent threads, finding good points, and then putting them all in an easily understandable format. That's why handbooks exist in the first place, after all.

[Prime32]

No, no it wasn't. Not at all.

Flask rogue was perfectly legal in 3E. Jason Bulmahn thought it was "cheesy," so he removed it. Likewise, and missing from the OP, paizo specifically went out of their way to not let you use Quickdraw with splash weapons and indeed, define them as not weapons at all.


Quick Draw (Combat)

You can draw weapons faster than most.

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action. You can draw a hidden weapon (see the Sleight of Hand skill) as a move action.

A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow).

Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be drawn quickly using this feat.

Normal: Without this feat, you may draw a weapon as a move action, or (if your base attack bonus is +1 or higher) as a free action as part of movement. Without this feat, you can draw a hidden weapon as a standard action.

Like...holy hell. PF game design gives pettiness whole new freaking meaning!It's weirder than that. You can still draw an improvised weapon as a free action; i.e. any object. So you can draw a flask as a free action... if you pretend it isn't a flask. :smallconfused: (might need a dip in Monk of the Empty Hand)

[Reverent-One]

I think that there's some value to having a handbook that's evaluative rather than descriptive.

Not where edition wars are concerned. In it's current status, this thread will be forgotten about in short order because there's nothing memorable about it from either of the the other two active threads (to say nothing of the dozens of previous threads on the subject). You can't comprehensively distill the arguements and compile them into a few posts worth of content. They're far to in-depth and subjective. If there is no real consesus, this thread would just cause more warring in the future, rather than stopping it.


If there's no point to value judgement, then why not just have a rules thread that links to the SRD, and sites where you can buy various D&D books?

Because the value of the thread would be having all the reading of the rules done for the newbie, the changes isolated and removed for easy viewing, rather than requiring sifting through the many rules that are the same, especially when there's perhaps simply a sentence of a multiparagraph description that's been tweaked or removed.

[NinjaInTheRye]

-Minor quibble: PF's iconic barbarian uses a large greatsword. This is literally impossible for a medium sized character to do in Pathfinder, even with Titan Mauler (which, per the NPC Codex, is an archetype she doesn't have).


She uses a large Bastard Sword, not a Great Sword. It's legal, if suboptimal.

[eggynack]

Because the value of the thread would be having all the reading of the rules d, the changes isolated and removed for easy viewing, rather than requiring sifting through the many rules that are the same, especially when there's perhaps simply a sentence of a multiparagraph description that's been tweaked or removed.
That thread could theoretically be a valuable one, but I think that the evaluative version could be equally valuable, if not more so. There should be a thread that discusses the dysfunctional aspects of PF, because that's a healthy thing for a game to have. It tells DM's and players what to avoid, and it allows people to make an educated choice before picking an edition. Really, if we could just have the discussion about what's dysfunctional about the game, instead of the discussion about whether that discussion needs to exist, we'd be far more constructive.

[CTrees]

She uses a large Bastard Sword, not a Great Sword. It's legal, if suboptimal.

Huh. I could swear it was a greatsword. Nevermind, then.

[Reverent-One]

That thread could theoretically be a valuable one, but I think that the evaluative version could be equally valuable, if not more so. There should be a thread that discusses the dysfunctional aspects of PF, because that's a healthy thing for a game to have.

Dysfunctional from a rules perspective (like Prime's quick draw example)? Sure, and we have a thread for that. Dysfunctional from a "Pathfinder should/shouldn't have made that change", "they nerfed X, boosted Z"? No, because just like all the Monk threads or the ToB threads or any other edition war thread, there has never been, and short of a miracle will never be, enough of a consensus for the thread to accomplish that. For example, you mentioned in the last post that "Arguments about whether magic or mundane is more powerful don't necessarily have to occur, because that work has already been done for us". And if that work ever got done, I could agree with you, but literally years of debates and dozens of threads have gone on over that subject, and still that hasn't been done. So why do you think this thread will magically be able to do it?


Really, if we could just have the discussion about what's dysfunctional about the game, instead of the discussion about whether that discussion needs to exist, we'd be far more constructive.

Eh, I don't see repeating the same arguements about manuevers or the rogue's supposed loss of skill niche being more productive than this. Larkas might be able to be convinced of my position, so that automatically makes it more productive in my eyes.

[Larkas]

Amusing note on tripping: you can't trip flying creatures because the devs felt that would make no sense, but you can absolutely trip swimming creatures, so long as they have legs (ex., a swimming human).

Or tritons! ...Weird. :smallconfused:


Also, on crafting discounts being a feature vs. a bug: adding class/race/alignment restrictions to an item reduces costs. If you're crafting for your party, you know the details of what they can activate/use without UMD, so there's almost no reason not to further discount your items by saying, "okay, this cloak of resistance can only be used by elves. Good thing our rogue is an elf!"

Hahaha, true! Still don't know how I'd incorporate that. Hmmm...


Those may be more towards disfunctional rules than odd changes/lafk thereof, so some legitimate oddities:

-Dust of Sneezing and Choking and Rod of Thunder and Lightning: known to be borked, easy to fix (add a save and add a duration, respectively), but completely unchanged.

-Assassin: nerfed to the point of "is there any reason to take this class?" Only thing I can really see is a +1d6 SA at level one, which is somewhat hard to get in PF from sources that don't stack with rogue levels (i.e., a Rogue1/Sorceror4/Assassin1 would qualify for Arcane Trickster, whereas a Rog1/Sor4/Vivisectionist1 wouldn't. If for some reason you wanted to be an arcane trickster)

-Minor quibble: PF's iconic barbarian uses a large greatsword. This is literally impossible for a medium sized character to do in Pathfinder, even with Titan Mauler (which, per the NPC Codex, is an archetype she doesn't have).

-The rules for monstrous PCs. Sure, it's simple. Sure, the 3.5 rules were complicated, oft misunderstood, and occassionally overly punitive. And the example of a minotaur barbarian works out pretty well, balance-wise. But when you start looking deeper... well:
-monstrous humanoid RHD may not be great, but how about dragon or outsider RHD? Which a monstrous PC would usually have more of than their base CR. Before getting bonus class levels as they progress.
-something like an azer or minotaur balance nicely in a party. How about a quickling in a party of level three characters? Or a Fey Velociraptor (with, remember, stat bonuses and normal WBL) in the same party? It gets worse from there - look at the outsiders with caster levels, which still get bonus character levels as they progress.
-templates! Vampire was never worth it in 3.5, but in PF? You get a heck of a lot flin exchange for two levels. Young+Advanced? Why would a Wizard ever not take those two?
And so on. Really, it just breaks so, so easily, I can't see why they ever thought it was a positive change. Was hoping the Advanced Race Guide would provide better rules, but nope.

Ah, indeed, they could've made changes to those... Well, at least they didn't bork them further. And about the "monsters as PCs" stuff, I think that, short of going the Legend way, you'll never have a perfectly good and simple system...


I like the idea of this thread--to provide a repository of information about changes. However, I think it would also be useful to have a repository for positive changes. Yes, most people would probably assume that most changes were positive unless otherwise specified, but it would be helpful to have a collection of what those changes actually were.

I'm seriously considering changing the format. Adding both positive, negative and "neutral" changes. Let me think a bit


--snip--


--snip--

I'm really, REALLY considering changing the format. Maybe point out all the changes from a more neutral perspective (i.e.: "the new specialist wizards might obsolete universal wizards, and they might have an negative impact on game balance" instead of "they break the game even harder, period", and "in Pathfinder, raging barbarians must be more mindful of their HP than ever", instead of "the new rage mechanic is a serious nerf to barbarians"). I still think that pointing out whether it's a good or bad change is useful, but it might pay to put things a little more in perspective.


It's weirder than that. You can still draw an improvised weapon as a free action; i.e. any object. So you can draw a flask as a free action... if you pretend it isn't a flask. :smallconfused: (might need a dip in Monk of the Empty Hand)

Ehm... Now that is weird! :smallconfused: Even if the DM is a RAW-lover, all you have to do is tie a rock to the flask and quick draw the rock! :smalleek:

[3WhiteFox3]

I'm really, REALLY considering changing the format. Maybe point out all the changes from a more neutral perspective (i.e.: "the new specialist wizards might obsolete universal wizards, and they might have an negative impact on game balance" instead of "they break the game even harder, period", and "in Pathfinder, raging barbarians must be more mindful of their HP than ever", instead of "the new rage mechanic is a serious nerf to barbarians"). I still think that pointing out whether it's a good or bad change is useful, but it might pay to put things a little more in perspective.

I like that tone, it is less confrontational and simply gives facts. I would also add a disclaimer to the effect of: If you love Pathfinder wholeheartedly and feel that it is perfect for the needs of you and your group, this thread is not for you. After all, you have what you want already, anything that is changed probably isn't what you want. That isn't bad, in fact, it's good. However, we feel, in making this thread, that there are issues in Pathfinder that stem from fundamental changes to the d20 system. Whether or not a DM feels that a change is needed is up to him.

That's not perfect, but I hope it gets the point across.

I love Pathfinder, so when I explain a disappointment with the system I'm not starting an edition war (In fact, we can't be, an edition war is saying that one edition is better than another, we're not saying that at all. I think that including a section on what we love about Pathfinder would go a long way to keeping the peace.)

EDIT: Obviously, I'm generalizing here. But I feel that most of the people in this thread want to see Pathfinder succeed. I myself am highly stoked for Ultimate Campaign, even if I'm worried about some of the balance consequences the book might have.

[Snowbluff]

Yeah, you are generalizing a bit, but you deserved credit for admitting it. :smallwink:
I think that Pathfinder was rather pointless, but I have more issues with the fanbase trying to tell me it's flawless and much better than the established system (I have the same problem with Psionics). I can handle positive change (Psywar, ToB, PF Paladin), but PF doesn't feel complete and positive enough.

That being said, should the metamagic case-by-case changes be mentioned? Persistent Spell is pretty brutal in PF, as is Magical Lineage.

How about magic? Snowball is a level 1 Orb, SoS and everything.

Favored Class Bonuses are pretty incredible. Some are so bad they should never be considered, while others are just too good. I think a good example would the the Half-Elf and Goblin Summoner FCB.

Tiefling and Aasimar got kind of a buff, but Tiefling has a requisite feat for some of their alternate features. Sure, it says to consult your DM, but why are the Aasimar so better off?

[Sylthia]

I don't think Pathfinder is by any means flawless, and I have quite a few houserule fixes of my own, but I still prefer it to 3.5.

[137beth]

I still find debating whether 3.5 or PF is "better" to be rather pointless...
all the changes that occurred are minor enough to be easy house rules, and Paizo even provided us with an "official" process to convert stuff from 3.5 to PF (and reversing it isn't hard.) Adapting content published for PF to your 3.5 game (or vice versa) is really no different from adapting content published for 3.5 to your already-existing house rules. Other than having a different logo, it doesn't really matter whether a particular sourcebook is written for 3.5 or for PF, as long as DMs are aware of what changes were made (which is what this thread could be used for.)

Snowbluff, you've said on numerous occasions that you "question the value of it still being supported." I'm not really sure what you mean by this, but I can tell you that the reason I use 3.X to begin with is that there is a lot of professionally developed game content available for it. As of right now, my games are still technically in 3.5 land, but I still get use out of PF books. They really aren't too different from using 3.0 books, or 3.5 books with your own house rules. The "point" of pathfinder isn't so much that it "fixes" things, but that new books are still being written. Even if you don't like the minor rule changes, that's no reason to throw out all the new sourcebooks that ever come out ever unless they are published before 2008. I mean, every 3.X book I own assumes the usage of rules for the diplomacy skill which I have never used--that doesn't mean I can't get use out of those books.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Dang, Larkas! *reads your responses* You're putting in an insane amount of effort! This is exactly why I didn't want to do such a handbook. :smallsmile:

I don't know how to word the martial screw-job on the Fly skill, but shortening the text itself is probably sufficient for getting the point across:

You cannot take ranks in this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding. Creatures can also take ranks in Fly if they possess a reliable means of flying every day (either through a spell or other special ability).


-Dust of Sneezing and Choking and Rod of Thunder and Lightning: known to be borked, easy to fix (add a save and add a duration, respectively), but completely unchanged.

Just a minor nitpick on an excellent post: The problem w/ the dust was never lack of a save. It was that the save doesn't freaking matter at all. In fact, I'd argue against anything but very low Con enemies, you'd RATHER they make the save! It's kind of funny, if you see someone throw dust at you but aren't sure what it is, the metagame best answer on how to react is probably to intentionally fail your save.


This fine dust appears to be dust of appearance. If cast into the air, it causes those within a 20-foot spread to fall into fits of sneezing and coughing. Those failing a DC 15 Fortitude save take 2d6 points of Constitution damage immediately. In addition, those failing a second DC 15 Fortitude save 1 minute later are dealt 1d6 points of Constitution damage. Those who succeed on either saving throw are nonetheless disabled by choking (treat as stunned) for 5d4 rounds.

Well, I've always seen it read as Con damage OR stunning. If it is actually Con damage + Stunning or Stunning, then the save truly doesn't matter.

[Larkas]

Dang, Larkas! *reads your responses* You're putting in an insane amount of effort! This is exactly why I didn't want to do such a handbook. :smallsmile:

And this is why I want this to be a collaborative effort! I couldn't possibly write all this by myself! :smallbiggrin:


I like that tone, it is less confrontational and simply gives facts. I would also add a disclaimer to the effect of: If you love Pathfinder wholeheartedly and feel that it is perfect for the needs of you and your group, this thread is not for you. After all, you have what you want already, anything that is changed probably isn't what you want. That isn't bad, in fact, it's good. However, we feel, in making this thread, that there are issues in Pathfinder that stem from fundamental changes to the d20 system. Whether or not a DM feels that a change is needed is up to him.

That's not perfect, but I hope it gets the point across.

I love Pathfinder, so when I explain a disappointment with the system I'm not starting an edition war (In fact, we can't be, an edition war is saying that one edition is better than another, we're not saying that at all. I think that including a section on what we love about Pathfinder would go a long way to keeping the peace.)

EDIT: Obviously, I'm generalizing here. But I feel that most of the people in this thread want to see Pathfinder succeed. I myself am highly stoked for Ultimate Campaign, even if I'm worried about some of the balance consequences the book might have.

I thought for some time, and I think that, before expanding, I'll be rewriting the guide to be more "neutral" or "impartial" in outlook. To go with it, I'll be ditching the current color code and work with this:

Change (C,B)

- Changes impacting characters will be indicated on the C;

- Changes impacting game balance will be indicated on the B;

- Positive changes will be marked with a blue letter;

- Negative changes will be marked with a red letter;

- Changes with unexpected consequences will be marked with a orange letter;

- Changes with no appreciable impacts will be marked with a black letter.

This way, the code can be used for any kind of changes. A few examples:

Barbarian Rage and Unconsciousness (C,B)

Specialist Wizards (C,B)

Skill Condensing (C,B)

Paladin Smite (C,B)

That way, any change might be listed, be it positive or negative. Also, the change in tone will try to accomplish more balanced views: "the new barbarian rage might hurt both the game balance and the character using it, but it can give a sense of increased realism to the game". I also think I'll try being clearer about the paradigm of "game balance" we're using here, that is: (a) ideally, all characters should be able to contribute equally to the adventure or, in he case of a relative incompetence, be able to compensate by being relatively better at something else and (b) ideally, the character shouldn't be able to "break the campaign", either by easily obviating a reasonable challenge without the appreciable use of any resource or by making a potential party mate obsolete without being built specifically for that. (I could use some help rewriting that to get the point across better!)

I won't lie to you, though. At least initially, the spotlight will probably be on changes considered negative. It is only natural, as that is what most people will notice, and want to know, at first. The idea here, however, is still for this guide to be a collaborative effort. If you bring up a positive change, I'll be sure to add it!

[Snowbluff]

I still find debating whether 3.5 or PF is "better" to be rather pointless...

Snowbluff, you've said on numerous occasions that you "question the value of it still being supported." I'm not really sure what you mean by this, but I can tell you that the reason I use 3.X to begin with is that there is a lot of professionally developed game content available for it. As of right now, my games are still technically in 3.5 land, but I still get use out of PF books. They really aren't too different from using 3.0 books, or 3.5 books with your own house rules. The "point" of pathfinder isn't so much that it "fixes" things, but that new books are still being written. Even if you don't like the minor rule changes, that's no reason to throw out all the new sourcebooks that ever come out ever unless they are published before 2008. I mean, every 3.X book I own assumes the usage of rules for the diplomacy skill which I have never used--that doesn't mean I can't get use out of those books.
This actually kind of sums up some of my feelings on the matter. In the case of 3.5 vs. PF, support really means nothing more than a huge amount of material. In the grand scheme of life, the universe, and everything, it doesn't really matter either. Messing around with a new class can be fun from time to time, even if in my recent character building, I've found little interest in most PF class material. New crap to play with is something to play with, even if it's crap. That being said, I think the explicit intent of the work was to fix issues with 3.5, and it is commonly cited as incentive to switch over.

Regardless, I have more issues with people trying to claim the system is more balanced or better put together that 3.5 was. I have a guy in one of my groups who is playing PF, but banned ToB for being "imbalanced". Between things like that, and people on this forum, it's pretty awful.

[The Boz]

Regardless, I have more issues with people trying to claim the system is more balanced or better put together that 3.5 was.

Why do you have a problem with facts, for the fourth thread in a week?

[Larkas]

Regardless, I have more issues with people trying to claim the system is more balanced or better put together that 3.5 was.


Why do you have a problem with facts, for the fourth thread in a week?

This discussion doesn't belong in this thread. If you don't have changes to contribute or critiques to make on the guide, please, bring it elsewhere.

[Snowbluff]

Why do you have a problem with facts, for the fourth thread in a week?

Have you read this thread? :smallconfused:

I think the balance in PF is pretty bad due to the issues with CMB and loss of melee nice things in 3.5. Sure, in 3.5 you could destroy the game in TO, but it's not like regular play in PF is a pinnacle of game design. 3.5 gave us a good variety of my favorite balancing point, Tier 3. I long for the days of Bequiler and Warblade.

This thread isn't about this, so could you stop?

[The Boz]

You're the one that stated to have a problem with people that claim PF to be superior to 3.5.
Does core Pathfinder have flaws? Yes. Does core 3.5 have flaws? Yes.
Which of these has more of them? Beyond a doubt, 3.5.
Pathfinder is FAR from a perfect system, but to claim it inferior to 3.5 is a nirvana fallacy.


Now, as for the thread itself, I like where you're going with this. I'll see if I can help out somewhere...

[AuraTwilight]

Which of these has more of them? Beyond a doubt, 3.5.

This is 100% pure opinion. Drop the subject, you're just being antagonistic at this point.

[TuggyNE]

1 - Hey! That's perfect! I'll be changing the topic's name right now! Aliterations are always awesome! :smallbiggrin:

2 - Fixed!

Sweet! :smallcool:


3 - I actually left some provisions for that from the start but... Turns out that it didn't. Double-checking the beta rulebook, I noticed that its FoM is exactly the same as in 3.5. Unless that was a change present in some specific version of the playtest book, it seems like they never had that idea. :smallfrown:

Well, that's disappointing. Ah well.


This is one of those things that I think are part of common sense but not part of actual history. I was going to mention that, but I decided to go on and take a look at 3E's SRD (found here (http://systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd3/theraven/SRDBasicRules/srdbasiccharacterclassesi.html)), and turns out that 3E never had that ruling. It is actually original to PF.

I'm pretty sure it was a moderately common houserule in 3.x as well.


Really, if we could just have the discussion about what's dysfunctional about the game, instead of the discussion about whether that discussion needs to exist, we'd be far more constructive.

But do we need to have the discussion about whether to have the discussion about whether to have that discussion?

META.

[Larkas]

Guys, please check if this tone and approach is alright for the guide:

1


Core Rulebook

Classes
Barbarian
Rage and Unconsciousness (C, B): An impacting change made to barbarians is the interaction between rage and unconsciousness: in Pathfinder, being knocked unconscious automatically drops a barbarian out of his rage. This is important because raging increases a character’s Constitution score, which in turn adds extra hit points per hit die. When the barbarian ends his rage, he loses those extra hit points immediately; when the barbarian is forced out of his rage due to going unconscious, he will lose those hit points exactly when he’s the most vulnerable. In fact, due to the multiplicative effect (incremental Constitution score x Hit Die), the higher level the barbarian is, the more likely he is to die immediately when knocked unconscious. This means that barbarians must be more mindful than ever of their hit points; their hit point totals are, in a sense, effectively lower than they were in 3.5.
Bard
Bardic Knowledge (C,B): This ability now gives a bonus equal to half the bard’s level to knowledge checks and allows her to make those untrained. This does streamline things and ensure that the bard will be able to discover obscure bits of information every now and then, but to play a “loremaster” type of character, she will have to actively invest in knowledge skills.

Bardic Performance Uses per Day (C, B): Pathfinder introduced an important change regarding this ability: unlike in 3.5, bards now perform for a set number of rounds/day. This doesn’t impact the combat usage of the ability much, as there has been an increase to the available uses per day to compensate for the change, but it does make using performances like Inspire Competence somewhat trickier, since skills can take a lot of time to be used.

Bardic Performance Duration (C, B): This is, we believe, the most important change made to bardic performance in Pathfinder. The ability doesn’t have a duration now, which means that as soon as the bard stops performing, her music loses effect. This implies that you can’t stack multiple effects (such as those from Inspire Courage and Inspire Heroics) any more. Coupled with the other aforementioned change, this also means that a bard must be very mindful to not run out of uses per day at the most critical of moments.
Monk
Flurry of Blows (C,B): In Pathfinder, the monk’s flurry of blows counts as Two-Weapon Fighting, which means that a monk can’t increase his number of attacks in a turn by taking that feat chain. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since those attacks would have low accuracy anyways.

Monk’s Base Attack Bonus when Flurrying (C, B): This is an important change: a monk’s base attack bonus is equal to his class level when flurrying. This means that the monk will have more attacks and greater accuracy than otherwise. This is just a “virtual” increase, however, and the monk must still qualify for feats using his regular attack bonus, for example.
Wizard
Specialization Penalties (C, B): The greatest dilemma faced by specialist wizards has been somewhat alleviated: spells from opposing schools are not forbidden, just harder to cast (they take two spell slots instead of one). This also means that any specialist wizard can use spell-completion and spell-trigger items containing spells from his opposing schools, at no increased cost.

Universalist Wizards (C, B): With the changes made to the specialization drawbacks, being a universalist wizard became a comparatively lackluster choice. When you take into account the special abilities acquired by a universalist (two vs. the three possessed by the specialists, with Hand of the Apprentice being relatively subpar) and the extra spell slots enjoyed by specialists, there might be little mechanical incentive to play as one. (If you have access to it, we recommend importing the “Mastery of All Schools” ability held by universalists in Pathfinder Beta.)

[Snowbluff]

Larkas, could you nest a few less spolier tags? Like maybe leave the sections and class names unspoilered, but the descriptions of the class features spoilers?

[Larkas]

Larkas, could you nest a few less spolier tags? Like maybe leave the sections and class names unspoilered, but the descriptions of the class features spoilers?

I made it like that to improve organization, since everything is in its own chapter, subchapter and section. But if changing it improves readability, sure. :smallsmile:

[sonofzeal]

I like the nesting the way it is. *shrugs*

[TuggyNE]

Guys, please check if this tone and approach is alright for the guide

I didn't have a problem with it before, but this is definitely even less likely to offend, without being less useful.


I made it like that to improve organization, since everything is in its own chapter, subchapter and section. But if changing it improves readability, sure. :smallsmile:

I'd prefer a bit more scrolling to endless clicking, yes. Generally I think spoilers should only have one level; you might stick spoilers around larger blocks than your current smallest chunk, but smaller than the current largest.

[Snowbluff]

I think the less nesting will make it easier to search for what you need by class/etc, and it would make it easier for people to navigate on mobile devices.

[137beth]

Okay, I missed this in the flurry of blows replies:

1. I... Did? Would you mind being more specific? I'm suffering from severe reading comprehension here, as I'm simply not seeing it!

The thing I was referring to in the first reply of the thread was your color-coding scheme:

Unnecessary: These are the changes we feel detract from the system as a whole. This will generally be saved to uncalled-for nerfs.
...

unnecessary. This will also include changes proposed during playtest phase but that were eventually shot down, to everyone’s bewilderment.
These are separated, with different descriptions and the same color. Intentional? Mistake?


I think the less nesting will make it easier to search for what you need by class/etc, and it would make it easier for people to navigate on mobile devices.
Agreed, on my phone the page jumps around whenever I open a spoiler.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I think the less nesting will make it easier to search for what you need by class/etc, and it would make it easier for people to navigate on mobile devices.

I agree, a little less nesting would help.

[Arbane]

edit: add piranha strike (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/piranha-strike-combat) to the "power attack" feats


As far as I can tell, unless there's some other feats that require Piranha Strike, there's no reason to take it. PF Power Attack works with ANY melee weapons.

[3WhiteFox3]

As far as I can tell, unless there's some other feats that require Piranha Strike, there's no reason to take it. PF Power Attack works with ANY melee weapons.

It's for Dexterity based melee builds that can't meet the prerequisite of 13 Strength. Instead, it requires a feat that is going to be used for any Dex-based melee fighter. So, it's not as bad as it might seem at first glance.

[Arbane]

It's for Dexterity based melee builds that can't meet the prerequisite of 13 Strength. Instead, it requires a feat that is going to be used for any Dex-based melee fighter. So, it's not as bad as it might seem at first glance.

Oh, right - I forgot the strength requirement. Thanks.

[Just to Browse]

I didn't really read these changes before whatever stylistic decisions were implemented to make them more "neutral", but right now this reads more like "Things I Hate About Pathfinder". And while I'm all in favor of the power of hate, you're probably not going to reach your intended audience (people who are looking to play PF and want to know how it's different from 3.x). I recommend a better format (I agree with little to no nesting, also you should list changes by importance to the core mechanic instead of by section) and a definite decrease in the number of subtle/not-so-subtle attacks on the changes.

There are also several terms for changes that don't matter and changes that are bad, but there don't appear to be any changes that are good. I'd recommend a category for that--since I can't imagine Pathfinder didn't make something better.

[AuraTwilight]

If you read the OP in it's entirety, hate has nothing to do with it. The topic creator LIKES Pathfinder. But while it's easy to find positive changes compiled about Pathfinder, there's been lots of requests about what's BAD about it, and many such threads devolve into flame wars. This is simply an attempt to neutrally and mechanically evaluate and compile what those are as a reference for whenever the topic comes up again.

There's three such threads on 3.5 with this exact same purpose, it has nothing to do with being Anti-Pathfinder.

[TuggyNE]

If you read the OP in it's entirety, hate has nothing to do with it. The topic creator LIKES Pathfinder. But while it's easy to find positive changes compiled about Pathfinder, there's been lots of requests about what's BAD about it, and many such threads devolve into flame wars. This is simply an attempt to neutrally and mechanically evaluate and compile what those are as a reference for whenever the topic comes up again.

There's three such threads on 3.5 with this exact same purpose, it has nothing to do with being Anti-Pathfinder.

Only three? I point you to Top Ten in my sig, which contains another rather full list of (mostly) 3.5 stuff, sorted by general agreement on horrendousness. (Horrendicity?)

Also, RACSD, which combines identified problems with suggested fixes, but that's not quite the same thing.

And that's just stuff in my sig, I'm sure there's a lot more. :smallwink:

[Just to Browse]

Ah, I read the first paragraph and then just ignored the rest of it. I feel like that could be clearer (like in the title for example), but if this is supposed to be a list of bad things about PF then it's kewl.

[Carth]

Well, the thread title itself does lead one to believe that what ensues is PF bashing, too.

[Gnaeus]

My biggest pet peeve involves polymorph line.

I readily agree that it needed a nerf. I generally like the way they broke it into dozens of specific spells. I like how it applies simple stat buffs and penalties.

I don't like how they made almost the entire polymorph line Personal. Not only is it not terribly iconic (myth and fantasy are full of examples of people turning other people into animals and such) but it prevents them from being used to buff your fighter into being a better fighter, or your rogue into being a better scout. If the GOAL is to protect the niches from different classes, why can the wizard turn himself into a rat to scout, but not the rogue. Why can he turn himself into a giant to smash people, but not the fighter? These spells should all be range touch or short.

[Blightedmarsh]

I think it was to stop them from turning NPCs and hostiles into helpless animals.

[eggynack]

I think it was to stop them from turning NPCs and hostiles into helpless animals.
They could have just said that the targets have to be willing. That's the phrasing on polymorph in 3.5.

[Gnaeus]

I think it was to stop them from turning NPCs and hostiles into helpless animals.

I don't think so. If that were so, they would have just used the text from the Polymorph spell itself, which reads: "This spell transforms a willing creature into an animal, humanoid or elemental of your choosing; the spell has no effect on unwilling creatures, nor can the creature being targeted by this spell influence the new form assumed (apart from conveying its wishes, if any, to you verbally)."

So, they clearly knew how to stop what you are suggesting, they just thought that it was cool for a wizard to turn himself into a bird with a level 3 spell, but not the rogue. He can turn himself into a giant, but not the fighter.

[Reverent-One]

My biggest pet peeve involves polymorph line.

I readily agree that it needed a nerf. I generally like the way they broke it into dozens of specific spells. I like how it applies simple stat buffs and penalties.

I don't like how they made almost the entire polymorph line Personal. Not only is it not terribly iconic (myth and fantasy are full of examples of people turning other people into animals and such) but it prevents them from being used to buff your fighter into being a better fighter, or your rogue into being a better scout. If the GOAL is to protect the niches from different classes, why can the wizard turn himself into a rat to scout, but not the rogue. Why can he turn himself into a giant to smash people, but not the fighter? These spells should all be range touch or short.

Question, which polymorph spells did they actually change to personal? The Polymorph line itself (by which I mean the ones named Polymorph) isn't Personal, and the Beast Shape/Elemental Body/Whatever form parallel a bunch of Transmutation/Polymorph subschool spells from 3.5 that also all look Personal (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872134/The_Complete_Polymorph_Thread_3.5?post_id=33843490 6#338434906).

[Gnaeus]

Question, which polymorph spells did they actually change to personal? The Polymorph line itself (by which I mean the ones named Polymorph) isn't Personal, and the Beast Shape/Elemental Body/Whatever form parallel a bunch of Transmutation/Polymorph subschool spells from 3.5

Well, you see, Polymorph in PF doesn't do what polymorph did in 3.5. 3.5 polymorph gives:"The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin...You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine".

PF version (at one level higher) gives "This spell transforms a willing creature into an animal, humanoid or elemental of your choosing; ....
If you use this spell to cause the target to take on the form of an animal or magical beast, the spell functions as beast shape II. If the form is that of an elemental, the spell functions as elemental body I. If the form is that of a humanoid, the spell functions as alter self."

So the spell to turn your rogue into a rat (diminutive) is personal only. The spell to turn someone into a giant is personal only. They used to be part of "Polymorph", now they are split off into new spells.

[Reverent-One]

Target line from Polymorph (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/polymorph.html)

Target living creature touched

Thus it specifically can be cast on any living creature. All of the "if X, it functions like Y" clauses refer to the effects of the spells, Beast shape gives you one set of stats and abilties, Elemental Body a different set, and Alter self yet another set.

[Gnaeus]

Yes, and I said that earlier in this thread.

PF polymorph cannot change a fighter into a troll. A wizard can change into a troll (with Giant Shape) but it is personal. Polymorph does not include it. 3.5 polymorph did.

PF polymorph cannot change a rogue into a rat. A wizard can change into a rat (beast shape 3) but it is personal. Polymorph does not include it. 3.5 polymorph did.

If one is worried about the OMGWTF power of wizards, you should be encouraging them to buff their party members to spread the spotlight. The changes in polymorph are actively opposed to that goal. Every single one of the spells they broke 3.5 polymorph into should be range touch.

[3WhiteFox3]

Yes, and I said that earlier in this thread.

PF polymorph cannot change a fighter into a troll. A wizard can change into a troll (with Giant Shape) but it is personal. Polymorph does not include it. 3.5 polymorph did.

PF polymorph cannot change a rogue into a rat. A wizard can change into a rat (beast shape 3) but it is personal. Polymorph does not include it. 3.5 polymorph did.

If one is worried about the OMGWTF power of wizards, you should be encouraging them to buff their party members to spread the spotlight. The changes in polymorph are actively opposed to that goal. Every single one of the spells they broke 3.5 polymorph into should be range touch.
Why? Everyone knows that Wizards suck because they can't fight in melee, they need the buff. But if you put that spell on a Fighter; now that's broken, they can already fight. Why would you even do that?

[NamelessNPC]

I'm pretty sure that's not an intentional nerf, but instead consequence of sloppy writing. Otherwise the "target living creature" line is useless and inexplicable

[Reverent-One]

Ah, I see what you mean. Your problem is that polymorph has been weakened, so some effects can't just be thrown on anyone. Though Greater polymorph does allow a wizard to turn a rogue into a rat.


If one is worried about the OMGWTF power of wizards, you should be encouraging them to buff their party members to spread the spotlight. The changes in polymorph are actively opposed to that goal.

I disagree with this though, while using the OMGWTF power to buff the party makes the wizard's power less obvious, that's merely misdirection, not actually reducing the power of the wizard. These changes do reduce the wizards power, due mainly to the changes on stat replacement and inherited abilities.


Why? Everyone knows that Wizards suck because they can't fight in melee, they need the buff. But if you put that spell on a Fighter; now that's broken, they can already fight. Why would you even do that?

You're being sarcastic, but there's some truth to that. Using Giant Form is far more powerful on someone that already has physical and combat abilties on it own, rather than a one that likely doesn't.

[eggynack]

I'm pretty sure that's not an intentional nerf, but instead consequence of sloppy writing. Otherwise the "target living creature" line is useless and inexplicable
In either case, it probably belongs in some category or another. Either it's a nerf that doesn't make much sense, or it's a mistake that people should know about.

[Reverent-One]

In either case, it probably belongs in some category or another. Either it's a nerf that doesn't make much sense, or it's a mistake that people should know about.

Actually, Nameless is making the same mistake as I did about what Gnaeus's point is. The spell clearly can be cast on any living creature, that's not what Gnaeus was referring to.

[Gnaeus]

I disagree with this though, while using the OMGWTF power to buff the party makes the wizard's power less obvious, that's merely misdirection, not actually reducing the power of the wizard. These changes do reduce the wizards power, due mainly to the changes on stat replacement and inherited abilities.

You're being sarcastic, but there's some truth to that. Using Giant Form is far more powerful on someone that already has physical and combat abilties on it own, rather than a one that likely doesn't.

But you see, having a powerful class isn't a problem, when that power is used to put the spotlight on someone ELSE.

3.5 Polymorph, aside from its many broken uses, and I agree there were many, was also the single best team buff in the game in its level range. Fighters in 3.5 were weaker than wizards. They still are in PF. Polymorph your fighter into a troll and he becomes a star for a combat. That is how the game is supposed to work!!!

Prevent the wizard from buffing the fighter effectively, and he just won't. He either doesn't take polymorph at all, or he takes it and uses it as a utility spell. There is no comparable spell in the level range to rock fights via the fighter. So wizard dumps polymorph, and replaces it with another spell that will win combats, like Acid Pit, Resilient Sphere, or Boneshatter. End result: Melee gets buffed less, wizard ends more fights with Save or Loses, team play is reduced. Edit: Additional result. Since becoming a huge, weapon using form is now out of reach for the fighter, battlefield control builds suffer. Since this was previously the biggest reason to play a fighter instead of (for example) a militant cleric, there becomes less reason to include a muggle in your party at all.

[MukkTB]

Hey, if this is to be an objective guide, it needs a section addressing the things pathfinder did right. With only complaints this feels like a backwards insult. And this is coming from a guy who agrees 100% with the complaints. Its a credibility issue.

Beyond that, when people edition war over PF, they don't just need the downsides in a handy link. The need the positives. Without them, only the PF haters will ever link this thread. Ideally this should be something that can be dropped into an edition war and end the thing by being the final word. That means a comprehensive and worked out system that makes further argument redundant.

[3WhiteFox3]

Ah, I see what you mean. Your problem is that polymorph has been weakened, so some effects can't just be thrown on anyone. Though Greater polymorph does allow a wizard to turn a rogue into a rat.



I disagree with this though, while using the OMGWTF power to buff the party makes the wizard's power less obvious, that's merely misdirection, not actually reducing the power of the wizard. These changes do reduce the wizards power, due mainly to the changes on stat replacement and inherited abilities.



You're being sarcastic, but there's some truth to that. Using Giant Form is far more powerful on someone that already has physical and combat abilties on it own, rather than a one that likely doesn't.
Yes there's truth to it. However, I'm simply saying that it might have been the reason. It's an intuitive thought process. However, while a well-built Fighter can fight fine, that's all he does. The Wizard can already cast spells, and using a buff spell just gives them the ability to do yet another thing in combat. While the Fighter could use another option or three, even if it's from the Wizard.

I'm not disagreeing that Polymorph needed the nerf, oh it did. However, the problem is that not every overpowered spell was nerfed in that way. If that had happened then the gulf between the Wizard and Fighter would have been closed at least in part. But as it stands, the Wizard is still strong, so giving the option sharing that strength helps the Fighters out in the end.

[Psyren]

PF version (at one level higher) gives "This spell transforms a willing creature into an animal, humanoid or elemental of your choosing; ....
If you use this spell to cause the target to take on the form of an animal or magical beast, the spell functions as beast shape II. If the form is that of an elemental, the spell functions as elemental body I. If the form is that of a humanoid, the spell functions as alter self."

So the spell to turn your rogue into a rat (diminutive) is personal only. The spell to turn someone into a giant is personal only. They used to be part of "Polymorph", now they are split off into new spells.

No. You're intentionally misreading the spell to support your bogus assertions here.

"Target: living creature touched." - PF Polymorph

Once you apply the spell to someone (by touching them), THEN it functions as Beast Shape II or what have you. So yes, you CAN turn the Rogue into a rat (a Tiny Animal). The effect of the spell is as Beast Shape II, not the target line - Polymorph's target line overrides it, since that is what you are actually casting.

It seems I was correct in predicting this thread would become a magnet for people who just wanted to dump on PF, even if they do so erroneously.

[Reverent-One]

But you see, having a powerful class isn't a problem, when that power is used to put the spotlight on someone ELSE.

Sure it is. If and when the other players realize how much of what they're doing is because of things from other players, they feel useless, like the caster's unimportant minions.


3.5 Polymorph, aside from its many broken uses, and I agree there were many, was also the single best team buff in the game. Fighters in 3.5 were weaker than wizards. They still are in PF. Polymorph your fighter into a troll and he becomes a star for a combat. That is how the game is supposed to work!!!

In terms of damage and such (the things turning into a troll helps you become), a Fighter is already a star. Numbers like that aren't the fighters problem. True, that doesn't mean you can't buff him more, but that doesn't mean that there's only one buff the wizard had that can do that.


Prevent the wizard from buffing the fighter effectively, and he just won't. He either doesn't take polymorph at all, or he takes it and uses it as a utility spell. There is no comparable spell in the level range to rock fights via the fighter. So wizard dumps polymorph, and replaces it with another spell that will win combats, like Acid Pit, Resilient Sphere, or Boneshatter. End result: Melee gets buffed less, wizard ends more fights with Save or Loses, team play is reduced.

Except the Polymorph line still buffs the fighter. Less than it does in 3.5? Sure, but it was ridiculous in 3.5.

[Gnaeus]

No. You're intentionally misreading the spell to support your bogus assertions here.

"Target: living creature touched." - PF Polymorph

Once you apply the spell to someone (by touching them), THEN it functions as Beast Shape II or what have you. So yes, you CAN turn the Rogue into a rat (a Tiny Animal). The effect of the spell is as Beast Shape II, not the target line - Polymorph's target line overrides it, since that is what you are actually casting.

It seems I was correct in predicting this thread would become a magnet for people who just wanted to dump on PF, even if they do so erroneously.

Fine, then, a mouse. You can't turn people into diminutive animals, because you can't apply beast shape 3. I know what polymorph does. The point is what it doesn't do. It is a full spell level higher, and much less effective as an ally buff. Why can I turn my level 9 wizard into a diminutive animal, but not my rogue? He is supposed to be the scout, right?

[Psyren]

If your rogue needs to be Diminutive at level 9 then he wasn't a very good scout to begin with. And as R_O stated, you do get that option later on with Greater Polymorph. So it's not a matter of "the wizard can't ever buff them" which your post was incorrectly implying. They simply adjusted the levels at which such a buff would occur.

If the rogue is any good, being Tiny is more than enough of a buff.


EDIT: Also, size bonuses are much less of a factor in PF anyway. Diminutive in 3.5 was a +12 to stealth, but in PF it's only +4. This is good because it means a wizard can't become a master sneak with one spell anymore.

[eggynack]

By my understanding, the issue is that the polymorph line provides incentives for you to cast it on yourself, when it might be better to provide incentives for the opposite. It's obviously true that the way that they formatted the spells in that direction. It's up for debate whether that's a problem or not. I think that it's a problem, but a pretty minor one. Having the wizard rely on the other party members as targets for his spells seems better than having him just target himself and batman up the joint.

[Larkas]

Thanks for the input regarding Polymorph, guys. I'll be sure to include it in the guide. However, if you want to continue and deepen then discussion, I'll ask you to take it to another thread. Maybe link back here so we can see where that takes us. :smallwink:

[Urpriest]

No. You're intentionally misreading the spell to support your bogus assertions here.

"Target: living creature touched." - PF Polymorph

Once you apply the spell to someone (by touching them), THEN it functions as Beast Shape II or what have you. So yes, you CAN turn the Rogue into a rat (a Tiny Animal). The effect of the spell is as Beast Shape II, not the target line - Polymorph's target line overrides it, since that is what you are actually casting.

It seems I was correct in predicting this thread would become a magnet for people who just wanted to dump on PF, even if they do so erroneously.

Rats are Diminuitive, IIRC. That's the point that's being made here.

[Carth]

EDIT: Also, size bonuses are much less of a factor in PF anyway. Diminutive in 3.5 was a +12 to stealth, but in PF it's only +4. This is good because it means a wizard can't become a master sneak with one spell anymore.

Not true (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/stealth.html), stealth survived the size related changes to skills, maneuvers, and so forth.


A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Stealth checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan –12, Colossal –16.

[Psyren]

Rats are Diminuitive, IIRC. That's the point that's being made here.

Rats are Tiny in PF, unless the PRD is wrong about that.


Not true (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/stealth.html), stealth survived the size related changes to skills, maneuvers, and so forth.

Fair enough, but at least it applies to things like grapple checks.


By my understanding, the issue is that the polymorph line provides incentives for you to cast it on yourself, when it might be better to provide incentives for the opposite.

That's how it works in 3.5 - it replaces your physical stats entirely, which is a huge incentive to cast it on yourself since you will get the biggest bonus from doing so. (e.g. mages typically have crap physical stats, so polymorphing themselves makes it so they can duplicate the physical party members' jobs.) PF changed spells like this to augment stats rather than replace them, so you get the biggest benefit by casting them on people that are already good at their jobs. So yes, it is better to incentivize the opposite, and that's just what PF did.

[Mighty_Chicken]

Improved and Greater Bull Rush: You now need two feats and BAB +6 (poor Monk) to get the same numerical bonuses that a character in 3.5 would get with a single feat. provoke AoOs anyways when standing up!



What? No, man! You don't need two feats for the same numerical bonus, because +4 in an opposed check is the same as +2 in a simple check!

I agree with your others points, including about the combat maneuvers, but dude! That's the most trivial mistake people make about Pathfinder. Opposed checks are twice as random as simple checks. That's why a +2 bonus to opposed checks isn't much, and a +4 bonus to simple checks are awesome.

[StreamOfTheSky]

What? No, man! You don't need two feats for the same numerical bonus, because +4 in an opposed check is the same as +2 in a simple check!

I agree with your others points, including about the combat maneuvers, but dude! That's the most trivial mistake people make about Pathfinder. Opposed checks are twice as random as simple checks. That's why a +2 bonus to opposed checks isn't much, and a +4 bonus to simple checks are awesome.

I disagree. A 10-based defense is effectively the same as taking 10 on the roll, and that's what CMD is. The feats add to CMB and CMD, so a +4 is just the same edge in PF as it is in 3E.

Also, it's more than the numerical bonus. In 3E, an untrained commoner who bull rushed someone had that movement provoke AoOs. In PF, you need the entire 3 feat (including power attack) chain to get that.

[Starbuck_II]

I disagree. A 10-based defense is effectively the same as taking 10 on the roll, and that's what CMD is. The feats add to CMB and CMD, so a +4 is just the same edge in PF as it is in 3E.

Also, it's more than the numerical bonus. In 3E, an untrained commoner who bull rushed someone had that movement provoke AoOs. In PF, you need the entire 3 feat (including power attack) chain to get that.

Also provoking and getting hit in that provoke raises the CMD.
Though, this makes the provoking issue better than 3.5 defensively.

[sonofzeal]

What? No, man! You don't need two feats for the same numerical bonus, because +4 in an opposed check is the same as +2 in a simple check!

I agree with your others points, including about the combat maneuvers, but dude! That's the most trivial mistake people make about Pathfinder. Opposed checks are twice as random as simple checks. That's why a +2 bonus to opposed checks isn't much, and a +4 bonus to simple checks are awesome.
....it depends.

If you're making an opposed check at equal modifiers, an additional +2 is juuuuust about as good as it is on a flat check. If there's a massive gap, though, it's almost meaningless.

This is easily verifiable. In the first case, whatever I roll, the opponent will now lose if they roll that, or the number above it. Whatever that number is, their chance of victory is 10% less - unless I rolled a nat 20 (or 19 if I win on ties), in which case part of that bonus is wasted. But those are low frequency events, and 90-95% of the time, I get that 10% benefit I would have in a flat roll.

It's only if I'm off by a considerable margin that it becomes less valuable. If the enemy has +10 over me, chances are fairly decent that whatever the rolls are, that +2 will never come into play. Either I roll so low that they couldn't possibly lose to me even with it, or they roll so high that I couldn't possibly beat them even with it. And the same goes if I'm beating them by 10.

But for relatively balanced rolls, it really doesn't make much difference either way. With a +4, on a flat roll you're looking at a 20% boost; on an opposed roll you're looking at a ~18% boost. That's... not at all what you were suggesting.

[Squirrel_Dude]

With an additional +2 bonus on a flat check, there is a 10% greater chance of success than before.

- With an additional +4 advantage in an opposed check(when the advantage was previously 0), there is a 18.5% greater chance of success.
- With an additional +4 advantage in an opposed check(when the advantage was previously +3), there is a 15.4% greater chance of success.
- With an additional +4 advantage in an opposed check(when the advantage was previously +6), there is a 12.4% greater chance of success.

So no, a +2 is not equal to a +4 in opposed rolls until the advantage would be too high to matter.

Math (https://klubkev.org/~ksulliva/ralph/dnd-stats.html)

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Minor nitpick:
Not a 10% greater chance but a chance 10 points higher. That is not the same thing.


I.e. if the original chance was 50%, a chance 10% higher is 55% while a chance 10 points higher is 60%. if the original chance was a mere 10%, a chance 10% higher would be 11% while a chance 10 units higher would be 20%.

[Larkas]

Firstly, I'd like to apologize to everyone. By rewriting the guide, I noticed that several of my assumptions were led by, simply put, misguided preconceptions. This has compelled me to reevaluate a few of the points originally posited in this guide. The resulting complete rewrite can be found below the break. Please note that I'll get rid of the spoiler nesting when I update the first post, I just did it like that because the previous guide was in this format and it was easier for me to fix it like this. On that subject, I'm also rewriting the introduction to the guide. As soon as it's ready, I'll update the first post.

Anyways, please check if the guide below is to your liking. I'll be adding new changes only after this "goes online".

1


Core Rulebook

Classes
Barbarian
Rage and Unconsciousness (C, B): An impacting change made to barbarians is the interaction between rage and unconsciousness: in Pathfinder, being knocked unconscious automatically drops a barbarian out of his rage. This is important because raging increases a character’s Constitution score, which in turn adds extra hit points per hit die. When the barbarian ends his rage, he loses those extra hit points immediately; when the barbarian is forced out of his rage due to going unconscious, he will lose those hit points exactly when he’s the most vulnerable. In fact, due to the multiplicative effect (incremental Constitution score x Hit Die), the higher level the barbarian is, the more likely he is to die immediately when knocked unconscious. This means that barbarians must be more mindful than ever of their hit points; their hit point totals are, in a sense, effectively lower than they were in 3.5.
Bard
Bardic Knowledge (C,B): This ability now gives a bonus equal to half the bard’s level to knowledge checks and allows her to make those untrained. This does streamline things and ensure that the bard will be able to discover obscure bits of information every now and then, but to play a “loremaster” type of character, she will have to actively invest in knowledge skills.

Bardic Performance Uses per Day (C, B): Pathfinder introduced an important change regarding this ability: unlike in 3.5, bards now perform for a set number of rounds/day. This doesn’t impact the combat usage of the ability much, as there has been an increase to the available uses per day to compensate for the change, but it does make using performances like Inspire Competence somewhat trickier, since skills can take a lot of time to be used.

Bardic Performance Duration (C, B): This is, we believe, the most important change made to bardic performance in Pathfinder. The ability doesn’t have a duration now, which means that as soon as the bard stops performing, her music loses effect. This implies that you can’t stack multiple effects (such as those from Inspire Courage and Inspire Heroics) any more. Coupled with the other aforementioned change, this also means that a bard must be very mindful to not run out of uses per day at the most critical of moments.
Monk
Flurry of Blows (C,B): In Pathfinder, the monk’s flurry of blows counts as Two-Weapon Fighting, which means that a monk can’t increase his number of attacks in a turn by taking that feat chain. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since those attacks would have low accuracy anyways.

Monk’s Base Attack Bonus when Flurrying (C, B): This is an important change: a monk’s base attack bonus is equal to his class level when flurrying. This means that the monk will have more attacks and greater accuracy than otherwise. This is just a “virtual” increase, however, and the monk must still qualify for feats using his regular attack bonus, for example.
Wizard
Specialization Penalties (C, B): The greatest dilemma faced by specialist wizards has been somewhat alleviated: spells from opposing schools are not forbidden, just harder to cast (they take two spell slots instead of one). This also means that any specialist wizard can use spell-completion and spell-trigger items containing spells from his opposing schools, at no increased cost.

Universalist Wizards (C, B): With the changes made to the specialization drawbacks, being a universalist wizard became a comparatively lackluster choice. When you take into account the special abilities acquired by a universalist (two vs. the three possessed by the specialists, with Hand of the Apprentice being relatively subpar) and the extra spell slots enjoyed by specialists, there might be little mechanical incentive to play as one. (If you have access to it, we recommend importing the “Mastery of All Schools” ability held by universalists in Pathfinder Beta.)
Feats
Power Attack (C,B): A couple of changes have been made to this feat. On the one hand, it now gives a bonus on damage rolls equal to double the penalty you take on attack rolls. This means that you will be sacrificing comparatively less accuracy to gain the same increase in damage. On the other hand, it no longer offers a choice of how large a bonus and penalty you’ll take, as that is fixed by your base attack bonus. Either you’re using the feat at full power or you’re not using the feat at all, there is no middle ground. Furthermore, the maximum bonus provided by the feat is calculated differently, with the end result being a smaller bonus available per base attack bonus. Lastly, and this we feel is a very important change, it now has a prerequisite of “base attack bonus +1”. This might not mean much for most front line characters, but a few, such as those based on a monk chassis, will have to wait until second level to get this feat, and any of the numerous other feats that have it as a prerequisite.

Improved Bull Rush (C,B): The bonus to bull rush checks provided by this feat has been halved. Furthermore, the prerequisites mean that a character built on a chassis with less than full base attack bonus progression will have to wait a few more levels to choose this feat when compared to its 3.5 counterpart.

Greater Bull Rush (C,B): This feat gives a +2 bonus to bull rush checks, bringing the character’s total bonus up to par with what it received with Improved Bull Rush in 3.5. Furthermore, it makes an opponent provoke attacks of opportunity when moved with the maneuver, recovering a functionality that was removed from bull rush in Pathfinder. The feat’s prerequisites mean that characters will not be able to qualify for it until at least 6th level.

Improved Disarm (C,B): The bonus to disarm checks provided by this feat has been halved.

Greater Disarm (C,B): This feat gives a +2 bonus to disarm checks, bringing the character’s total bonus up to par with what it received with Improved Disarm in 3.5. Furthermore, it makes a disarmed opponent’s gear land 15 ft. away from it, an effect new to Pathfinder. The feat’s prerequisites mean that characters will not be able to qualify for it until at least 6th level.

Improved Grapple (C,B): The bonus to grapple checks provided by this feat has been halved.

Greater Grapple (C,B): This feat gives a +2 bonus to grapple checks, bringing the character’s total bonus up to par with what it received with Improved Grapple in 3.5. Furthermore, it lets a character maintain a grapple as a move action, allowing it to make two grapple checks per round, recovering part of a functionality that was removed from grapple in Pathfinder. The feat’s prerequisites mean that characters will not be able to qualify for it until at least 6th level.

Improved Overrun (C,B): The bonus to overrun checks provided by this feat has been halved. On the other hand, this feat makes it so that overrunning doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, something new to Pathfinder. However, the prerequisites mean that a character built on a chassis with less than full base attack bonus progression will have to wait a few more levels to choose this feat when compared to its 3.5 counterpart.

Greater Overrun (C,B): This feat gives a +2 bonus to overrun checks, bringing the character’s total bonus up to par with what it received with Improved Overrun in 3.5. Furthermore, it makes opponents provoke attacks of opportunity as they are knocked prone when overran, an effect new to Pathfinder. The feat’s prerequisites mean that characters will not be able to qualify for it until at least 6th level.

Improved Sunder (C,B): The bonus to sunder checks provided by this feat has been halved. Furthermore, the prerequisites mean that a character built on a chassis with less than full base attack bonus progression will have to wait a few more levels to choose this feat when compared to its 3.5 counterpart.

Greater Sunder (C,B): This feat gives a +2 bonus to sunder checks, bringing the character’s total bonus up to par with what it received with Improved Sunder in 3.5. Furthermore, it lets a character apply any excess damage done to an item to the item’s wielder, but only if it chooses to destroy said item, an effect new to Pathfinder. The feat’s prerequisites mean that characters will not be able to qualify for it until at least 6th level.

Improved Trip (C,B): The bonus to trip checks provided by this feat has been halved. Furthermore, tripping with this feat no longer provides a free melee attack against the tripped opponent.

Greater Trip (C,B): This feat gives a +2 bonus to trip checks, bringing the character’s total bonus up to par with what it received with Improved Trip in 3.5. Furthermore, it makes a tripped opponent provoke attacks of opportunity, something similar to, but not quite like, the functionality removed from Improved Trip in Pathfinder. The feat’s prerequisites mean that characters will not be able to qualify for it until at least 6th level.
Equipment
Spiked Chain (C,B): This weapon no longer has reach.
Combat
Combat Maneuvers
Bull Rush (C,B): Aside from using the new unified combat maneuver system, the bull rush maneuver has also been completely overhauled. First off, attempting a bull rush without the Improved Bull Rush feat provokes an attack of opportunity only from the target of the maneuver. This means that, by taking that feat, you don’t provoke attacks of opportunity from attempting the maneuver at all. Secondly, you don’t need to move into the defender’s space to bull rush him, which means that you can effectively knockback the opponent without moving from where you stand. You can still move with the opponent to push him further if you so choose, however. Furthermore, you can attempt to extend the bull rush to opponents that stand in the way of your original target’s path, but can’t bull rush a target into a square occupied by a solid obstacle. Thirdly, the target of a bull rush doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity unless the character attempting the bull rush has the Greater Bull Rush feat. The attacking character might still provoke attacks of opportunity by moving with the target, however, though not from the target itself. Lastly, there is no longer a 25% chance to hit the wrong participant of a bull rush with an attack of opportunity.

Disarm (C,B): You no longer provoke an opposed disarm on a failed check any more. Instead, if you fail your check by 10 or more, you drop the weapon you were using to attempt the disarm (if you were armed to begin with). Furthermore, the category of the weapon used in the attempt doesn’t have any impact on the check anymore, so bonuses and penalties due to weapon size are gone (aside from unarmed strikes; those still impose a -4 penalty on the attack). There is no longer an explicit mention to grabbing items worn by a target of a disarm maneuver. This doesn’t mean, however, that this is no longer a valid use of disarm. You can make the target drop a carried item of your choice. As “worn items” are presumably “carried items”, you can still attempt to disarm an opponent of any item it is wearing, just as you could in 3.5. If you want to automatically grab said item, all you have to do is attempt the check unarmed. There isn’t a provision for a bonus due to an exceptionally secured item any more.

Grapple (C,B): Aside from using the new unified combat maneuver system, the grapple maneuver has also been rebuilt from the ground up. We’ll list the most important changes here. First off, attempting a grapple check takes a standard action, instead of a melee attack. The only exception to this is when you make a check to maintain the grapple and have the Greater Grapple feat. Secondly, you may only damage the target when making a check to maintain the grapple, though you can do so using unarmed strikes, natural attacks or light and one-handed weapons. The damage can be lethal or nonlethal. Thirdly, “grappled” and “pinned” are defined conditions. A “grappled” creature no longer loses its dexterity bonus, though it now takes a -4 penalty to dexterity. A “pinned” creature loses its dexterity bonus and is given a -4 penalty to dexterity. “Grappled” and “pinned” characters must succeed on a concentration check to cast a spell, with a DC of 10 + the opponent grappler’s CMB + spell level, but there is no longer a provision for silencing pinned characters. Furthermore, you must attempt a grapple check to maintain a grapple in order to pin the opponent. On the other hand, by succeeding on a single grapple check to escape a grapple, you escape both the “pinned” and the “grappled” conditions at once. Another notable change is that extra grapplers just add +2 to the allied creature’s combat maneuver check through the use of the “aid another” action. Lastly, you may tie up a pinned, restrained or unconscious opponent using a grapple check. The DC to escape those bindings is 20 + the character’s CMB, and if high enough, those bonds might be inescapable.

Overrun (C,B): You only knock an opponent prone if you beat its CMD by 5 or more; if you beat it by 4 or less, you merely move through its space without harming it. The opponent may not try to knock you prone in case you fail at your attempt. Lastly, each leg (not pair of legs) in excess of two adds +2 to the target’s CMD when defending against being overrun.

Sunder (C,B): You may try to sunder an item without destroying it. If in doing so you take out more than half the item’s total hit points, it gains the “broken” condition and is left with at least 1 hit point.

Trip (C,B): Each leg (not pair of legs) in excess of two adds +2 to the target’s CMD when defending against being tripped. Some creatures, “such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures”, cannot be tripped. If you fail on your trip attempt by 10 or more, you are knocked prone.

Thrown Splash Weapon (C,B): You no longer can use these to deal precision-based damage, such as that from a sneak attack.

[Mighty_Chicken]

I disagree. A 10-based defense is effectively the same as taking 10 on the roll, and that's what CMD is. The feats add to CMB and CMD, so a +4 is just the same edge in PF as it is in 3E.


OMG. You guys are all right. I don't know how I missed that. I just did the math and now I'm so embarassed.


Also provoking and getting hit in that provoke raises the CMD.
Though, this makes the provoking issue better than 3.5 defensively.

Yes, this is a straight buff to "untrained" maneuvers. You don't lose a disarm attempt just because a goblin did 2 hp damage on you anymore...

[Carth]

Again, I would encourage the thread title to be changed, as right now it's trollbait. A lot of people are going to read it as 'changes Pathfinder made that don't make a whiff of sense.' If you're going to change the guide to include positive changes, then you need to change the thread title too.

[Amphetryon]

Why do you feel the need to make this post? If you don't like Pathfinder, hooray for you. Don't play it. Enjoy your gaming with whatever system you care to use. There is no need to malign it.

Is the irony here intended?

[eggynack]

Again, I would encourage the thread title to be changed, as right now it's trollbait. A lot of people are going to read it as 'changes Pathfinder made that don't make a whiff of sense.' If you're going to change the guide to include positive changes, then you need to change the thread title too.
How's about, "Pathfinder's potentially problematic permutations"? That seems somewhat more value neutral, indicates the subjective nature of the opinions held within, and contains even more alliteration. You could even make it, "Pathfinder's potentially problematic and possibly positive permutations" for more of all three.

[Snowbluff]

How about the familiar rules?

The bonded object seems... awful. Why can't you just make a magic item? Another spell doesn't seem worth potentially gimping your casting. Can anyone explain to me what these are for?:smallconfused:

This extends to Bard, since the normally nifty Magician ACF seems to be shafted by being forced to use it over a familiar. :smallannoyed:

[Larkas]

How's about, "Pathfinder's potentially problematic permutations"? That seems somewhat more value neutral, indicates the subjective nature of the opinions held within, and contains even more alliteration. You could even make it, "Pathfinder's potentially problematic and possibly positive permutations" for more of all three.


Again, I would encourage the thread title to be changed, as right now it's trollbait. A lot of people are going to read it as 'changes Pathfinder made that don't make a whiff of sense.' If you're going to change the guide to include positive changes, then you need to change the thread title too.

Done. I still have to rewrite the introduction, but this should at least draw less flaming.

[Chained Birds]

How about the familiar rules?

The bonded object seems... awful. Why can't you just make a magic item? Another spell doesn't seem worth potentially gimping your casting. Can anyone explain to me what these are for?:smallconfused:

This extends to Bard, since the normally nifty Magician ACF seems to be shafted by being forced to use it over a familiar. :smallannoyed:

A free spell is a free spell. And I believe it can be any spell you know. ANY spell a Wizard knows and just didn't prepare that day.

Though the benefits don't outweigh the risks of having to make concentration checks if your beloved "Waka Stick" is out of your grasp. Or do they?

[3WhiteFox3]

A free spell is a free spell. And I believe it can be any spell you know. ANY spell a Wizard knows and just didn't prepare that day.

Though the benefits don't outweigh the risks of having to make concentration checks if your beloved "Waka Stick" is out of your grasp. Or do they?

It really depends on the GM. If you know that he isn't going to try and hurt your Wizard by taking away your bonded constantly, then you're fine. However, if your GM believes that since it's helpful to you, then it must be balanced by being taken away every other session (or is just a jerk), it's awful.

[Snowbluff]

A free spell is a free spell. And I believe it can be any spell you know. ANY spell a Wizard knows and just didn't prepare that day.

Though the benefits don't outweigh the risks of having to make concentration checks if your beloved "Waka Stick" is out of your grasp. Or do they?

So, still crap then? I didn't miss anything? If you don't have the right spells set up for your day, you aren't doing your job as a wizard.

The DC is 20+spell level. At low levels the spell slot matters and the Concentration DC is crazy high. At higher levels, the extra spell stops mattering as much (You have many more slots) and the DC is actually manageable. So it progressively gets less useful as you level.

It feels incomplete. Was this supposed to be a viable alternative to the venerable and versatile familiar?

As for the magician, the merit of a prepared caster having their spells known available far outweighs that of a spontaneous caster. A Magician Bard gets a spell slot with crazy baggage attached.
Side note: The new concentration rules seem to be bad for lower OP casters, and the higher OP ones do not care. Even if they are not, the changes to concentration should be noted.

[3WhiteFox3]

Side note: The new concentration rules seem to be bad for lower OP casters, and the higher OP ones do not care. Even if they are not, the changes to concentration should be noted.

Eh, I'm not sure if high optimization means a better concentration check really. it's mainly about pumping your casting stat as high as possible. And while a lower-op Wizard might worry too much about trivial things like strength or charisma, chances are they will still keep a high score there. They are probably looking at a 55%-60% chance of failure at worst for casting defensively. That certainly isn't the best, but it's not that bad considering, that a lower-op wizard will probably notice this problem in play and get Combat Casting. (Actually Combat Casting is actually something I like about pathfinder, now that concentration bonuses are harder to come by, and it's not applicable for skill focus, the +4 from the feat is actually substantial.)

Of course, despite the above, the truly optimized Wizard uses Sudden Shift to teleport out of most situations that require concentration. (Actually Sudden Shift might need to be added to the guide, after all it's apart of giving the Wizard more class features.) And even for low-op players, they will know that your casting stat is worth keeping high, even if it's just because those stats are so important to the feel of the casters. Wizards are smart, Bards are likable, Clerics and Druids are wise, Sorcerers are fabulous, etc...

[Larkas]

Okay, I've updated the original post with the new guide format. I've taken out all the spoiler nesting too, for the enjoyment of our mobile visitors! NOW I can get to adding stuff to the guide. :smalltongue:

[Snowbluff]

Of course, despite the above, the truly optimized Wizard uses Sudden Shift to teleport out of most situations that require concentration. (Actually Sudden Shift might need to be added to the guide, after all it's apart of giving the Wizard more class features.) And even for low-op players, they will know that your casting stat is worth keeping high, even if it's just because those stats are so important to the feel of the casters. Wizards are smart, Bards are likable, Clerics and Druids are wise, , etc...

Exactly. A more capable wizard would center on avoiding the check, since it's far from a sure thing.


Sorcerers are fabulousIndeed! It shall be known across the lands that this is the truth! :smallsmile:

[TuggyNE]

So, apparently, PF made a rather subtle change in a FAQ/errata blog post: if you're holding an object while casting a touch spell, it's discharged into the object or dissipated, even if the object is not a valid target, and even if you have a hand free. As far as I know, this was neither stated or implied in 3.5.

[Reverent-One]

So, apparently, PF made a rather subtle change in a FAQ/errata blog post: if you're holding an object while casting a touch spell, it's discharged into the object or dissipated, even if the object is not a valid target, and even if you have a hand free. As far as I know, this was neither stated or implied in 3.5.

I don't see any FAQ/Errata statement like that specified in the linked thread, only the basic rules text for holding a charge, which is practically identical to the 3.5 version. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardCastaSpell)



Holding the Charge

If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

EDIT:

So, still crap then? I didn't miss anything? If you don't have the right spells set up for your day, you aren't doing your job as a wizard.

The DC is 20+spell level. At low levels the spell slot matters and the Concentration DC is crazy high. At higher levels, the extra spell stops mattering as much (You have many more slots) and the DC is actually manageable. So it progressively gets less useful as you level.

It feels incomplete. Was this supposed to be a viable alternative to the venerable and versatile familiar?

Well, it is a viable alternative. It's more generally useful than a familiar, as spells are pretty awesome, while things a familiar can do can generally be handled by other party members.

[TuggyNE]

I don't see any FAQ/Errata statement like that specified in the linked thread

The FAQ in question is in the text of Magus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus#TOC-Spell-Combat-Ex-).

[StreamOfTheSky]

So wait, you're saying by RAW, in PF:

1. Cleric has Shield in hand. Or hell, even just his weapon.

2. Goes to cast Heal on the badly hurt Fighter.

3. Because he is touching an object, the Heal spell discharges into that item immediately and he is unable to heal the fighter.

...I really hope that's not how the rules work, that's just silly. Objects you pick up AFTER casting set it off, fine. But ones you were already holding?!

[Reverent-One]

The FAQ in question is in the text of Magus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus#TOC-Spell-Combat-Ex-).

I see that as confirming that a Magus can hold a weapon and cast touch spells, not saying other casters can't have anything in hand even when casting the spell. The Magus does get to pick up his sword with the hand holding the spell though, which otherwise would discharge the spell for another caster.

[TuggyNE]

So wait, you're saying by RAW, in PF:

1. Cleric has Shield in hand. Or hell, even just his weapon.

2. Goes to cast Heal on the badly hurt Fighter.

3. Because he is touching an object, the Heal spell discharges into that item immediately and he is unable to heal the fighter.

...I really hope that's not how the rules work, that's just silly. Objects you pick up AFTER casting set it off, fine. But ones you were already holding?!

Yeah, as far as I can tell that's what it says. It's pretty weird.

I'm not enough of an expert in PF to be absolutely sure, though. :smalltongue: I'd be happy to be proven wrong in this!


I see that as confirming that a Magus can hold a weapon and cast touch spells, not saying other casters can't have anything in hand even when casting the spell. The Magus does get to pick up his sword with the hand holding the spell though, which otherwise would discharge the spell for another caster.

It seems quite clear that the Magus has to have a hand free to cast, and that another caster who held a weapon or other object would discharge; it doesn't make any particular distinction between hands, though it probably does make a distinction between holding and wearing (I hope?).

If the only thing it did was clarify that the Magus can pick up their weapon without discharging, it'd be fine. But it isn't.

[Reverent-One]

It seems quite clear that the Magus has to have a hand free to cast, and that another caster who held a weapon or other object would discharge; it doesn't make any particular distinction between hands, though it probably does make a distinction between holding and wearing (I hope?).

Yes, a Magus has to have a hand free to cast, and another caster that picked up a weapon would discharge, but that's the same as in 3.5. There's no change in RAW, so any interpretation that you use in one system would apply in the other.

[BowStreetRunner]

The Ability Score section appears almost identical to 3.5, but there is one crucial change to mention. Intelligence bonuses are now retroactive (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores) when the ability score increases.

Take a look at the information at the beginning of the Classes section of the Core Rulebook.

It mentions that Feats are awarded at every odd level (whereas in 3.5 they came at 1st, 3rd, and every 3 levels thereafter).
This is also where you find the Favored Class rule change (favored class is chosen, not determined by race, and there is no XP penalty, instead receive either +1 hp or +1 skill rank each time the character takes a level in a favored class).

The skill section underwent lots of changes.

1st level skill ranks are same as every other level (no x4 multiplier).
max skill ranks are now equal to hit dice for both class and cross class skills.
skill ranks cost 1 skill point each for both class and cross-class skills.
gain a +3 (untyped) bonus to any class skill with at least 1 rank.
Balance, Jump, Tumble were rolled into Acrobatics
Decipher Script, Forgery, Speak Language were rolled into Linguistics
Listen, Search, Spot were rolled into Perception
Hide, Move Silently were rolled into Stealth
Gather Information is now part of Diplomacy
Open Lock is now part of Disable Device
Concentration was replaced with a Caster Level check
Use Rope checks were removed. There is now a 'Tie Up' Grapple check and a ranged attack roll to use a grappling hook.
Fly was added as a skill.

[TuggyNE]

Yes, a Magus has to have a hand free to cast, and another caster that picked up a weapon would discharge, but that's the same as in 3.5. There's no change in RAW, so any interpretation that you use in one system would apply in the other.

If those were the only changes in the FAQ, there would be no problem; however, the FAQ explicitly grants the Magus the ability to use their class feature to hold a weapon without discharging the held spell. Full stop. Therefore, if you hold (not pick up, hold) a weapon without being a Magus, you discharge a held spell. As far as I can tell, it doesn't matter whether you have a hand free to maintain the charge; it simply hits the object you're holding. Also as far as I can tell, it hits any object you hold, weapon or otherwise; even a Magus can't hold a shield, potion, or whatever without discharging it.

[Reverent-One]

If those were the only changes in the FAQ, there would be no problem; however, the FAQ explicitly grants the Magus the ability to use their class feature to hold a weapon without discharging the held spell. Full stop. Therefore, if you hold (not pick up, hold) a weapon without being a Magus, you discharge a held spell. As far as I can tell, it doesn't matter whether you have a hand free to maintain the charge; it simply hits the object you're holding.

No, confirming a specific case is not the same as explicitly disallowing all other cases. There is at times redundancy in the rules (and in this case, it's not even that, but discussing the rules in a blog post). Especially for something as vague as the Holding a Charge rules.

[Psyren]

No, confirming a specific case is not the same as explicitly disallowing all other cases. There is at times redundancy in the rules (and in this case, it's not even that, but discussing the rules in a blog post). Especially for something as vague as the Holding a Charge rules.

Precisely.

And yay, the prophecy of misreading to find fault with PF where none exists continues... :smallsigh:

[olentu]

Precisely.

And yay, the prophecy of misreading to find fault with PF where none exists continues... :smallsigh:

If you think that is bad just wait until you see some of the interpretations people try to pull out of the rules in 3.5.

[TuggyNE]

No, confirming a specific case is not the same as explicitly disallowing all other cases. There is at times redundancy in the rules (and in this case, it's not even that, but discussing the rules in a blog post). Especially for something as vague as the Holding a Charge rules.

Hmm, you could be right.


And yay, the prophecy of misreading to find fault with PF where none exists continues... :smallsigh:

I brought this over here because some other poster on the other thread had arguments I was unable to counter at the time. I'm not trying to bash PF, but if, in a thread about how to make use of something, an apparent problem or baffling quirk comes up, it's only logical to cross-post it here.

Anyway, anyone that wants to defend the honor of PF can go do it over there. I don't care enough to keep arguing one side or another.

[StreamOfTheSky]

And yay, the prophecy of misreading to find fault with PF where none exists continues... :smallsigh:

...Have you been asleep the past 13 years? You think that's something unique to poor little pathfinder? People were using such tortured, idiotic "RAW interpretations" of 3E material that Caelic felt the need to make the Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19860738/The_Ten_Commandments_of_Practical_Optimization) to combat the practice.

The problem is that, more and more, the board's turning into what outsiders accuse it of being: a place where rules are deliberately distorted and read in the manner that makes the character more powerful--regardless of common sense, and regardless of official clarification on the matter.

And yet you're here trying to throw a pity party about how people are interpreting some pathfinder FAQ as if it is the only system to get such insane-literal treatment.

I'm glad that Caelic wrote that, though. It's an awesome post and required reading for anyone playing...pretty much any role playing game, really.

[Soras Teva Gee]

How about the familiar rules?

The bonded object seems... awful. Why can't you just make a magic item? Another spell doesn't seem worth potentially gimping your casting. Can anyone explain to me what these are for?:smallconfused:

This extends to Bard, since the normally nifty Magician ACF seems to be shafted by being forced to use it over a familiar. :smallannoyed:

Ahem yes it is very simple:

So you don't have to do the work of putting together a familiar.

So help me I don't have a quote ready to source you but I saw on the Paizo boards that basically Paizo is under the (probably accurate) impression that when some people just don't like to have to go through and maintain a whole secondary character sheet just to play their character. (You know like a certain joke about Wizards forgetting their familiars exist and all?)

The bonded item is intended as a straight forward alternative. Same with Druid domains and Ranger bonds.

Is it as powerful as a familiar, I'll say no. It is however a fair bit less work.

Its not without virtue, just take a ring or an amulet bonded item so its not filling your hands, then enchant it as something you would buy anyways. Then enjoy that bonus spell per day, sure that's superfluous for spontaneous casters but its only a standard feature of Wizards who prep thus now always have that rare utility spell they never use. Its still a benefit though anyways.

And really loosing its a pretty edge case. Yes the GM has ways to disable you by taking it... but how often do you know GMs to go and start messing with the parties stuff. As a percentage not possiblity. And not captured scenarios where you could just be bound and gagged too. And the class it was designed for has a spellbook and component pouch to be jacked anyways.

[Snowbluff]

Ahem yes it is very simple:

So you don't have to do the work of putting together a familiar.

So help me I don't have a quote ready to source you but I saw on the Paizo boards that basically Paizo is under the (probably accurate) impression that when some people just don't like to have to go through and maintain a whole secondary character sheet just to play their character. (You know like a certain joke about Wizards forgetting their familiars exist and all?)

The bonded item is intended as a straight forward alternative. Same with Druid domains and Ranger bonds.

Is it as powerful as a familiar, I'll say no. It is however a fair bit less work.

Its not without virtue, just take a ring or an amulet bonded item so its not filling your hands, then enchant it as something you would buy anyways. Then enjoy that bonus spell per day, sure that's superfluous for spontaneous casters but its only a standard feature of Wizards who prep thus now always have that rare utility spell they never use. Its still a benefit though anyways.

And really loosing its a pretty edge case. Yes the GM has ways to disable you by taking it... but how often do you know GMs to go and start messing with the parties stuff. As a percentage not possiblity. And not captured scenarios where you could just be bound and gagged too. And the class it was designed for has a spellbook and component pouch to be jacked anyways.Actually a little off topic:

The issue would be the great lengths people would go to have this thing be protected. Even if losing it is an uncommon occurrence, it being able to happen at all is an issue. The more dangerous and effective wizards would remove the vulnerability it creates in favor of the more useful familiar. Timmy the Mage, meanwhile, will be perennially screwed over by having this liability (not class feature, liability) stapled onto him.

At least without your spellbook and pouch you can still cast. Heck, you'd be fine if you just planned a head a little. A spare pouch. A spell-handbook. Eschew Materials. Your abilities aren't centralized, and contingencies are easy.

It just seems like Paizo wanted to punish people who didn't wanted something other than the familiar. The Magician bard is also glued to his terrible thing. They don't even get an option to opt out, from what I can see.

Are the familiar rules altered significantly, other than alternative arcane bonds?

[eggynack]

...Have you been asleep the past 13 years? You think that's something unique to poor little pathfinder? People were using such tortured, idiotic "RAW interpretations" of 3E material that Caelic felt the need to make the Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19860738/The_Ten_Commandments_of_Practical_Optimization) to combat the practice.


And yet you're here trying to throw a pity party about how people are interpreting some pathfinder FAQ as if it is the only system to get such insane-literal treatment.

I'm glad that Caelic wrote that, though. It's an awesome post and required reading for anyone playing...pretty much any role playing game, really.
That was pretty beautiful, I gotta say. I don't even think it's a bad thing to have misinterpretations of the rules at all. So Tuggyne might have been wrong about holding onto touch spells. Is that a bad thing? This is how we learn stuff, by arguing, and finding little holes, and seeing if the holes exist at all. It's what high optimization is all about.

Sometimes, often even, people see problems in the rules that aren't there. In those cases, we learn something just by the arguing of it. Sometimes, by breaking down rules to the core of their being, we can gain some insight into those rules, and find something deeper than we ever expected. I didn't really know anything about holding touch spells until now, and I'm better at the game because the argument happened.

Sometimes though, people see problems in the rules where there are problems in the rules. If Tuggyne were right, then we would have some greater understanding of the game as a whole. It'd be another thing in the arsenal that is our understanding of high optimization. There's some beauty there, in the process. We experiment, and we take sides, and we find the truth. Sometimes that truth is what our common understanding of the truth always was, and there's no shame in that, and sometimes that truth redefines something vital about the game we play, and that's wonderful, and sometimes our understanding was wrong, but it wasn't that important in the first place, so we move on, wiser for the experience.

My question, then, is why wouldn't any lover of pathfinder want this to happen? Having the game rules torn asunder isn't a sacrilege; it's a privilege. If you love pathfinder, then the game deserves the same level of scrutiny that we apply to 3.5 every day. Sometimes that scrutiny is brilliant, and sometimes it's completely off base, and sometimes it's just ridiculous, but all of those types of scrutiny are good. They reveal our ignorance, and show us something greater than what we had before. So, if you want pathfinder to be as great as it can be, you want as many people misreading it to find fault within the rules as possible. On the most basic level, those misinterpretations tell us where there are likely to be misinterpretations in the future. On the grandest level, those misinterpretations give a game depth and substance. Ultimately, what we're doing is gaining knowledge, and knowledge is always a good thing.

[Snowbluff]

My question, then, is why wouldn't any lover of pathfinder want this to happen? Having the game rules torn asunder isn't a sacrilege; it's a privilege. If you love pathfinder, then the game deserves the same level of scrutiny that we apply to 3.5 every day. Sometimes that scrutiny is brilliant, and sometimes it's completely off base, and sometimes it's just ridiculous, but all of those types of scrutiny are good. They reveal our ignorance, and show us something greater than what we had before. So, if you want pathfinder to be as great as it can be, you want as many people misreading it to find fault within the rules as possible. On the most basic level, those misinterpretations tell us where there are likely to be misinterpretations in the future. On the grandest level, those misinterpretations give a game depth and substance. Ultimately, what we're doing is gaining knowledge, and knowledge is always a good thing.

It mind be a result of a difference in the value of a system. PF is rather polarizing, and Paizo ended up snubbing a lot of people.

[eggynack]

It mind be a result of a difference in the value of a system. PF is rather polarizing, and Paizo ended up snubbing a lot of people.
So, you think that actions like the banning of dissenters created the culture wherein rules nitpicking is valued less? That'd actually make sense, because many of the nitpickers would be driven away, even if they weren't directly attacked.

[georgie_leech]

So, you think that actions like the banning of dissenters created the culture wherein rules nitpicking is valued less? That'd actually make sense, because many of the nitpickers would be driven away, even if they weren't directly attacked.

Which is a shame. No one likes a nitpicker, but they're kind of necessary unless you like nits.

[eggynack]

Which is a shame. No one likes a nitpicker, but they're kind of necessary unless you like nits.
Indeed so, especially when those nits are on the scale of believing two weapon fighting and many shot to be twice as good as natural spell and quicken spell, and the even larger scale of believing that wizards and fighters are anywhere close to each other on the power spectrum. With that said, back to nitpicking!

Yeah, I got nothing. I've mostly been hanging out here under the assumption that my 3.5 knowledge would help out on that end, and the hope that I'd maybe learn some stuff about this system in the process. I suppose that discussions about the nature of game design culture, and the role of nitpickers, could continue until someone comes up with something else. Maybe I should learn more about that familiar thing so I can weigh in on that issue. Eh, whatever.

[Snowbluff]

So, you think that actions like the banning of dissenters created the culture wherein rules nitpicking is valued less? That'd actually make sense, because many of the nitpickers would be driven away, even if they weren't directly attacked.
Yes. In addition, I think the kind of people that would be drawn towards PF may be the kind less likely to nitpick themselves, but that's just conjecture.

I am actually kind of amazed you were able to get anything out of what I wrote. The first sentence is one long typo.

Anyway, in order to prep for this I've actually joined a couple of PF games. Unfortunately, I ended up making a bunch of design choices that would make most of what I learn pointless here (I'm playing a summoner in one game). This is what led me to concentration and Arcane Bond.

[eggynack]

Yes. In addition, I think the kind of people that would be drawn towards PF may be the kind less likely to nitpick themselves, but that's just conjecture.

I am actually kind of amazed you were able to get anything out of what I wrote. The first sentence is one long typo.

Anyway, in order to prep for this I've actually joined a couple of PF games. Unfortunately, I ended up making a bunch of design choices that would make most of what I learn pointless here (I'm playing a summoner in one game). This is what led me to concentration and Arcane Bond.
It was pretty tricky, but the sentiment was easy enough to pick up on :smallsmile:. Anyway, direct summoner stuff probably won't be too helpful, though as you noted there are always bigger rules effects in play than just class. Also, I'm curious if the summoner's reputation as PF's druid plays out at all. It's obviously not as powerful, because just about nothing is that powerful, but it's an interesting claim. Either way, summoners seem like one of the cooler PF base classes, though I may just be projecting the fact that I like druids so much onto them.

[Snowbluff]

It was pretty tricky, but the sentiment was easy enough to pick up on :smallsmile:. Anyway, direct summoner stuff probably won't be too helpful, though as you noted there are always bigger rules effects in play than just class. Also, I'm curious if the summoner's reputation as PF's druid plays out at all. It's obviously not as powerful, because just about nothing is that powerful, but it's an interesting claim. Either way, summoners seem like one of the cooler PF base classes, though I may just be projecting the fact that I like druids so much onto them.

It's druid without wildshape or druid without Animal Companion. It seems to me that the Eidolon is much better off than an AnC is in PF. The spell list is only 6th level spells, but a lot of their spells are higher levels in other lists. Additionally, they get all 9 levels of summon monster through a class feature.

I really do like 3.5 druids as well.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Actually a little off topic:

The issue would be the great lengths people would go to have this thing be protected. Even if losing it is an uncommon occurrence, it being able to happen at all is an issue. The more dangerous and effective wizards would remove the vulnerability it creates in favor of the more useful familiar. Timmy the Mage, meanwhile, will be perennially screwed over by having this liability (not class feature, liability) stapled onto him.

At least without your spellbook and pouch you can still cast. Heck, you'd be fine if you just planned a head a little. A spare pouch. A spell-handbook. Eschew Materials. Your abilities aren't centralized, and contingencies are easy.

It just seems like Paizo wanted to punish people who didn't wanted something other than the familiar. The Magician bard is also glued to his terrible thing. They don't even get an option to opt out, from what I can see.

Are the familiar rules altered significantly, other than alternative arcane bonds?

Because you seem a little fuzzy on PF you do know you can technically still cast without the bonded item right?

Its a Concentration check DC: 20+ spell level. And you roll 1d20+Casting Stat+Caster Level. There's also a +2 Concentration available from traits. That's tough no denying it but the next step down would be 15+SL which could would start to be pretty damn straight forward to make right when magic is coming into its own.

Sure its bad if your GM likes to snatch your stuff... but I've yet to say read a guide where Eschew Materials is heralded as a must have feat for casters unless they didn't read Wild Spell right. Its great that Sorcs get it free sure but nobody seems to think it or its quasi-cousins Still and Silent are all that worthwhile on the whole.

If its an intrigue game of wits and assassins or something PvP, yeah such paranoia is justified maybe. Kingmaker or Jade Regent? Only if your GM's being a douche. I seem to recall one side bar in the AP you start kidnapped by pirates who of course take your stuff noting some classes need access to gear, and suggesting ways to make that happen.

And frankly Paizo did not want to punish folks, they want to give folks like V's player an alternative to a raven they forget about. Not casting without it? Well they were clearly reading Harry Potter that day and thought it was nifty. This IS the company with a whole region of lifted directly from Princess Mononoke and outright use of the Cthulhu Mythos, there inspirations tend to be pretty direct. And your Magician Bard, its an archetype that got like two pages and somebody said "what's a stage magician without a magic wand?" oh I'll nab the arcane bond for the class and that was it on to the next one.

I can see the argument say the DC is too tough a penalty (easier then Defensive Casting at least) but that's into easy houserule adjustment territory. Even with no penalty I'd say probably its got less use then turning your familiar into a bear/body-double/dragon or taking improved familiar for something with nifty SLAs.

But there's more to life then "balance" anyways.

A situational penalty is just that, situational. And "what if I loose it" just isn't worth worrying that much about.

[Gnaeus]

Precisely.

And yay, the prophecy of misreading to find fault with PF where none exists continues... :smallsigh:

No. It doesn't "continue". It didn't exist in the first place, since I was correct in how polymorph/related spells function in pathfinder from the very beginning. Since I started another thread at OP's request to debate that topic, and Psyren never bothered to say anything there, lets just put that to rest.

[Snowbluff]

Soras, if what you say is true, why is there a drawback at all?

[Soras Teva Gee]

Soras, if what you say is true, why is there a drawback at all?

Because they read Harry Potter and thought it was a neato idea. I can name several other places using the idea of a nessecary focus item actually so its not just there.

Mechanically it doesn't matter much IMO, but thematically the idea of a penalty is extremely appropriate if the item is supposed to be a major focus and important. I probably would have done "your bonded item IS your somatic component" personally, but whatever.

Seriously though don't not play a Magician Bard just because oh noes you have a magic wand.

Now yeah you clearly feel this is some horrible thing and you can ... but lets flip the script for a second and ask why isn't there one for a familiar dying? Well there is for a Witch because that fits that motifs. And there used to be back in the day IIRC. More then one way to skin a pseudo-dragon.

[Amphetryon]

Because they read Harry Potter and thought it was a neato idea. I can name several other places using the idea of a nessecary focus item actually so its not just there.

Mechanically it doesn't matter much IMO, but thematically the idea of a penalty is extremely appropriate if the item is supposed to be a major focus and important. I probably would have done "your bonded item IS your somatic component" personally, but whatever.

Seriously though don't not play a Magician Bard just because oh noes you have a magic wand.

Now yeah you clearly feel this is some horrible thing and you can ... but lets flip the script for a second and ask why isn't there one for a familiar dying? Well there is for a Witch because that fits that motifs. And there used to be back in the day IIRC. More then one way to skin a pseudo-dragon.

Why isn't there a penalty for Familiars dying? Because Druids. Also, because Beastmasters, and Eidolons.

[Reverent-One]

This is a penalty for familiars dying, the cost to get a new one or be without the bonuses it gives you.

[Soras Teva Gee]

This is a penalty for familiars dying, the cost to get a new one or be without the bonuses it gives you.

Same for both actually. :smallwink:

Me I suspect that if there was a penalty on you when your familiar died people would leave their familiar outside dungeons taking 20 to hide in a bush. Or at least leave it "in my backpack" and quietly forget to ask if it should be effected by X effect in there.

[Snowbluff]

This is a penalty for familiars dying, the cost to get a new one or be without the bonuses it gives you.
So a tiny GP cost for your negligence, but no loss of your character's capability.

Same for both actually. :smallwink:

Me I suspect that if there was a penalty on you when your familiar died people would leave their familiar outside dungeons taking 20 to hide in a bush. Or at least leave it "in my backpack" and quietly forget to ask if it should be effected by X effect in there.

Isn't there a spell for stowing familiars in PF?

Don't the 2 hardness 10 HP bonded rings have to make saves if you fail a save on some spells?

Does anyone have a mechanical reason for the penalty for losing the Bonded object?

Also, about the Magician, it's one of the few ways to recover the extended durations on Bardic Music. I'd say Extended Performance is worth it, but it has the lousy bonded object that you can't seem to opt out of. At level 5 you're suddenly and inexplicably dependent on this thing. It makes no sense.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Isn't there a spell for stowing familiars in PF?

Don't the 2 hardness 10 HP bonded rings have to make saves if you fail a save on some spells?

Does anyone have a mechanical reason for the penalty for losing the Bonded object?

Also, about the Magician, it's one of the few ways to recover the extended durations on Bardic Music. I'd say Extended Performance is worth it, but it has the lousy bonded object that you can't seem to opt out of. At level 5 you're suddenly and inexplicably dependent on this thing. It makes no sense.

Not that I can see (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-lists---sorcerer-and-wizard). I think there may be an magic item, but well magic items cost more then taking taking 20 on stealth outside the dungeon. Or flying, forgot about that. You put it back to the GM needing to go out of their way to screw with you.

And I'm not sure what you have in mind there with spells. Shatter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/shatter) doesn't work on magical items. Break (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/break) doesn't seem to actually effect HP so you'd need a second casting and failed save before you get to cast Mending, and "broken" doesn't effect your ability to cast here. Sunder is a threat of course and Steal to an amulet but not a ring or disarm but those are all melee threats.

And I can't imagine something being much of "mechanical reason" as unless something needs to be clearer or needs to avoid weird rule conflicts something I find myself wonder what that is. And the bonded object rules seem straight forward. :smallwink: (Yes you probably meant something else but that's an more a preference question like why do only monks have three good saves)

And what's to not make sense, as you advance in your chosen path being a bard imitating a wizard you pick up a bonded object. Clearly your school of thought or whatever is just similar enough to wizards that do to work that way to also work that way. Magician isn't the only archetype to pick up a bonded item.

[Psyren]

There are wizard archetypes that do away with both the familiar and the bonded object if you prefer those. Similarly, there are witch archetypes that replace the familiar with something that doesn't need to be tracked.


No. It doesn't "continue". It didn't exist in the first place, since I was correct in how polymorph/related spells function in pathfinder from the very beginning. Since I started another thread at OP's request to debate that topic, and Psyren never bothered to say anything there, lets just put that to rest.

I wasn't even talking about that (I believed the matter settled pages ago), nor was my comment directed at you.

[Soras Teva Gee]

There are wizard archetypes that do away with both the familiar and the bonded object if you prefer those. Similarly, there are witch archetypes that replace the familiar with something that doesn't need to be tracked.

Well yeah but Snowbluff seems to really like the Magician Bard one that doesn't and adds it to a bard actually.

While I acknowledge there's a weakpoint in the bonded item, I just don't think its crippling either.

Were already into an archetype not a base class anyways.

[Larkas]

I've started adding stuff to the guide, and started with share spells' changes. Expect more updates soon.

EDIT: Added opposition research.

[Psyren]

Well yeah but Snowbluff seems to really like the Magician Bard one that doesn't and adds it to a bard actually.

While I acknowledge there's a weakpoint in the bonded item, I just don't think its crippling either.

Were already into an archetype not a base class anyways.

Ah I see. Yeah it's a bit weird that your casting can be tied to an item, but if you think your DM is the type to go after your bonded object either talk with him/her or play something else. Or roll with it, having a session or two where you are debuffed like that could actually be fun.

Personally I would make the object a ring. No chance of it being sundered and it would be pretty hard to pickpocket.

[NinjaInTheRye]

There is no more diagonal reach in PF. In 3.5 there was a specific exception to the distance rules that allowed a character with 10' reach to attack into a diagonal square 15' (aka 2 squares) away. That was left on in PF.

In 3.5 there were some extra ways to damage swarms listed under the Vulnerabilities of Swarms section, specifically a lit torch did 1d3 fire damage, a magic weapon did full energy damage to swarms (even if the were immune to the weapon's normal damage, and a lit lantern could be thrown to deal 1d4 fire damage. This section was omitted in PF.

I believe that both of these were copy/paste mistakes in the transition rather than intentional rules changes, though I don't believe that they've taken any steps to correct them either.

[Psyren]

In 3.5 there were some extra ways to damage swarms listed under the Vulnerabilities of Swarms section, specifically a lit torch did 1d3 fire damage, a magic weapon did full energy damage to swarms (even if the were immune to the weapon's normal damage, and a lit lantern could be thrown to deal 1d4 fire damage. This section was omitted in PF.

Swarms are immune to "weapon damage," i.e. the damage listed for a weapon on its weapon table. Extra damage such as from energy enhancements is not included in this total. Similarly, a PF torch deals weapon damage as an improvised bludgeoning gauntlet of its size, plus 1 point of fire damage - the swarm would only be immune to the former.

So while the line was omitted in PF, the rule hasn't actually changed.

[Snowbluff]

Not that I can see (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-lists---sorcerer-and-wizard). I think there may be an magic item, but well magic items cost more then taking taking 20 on stealth outside the dungeon. Or flying, forgot about that. You put it back to the GM needing to go out of their way to screw with you.

And I'm not sure what you have in mind there with spells. Shatter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/shatter) doesn't work on magical items. Break (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/break) doesn't seem to actually effect HP so you'd need a second casting and failed save before you get to cast Mending, and "broken" doesn't effect your ability to cast here. Sunder is a threat of course and Steal to an amulet but not a ring or disarm but those are all melee threats.

And I can't imagine something being much of "mechanical reason" as unless something needs to be clearer or needs to avoid weird rule conflicts something I find myself wonder what that is. And the bonded object rules seem straight forward. :smallwink: (Yes you probably meant something else but that's an more a preference question like why do only monks have three good saves)

And what's to not make sense, as you advance in your chosen path being a bard imitating a wizard you pick up a bonded object. Clearly your school of thought or whatever is just similar enough to wizards that do to work that way to also work that way. Magician isn't the only archetype to pick up a bonded item.Oh, that's unfortunate. I use Familial Pocket (IIRC) a lot to protect my noncombat familiars in 3.5.

An unlucky 1 on a fireball, etc, will destroy the ring, whether or not the DM intended to do so. Here is the rule I am referring to:

Damaging Magic Items

A magic item doesn't need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save. Magic items should always get a saving throw against spells that might deal damage to them—even against attacks from which a non-magical item would normally get no chance to save. Magic items use the same saving throw bonus for all saves, no matter what the type (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will). A magic item's saving throw bonus equals 2 + 1/2 its caster level (rounded down). The only exceptions to this are intelligent magic items, which make Will saves based on their own Wisdom scores.

Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as non-magical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost. Magic items that take damage in excess of half their total hit points, but not more than their total hit points, gain the Broken condition, and might not function properly (see the Appendix).
:smallfrown:



Well yeah but Snowbluff seems to really like the Magician Bard one that doesn't and adds it to a bard actually.

While I acknowledge there's a weakpoint in the bonded item, I just don't think its crippling either.

Were already into an archetype not a base class anyways.

The Arcane Bond is a poorly developed Class Feature in my eyes. If I wrote it I would have replaced the Concentrations checks for losing it with a Concentration penalty or just removed it entirely.

Magician Bard gains a negligible benefit (especially compared to the Wizard, who isn't spontaneous) for a weakness. If it sounds like I hate the idea, it's because I do. :smallwink:

[TuggyNE]

An unlucky 1 on a fireball, etc, will destroy the ring, whether or not the DM intended to do so. Here is the rule I am referring to:

Fortunately, just as in 3.5, that does not always happen (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#Table-Items-Affected-by-Magical-Attacks). Only one of the top four items can be damaged in such a way, and rings are pretty far down.

[Susano-wo]

regarding the bonded item, I think Paizo thought(and I don't think they are wrong) that the ability for a Prepared Caster to be able to cast an extra spell spontaneously was a very powerful ability, and thus wanted a penalty. They may have gone too far, but I think its making a mountain out of a mole hill.

And to answer Snowbluff's question of why would anyone ever do it, its a benefit that the familiar doesn't give you, and you might be attracted to that class feature(not liability, class feature :smallamused:), as well as perhaps they don't want to have a familiar thematically(which seems to be why they made sure to offer alternatives to those iconic but idiosyncratic features--all familiar/animal companion/special mount classes have an alternate feature, at least in the core rule book

I'm not convinced that the skill consolidation hurts rogues. Maybe my environment bas just been too unoptimized and low level, but a stat difference to describe wisdome casters as 'dominating' perception I just haven't seen. In any case, regarding rogues specifically, they might not have as good of an end perception score as a wisdom caster, but they certainly can spot traps as well, and are far better at disabling than other classes(1/2 rogue level bonus to perception vs traps and disable device, not to mention rogue tricks relating to traps)

One thing is *does* do is that everyone can sneak. yes, at a loss to combat effectiveness for most parties(fighters, clerics, etc need to forgo their main armor in favor of something like studded leather or masterwork chain shirts or something), but if you guys want to, your whole party can be stealthy fairly easy. Which means the rogue isn't always playing a scout mini-game in dungeons while you guys wait for him to find monsters/puzzles

So they still get lots of points, and a lot of their skills were some of the ones folded, so instead of a human with, say 12int having 10/lvl to spend on, say spot, listen, tumble balance, hide, move silently, and 4 others,they have 10/lvl to spend on Perception, Acrobatics, and Sneak, plus 7 others. Plus rogue talents regarding a number of those skills, giving them more than just more pluses to those categories.

and one more thing for now: invisibility doesn't make a wizard better compared to a rogue, since he can still cast invis on the rogue. The argument could be made that a +20 stealth check and being invisible negates the need for a wizard (or anyone not wearing armor with access to it) to even use stealth, but I think that even the long duration of the spell limits the wizrd to the point that it wont make stealth obsolete.

[Snowbluff]

Fortunately, just as in 3.5, that does not always happen (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#Table-Items-Affected-by-Magical-Attacks). Only one of the top four items can be damaged in such a way, and rings are pretty far down.

Wizards always have Shields, Armor, items in hand (like weapons), and sheathed weapons.

So a ring is safe you are always covered with items you won't use. If your Bonded Item is something higher, it's more of an issue, and more likely to be hit directly by other attacks. :smallannoyed:

EDIT: Quote this and I won't reply. See below.

[TuggyNE]

Wizards always have Shields, Armor, items in hand (like weapons), and sheathed weapons.

Well, you should probably have a dagger or crossbow or something for emergencies. Also, holding wands, scrolls, or 0% ASF shields is not unreasonable. Headband, held item or shield, cloak, robe with armor special properties or sheathed dagger/luck blade, and bracers does the job pretty much for sure.

[Snowbluff]

Well, you should probably have a dagger or crossbow or something for emergencies. Also, holding wands, scrolls, or 0% ASF shields is not unreasonable. Headband, held item or shield, cloak, robe with armor special properties or sheathed dagger/luck blade, and bracers does the job pretty much for sure.
Timmy is still crying, Tuggyne. :smalltongue:

If you know how to play the game with significant system mastery, this would work. The rules that I have issues with are bad on the basis a less competent player possibly being on the receiving end of them. At lowers levels you might not have all of your slots filled up, either.

EDIT: If you know what you're are doing, you would have an adamantine gauntlet as your item.

EDIT2: Susano, please read what I wrote.

EDIT3: Squirreldude, please read what I wrote.

EDIT4: 3Whitefox3, please read what I wrote.

That's 3 strikes. I think I am out.

[Susano-wo]

Wizards always have Shields, Armor, items in hand (like weapons), and sheathed weapons.

So a ring is safe you are always covered with items you won't use. If your Bonded Item is something higher, it's more of an issue, and more likely to be hit directly by other attacks. :smallannoyed:

its still only on nat 1s, which is 5% base, but it only applies when you nat1 on savings throws against damaging spells. And if its worn it gets to try a savings throw as well. So you have to fail it twice on the 1 in 20 chance of even having the item in danger.

Oh and the effect order does make it less likely that that specific piece of magical jewelry would be effected, since its entirely possible for you to be wearing 4 of the following:
3rd Magic helmet, hat, or headband
4th Item in hand (including weapon, wand, or the like)
5th Magic cloak
6th Stowed or sheathed weapon [its not like it hurts you to have a dagger or crossbow, etc]
7th Magic bracers
8th Magic clothing
by the time you actually nat1 on a saving throw. [hell, if you wanna game the system, carry four daggers on you :smallbiggrin:]

[EDIT: forgot to include link to PFSRD for items surviving] http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#Table-Items-Affected-by-Magical-Attacks

[Squirrel_Dude]

Wizards always have Shields, Armor, items in hand (like weapons), and sheathed weapons.

So a ring is safe you are always covered with items you won't use. If your Bonded Item is something higher, it's more of an issue, and more likely to be hit directly by other attacks. :smallannoyed:Actually, wizards can wear armor in Pathfinder. Meet eastern armor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/armor/eastern-armor-and-shields) from ultimate combat. Meet the Haramaki, an armor without spell failure chance penalty, armor check penalty, or an investment more than padded armor.

As for weapons, they probably have a dagger or a quarterstaff handy for most of the game, until they have some random wondrous item/stave/wand to hold onto during combat.

[Snowbluff]

Actually, wizards can wear armor in Pathfinder. Meet eastern armor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/armor/eastern-armor-and-shields) from ultimate combat. Meet the Haramaki, an armor without spell failure chance penalty, armor check penalty, or an investment more than padded armor.

Of course they can. Does Timmy know this?

[3WhiteFox3]

Wizards always have Shields, Armor, items in hand (like weapons), and sheathed weapons.

So a ring is safe you are always covered with items you won't use. If your Bonded Item is something higher, it's more of an issue, and more likely to be hit directly by other attacks. :smallannoyed:

Since everyone else has posted quite a few examples already, I'll just follow it up with good options for each of the slots. After all, If I'm making a Wizard with a bonded item, I'll make sure to have as many of these as possible.

Shields - A Mithral Light Shield is probably your best bet here, and since you have it anyway, get it some shield spikes and enchant them.

Armor - The above-mentioned eastern armor works very well. Darkleaf Leather also gets you armor. And since you have the armor anyway might as well grab armor spikes for another weapon to enhance.

Magic Headband/Hat/Helmet - Masks of Stony Demeanor are cheap and fun, Hats of disguise are awesome, you'll probably grab a headband of vast intellect sooner or later.

Item in hand - Magic Weapons, Scrolls, Wands, etc... A Wizard will probably have at least one item in his hands at all times. If you are using the suggested Mithral Light Shield, then I suggest taking a 0-level scroll and keeping it in the same hand as your shield. This leaves a hand open to cast spells with somatic components.

Magic Cloak - A Cloak of Resistance is cheap and you probably want one sooner than later.

Stowed or Sheathed Weapon - Get a +1 dagger, keep it sheathed whenever possible. Not the cheapest route, but it can be decent if you want a magic weapon anyway.

Magic Bracers - Sadly, Bracers of Armor are redundant thanks to the Darkleaf Leather; Spellguard Bracers aren't too shabby though.

Magic Clothing - Chest slot items are good here, the cheapest are the Bandages of Rapid Healing; you may have to argue with your GM if Bandages can be counted as clothing, if you do, point him towards Sarashi (Warning: TvTropes) (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Sarashi). Otherwise, take the Quick Runners Shirt.


There you go, simple and plentiful ways a Wizard could have everything she needs to prevent her bonded ring from breaking. You don't have to take all of them, but there are more than enough options to keep you from ever having to take damage for your bonded item.

[NinjaInTheRye]

Swarms are immune to "weapon damage," i.e. the damage listed for a weapon on its weapon table. Extra damage such as from energy enhancements is not included in this total. Similarly, a PF torch deals weapon damage as an improvised bludgeoning gauntlet of its size, plus 1 point of fire damage - the swarm would only be immune to the former.

So while the line was omitted in PF, the rule hasn't actually changed.

Well, going by this it's still changed in that a Torch used to do 1d3 fire in 3.5 while in PF it will only ever do 1 point of fire damage. It also leaves out the lantern bomb as an option.

[Larkas]

I've parsed all posts up to #30. I still have to finish peacenlove's post, but these are the updates for today. :smallwink:

EDIT: Guys, we got what you're saying, but Snowbluff does have a point. Players with a little system mastery can circumvent the problems with item damage fairly easily, but newbies probably don't. What's worse, they might make their bonded item something more easily damaged, like, say, a wand a la Harry Potter.

Bottomline, I'm not against the concept, but they could've done it better, or at least less trappy. Like, I don't know, item familiar. That thing's in the SRD!

[3WhiteFox3]

I've parsed all posts up to #30. I still have to finish peacenlove's post, but these are the updates for today. :smallwink:

EDIT: Guys, we got what you're saying, but Snowbluff does have a point. Players with a little system mastery can circumvent the problems with item damage fairly easily, but newbies probably don't. What's worse, they might make their bonded item something more easily damaged, like, say, a wand a la Harry Potter.

Bottomline, I'm not against the concept, but they could've done it better, or at least less trappy. Like, I don't know, item familiar. That thing's in the SRD!

(Emphasis Mine)

I realize that you probably picked the item familiar without knowing much about it, but I don't want anything that's like that feat. The item familiar is one of the most poor concepts ever designed for 3.5. It's literally impossible to balance, if your GM doesn't take it away it's amazing, but if he does then you have just lost everything invested into the familiar. It's one of the worst ways to balance powerful abilities. It's completely dependent on your GM.

Now I could get behind a boosted bonded item, and make it more like the familiar, it costs to get a new one, but losing it doesn't gimp you. After all one spontaneous spell of your highest level is nice, but familiars are better if you can handle the book keeping. I'd rather your item gain in power along with you, giving you small bonuses and gradually increasing power as you keep the item. If you lose it, pay up some gold and craft it. That way you don't have to worry about your casting being hurt without it.

[TuggyNE]

EDIT: Guys, we got what you're saying, but Snowbluff does have a point. Players with a little system mastery can circumvent the problems with item damage fairly easily, but newbies probably don't. What's worse, they might make their bonded item something more easily damaged, like, say, a wand a la Harry Potter.

Bottomline, I'm not against the concept, but they could've done it better, or at least less trappy. Like, I don't know, item familiar. That thing's in the SRD!

Less trappy, I'll buy, but the item familiar… yeah, no. The item familiar is a toxic blend; it has a high potential for trivially-achieved cheese, "balanced" only by staggeringly brutal penalties that are triggered only really by DM fiat. It might just be the worst expression of the essential idea behind Linear Fighters Quadratic Wizards: that higher power can be effectively controlled by occasionally taking it all away.

Avoiding that problem, in fact, is probably why they should have made it less trappy.

[Larkas]

Hmmm, point taken. Actually, now that I think of it, the bonded item is pretty much a watered down item familiar. Something along the lines of what WhiteFox said would probably be best.

[Psyren]

Well, going by this it's still changed in that a Torch used to do 1d3 fire in 3.5 while in PF it will only ever do 1 point of fire damage. It also leaves out the lantern bomb as an option.

The rules on fighting swarms haven't changed, just the damage torches do.

Tossing a lantern would cause the oil within to catch fire as normal. subjecting the swarm to nonmagical fire damage. You don't need a special ruling for that. (It also avoids rules hiccups - what if you toss one at a swarm that's hovering over water? The obvious answer is that nothing should happen, but in 3.5 the swarm would take fire damage despite the lantern being immediately doused.)

[eggynack]

Here's a new one. In 3.5, vow of poverty was on the shortlist of feats that actually made almost every character who took it worse. It grants you a ton of buffs, and a bunch of feats, but those in no way prepare you for all of the things you need items for. Then pathfinder happened, and inexplicably nerfed vow of poverty. It's now only takes all but one of the monk's magic items, except now, instead of giving a pile of occasionally useful feats and upgrades, it gives one ki point every level. That's just ridiculously stupid. SKR apparently had a whole tirade about it, which is quoted in full on the 15th post of this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=284993). I'm too lazy to look for the original, though I suppose one of you folks could find it pretty easily. Anyway, given that monks are one of the more common targets for vow of poverty anyway, I believe that this qualifies as a ridiculous change.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yup, VoP in PF is quite possibly the most abominable thing ever written in an RPG, outside of F.A.T.A.L. and SKR's defense (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m8j3?Ultimate-Magic-Monks-Vow-of-Poverty#44) of the PF VoP. The cognitive dissonance is astounding, both in wanting to punish the player for wishing to roleplay some restriction that he finds stupid* (in a game where having an allergy to metal gives the druid REAL ULTIMATE POWER), and in how he talks out of both sides of his mouth. Saying how the vow has value for "roleplaying," but then mentioning how you can exploit the wording to get a super expensive single magic item with various effects on it. *facepalm*
At least the 3E VoP tried to be a balanced trade-off, and at least they understood that if nothing else, taking a vow of poverty meant [n]not[/b] walking around with the most gaudy piece of magical bling you possibly could.

If nothing else, Pathfinder is at least not at all subtle about what they think of monks. For another example, just check out the CAPSTONE of the "Monk of the Healing Hands" is. The ultimate technique he trains and dedicates his entire life for.

True Sacrifice (Su)

At 20th level, in a final selfless act, a monk of the healing hand can draw in his entire ki, which then explodes outward in a 50-foot-radius emanation. All dead allies within the emanation are brought back to life, as if they were the subject of a true resurrection spell with a caster level equal to the monk’s level. When the monk does this, he is truly and utterly destroyed. A monk destroyed in this way can never come back to life, not even by way of a wish or miracle spell or by the power of a deity. Furthermore, the monk’s name can never be spoken or written down again. All written mentions of his name become nothing more than a blank space.

This ability replaces perfect self.
The real sad thing is...it's not actually much worse than Perfect Self when you think about it...


*Fun fact, in the thread with his most horrible defense, SKR asks for any, ANY literary or mythical background for such a character that gains supernatural powers for eschewing material items. Then a poster mentions how that jives with some Indian beliefs (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m8j3&page=2?Ultimate-Magic-Monks-Vow-of-Poverty#55) for obtaining godhood, and SKR proceeds to never even respond.

[Larkas]

The game design behind PF's VoP is horrific and in the logic behind it even more so. Regardless, let's try not to bash the developer here. I'll be sure to bring it up on the guide when I get to it.

[Reverent-One]

*Fun fact, in the thread with his most horrible defense, SKR asks for any, ANY literary or mythical background for such a character that gains supernatural powers for eschewing material items. Then a poster mentions how that jives with some Indian beliefs (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m8j3&page=2?Ultimate-Magic-Monks-Vow-of-Poverty#55) for obtaining godhood, and SKR proceeds to never even respond.

Hey now, I disagree with SKR's philosphy on it as well, but let's not misrepresent what he said. He didn't ask for a literary or mythical background for the idea, but why a vow of poverty should specifically boost AC, Stats, or Saves (since the VoP in PF does grant Ki Points, which are at least vaguely supernatural, it's not that he's against that part of it). And it's not like he was posting right up until that poster responded, he didn't post anything past his long rant on the subject.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Hey now, I disagree with SKR's philosphy on it as well, but let's not misrepresent what he said. He didn't ask for a literary or mythical background for the idea, but why a vow of poverty should specifically boost AC, Stats, or Saves (since the VoP in PF does grant Ki Points, which are at least vaguely supernatural, it's not that he's against that part of it).

Fair enough. He asked why it should, not explicitly for examples. Kind of hard to answer his question w/o them since he made it clear in his rant that "making it a balanced choice" was off the table as a valid reason, but yes, he never actually asked for them specifically.


And it's not like he was posting right up until that poster responded, he didn't post anything past his long rant on the subject.

Except that he did (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m8j3&page=7?Ultimate-Magic-Monks-Vow-of-Poverty#332). Ctrl + F, it's awesome.

[Reverent-One]

Fair enough. He asked why it should, not explicitly for examples. Kind of hard to answer his question w/o them since he made it clear in his rant that "making it a balanced choice" was off the table as a valid reason, but yes, he never actually asked for them specifically.

My only issue was you made it sound like he was denying there were literary/mythological instances where supernatural powers were attained through povererty, where he was asking for logical reasons why those specific boosts should be given. Doesn't mean there aren't valid answers to his question, but the implications are different.


Except that he did (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m8j3&page=7?Ultimate-Magic-Monks-Vow-of-Poverty#332). Ctrl + F, it's awesome.

Ah, with 6 pages of comments between his posts. Hard to point to any one post in those pages as scaring him off then or that he was specifically ignoring any particular post.

[Amnestic]

My only issue was you made it sound like he was denying there were literary/mythological instances where supernatural powers were attained through povererty, where he was asking for logical reasons why those specific boosts should be given. Doesn't mean there aren't valid answers to his question, but the implications are different.

For the same reason that he gets a bonus to ki and is for some odd reason allowed one extremely powerful item instead of many less powerful items: Because the gods of Truth, Justice and the Golarion Way* said so. Maybe the Gods of Goodness realised that a man of such a pure soul would need those specific bonuses to continue his journey and that's why he receives them?

Doesn't do much for if their Champion of All That Is Good and Pure dies unceremoniously because he couldn't fly and some dragon just strafed him to death, now does it?

*AKA The games designers.

[Reverent-One]

For the same reason that he gets a bonus to ki and is for some odd reason allowed one extremely powerful item instead of many less powerful items: Because the gods of Truth, Justice and the Golarion Way* said so. Maybe the Gods of Goodness realised that a man of such a pure soul would need those specific bonuses to continue his journey and that's why he receives them?

Doesn't do much for if their Champion of All That Is Good and Pure dies unceremoniously because he couldn't fly and some dragon just strafed him to death, now does it?

*AKA The games designers.

Like I said:


My only issue was you made it sound like he was denying there were literary/mythological instances where supernatural powers were attained through povererty, where he was asking for logical reasons why those specific boosts should be given. Doesn't mean there aren't valid answers to his question, but the implications are different.

[eggynack]

Isn't it obvious why vow of poverty would give various bonuses? The character is implied to have attained some form of enlightenment based upon giving up material goods. In the same way that the monk gives up weapons and armor in order to become closer to his own body, the character with vow of poverty gives up everything in order to become closer to the spiritual. He gains through his enlightenment what others attempt to gain through nifty magic items. That's just one interpretation. Generally though, these vows are a way of getting in touch with something larger than yourself. You might as well ask why the cleric can gain spells by praying every morning, because it makes just as much sense.

[3WhiteFox3]

Isn't it obvious why vow of poverty would give various bonuses? The character is implied to have attained some form of enlightenment based upon giving up material goods. In the same way that the monk gives up weapons and armor in order to become closer to his own body, the character with vow of poverty gives up everything in order to become closer to the spiritual. He gains through his enlightenment what others attempt to gain through nifty magic items. That's just one interpretation. Generally though, these vows are a way of getting in touch with something larger than yourself. You might as well ask why the cleric can gain spells by praying every morning, because it makes just as much sense.

One of the key eastern concepts is the gaining of spiritual enlightenment by giving up physical comfort and things of monetary value (that's the whole point of living an ascetic lifestyle). Said enlightenment tends to be turned into cool powers by fantasy authors (because that's how fantasy works). In fact, in D&D terms it is extremely similar to a cleric worshiping a concept (that would actually probably make a better VoP monk, an archtype for clerics who worship the concept of asceticism, giving up armor, fancy weapons and such for spells and special abilities). They both believe in something so strongly that it effects how they live their lives, why shouldn't they get similar bonuses?

[Psyren]

Just pair VoP with Qinggong, they use ki to fly and other things. There's an archetype for that™.

And really, comparing anything in Pathfinder to FATAL just hurts your own credibility.

[3WhiteFox3]

Just pair VoP with Qinggong, they use ki to fly and other things. There's an archetype for that™.

And really, comparing anything in Pathfinder to FATAL just hurts your own credibility.

Or you could fly with magic items, not use up your precious ki at all and spend them on other awesome things. Also, Qinggong is the monk fix, unless VoP monk does it better, it really doesn't help that VoP is awful, Qinggong just makes it slightly less so.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Just pair VoP with Qinggong, they use ki to fly and other things. There's an archetype for that™.

Please show me which Ki Power actually gives flight. There's one for gaseous form, but you can't exactly do much with said flight till you dismiss it... There's also one to get the ultra-gimpy Cloud Step feat for a single round for air walk at speed 50, but you have to begin and end your move action on a surface and it does not work with spring attack, so that's not really flight nor practical for fighting a flyer, either. And a monk could just pick that up as a feat and have it 24/7 instead of 1 round at a time at insanely massive ki cost, too.

So how exactly is Qingong giving you the ability to "fly"?


And really, comparing anything in Pathfinder to FATAL just hurts your own credibility.

I said FATAL was one of the few things worse than it. If I had said it was the worst thing, people would've just replied "FATAL." If I said the more generic "one of the worst," that doesn't really say much. There could still be THOUSANDS of things worse than it and it'd still be in the bottom 1% of all RPG text just by sheer volume. It is in fact nearly unparalleled in its awfulness, so I listed the only things I could actually think of that were actually even more horrible than it.

[3WhiteFox3]

Please show me which Ki Power actually gives flight. There's one for gaseous form, but you can't exactly do much with said flight till you dismiss it... There's also one to get the ultra-gimpy Cloud Step feat for a single round for air walk at speed 50, but you have to begin and end your move action on a surface and it does not work with spring attack, so that's not really flight nor practical for fighting a flyer, either. And a monk could just pick that up as a feat and have it 24/7 instead of 1 round at a time at insanely massive ki cost, too.

So how exactly is Qingong giving you the ability to "fly"?

Also, while losing magical flight is commonly associated with VoP, there are many nice things that you lose out on without magic items, many of which the monk needs to effectively contribute to combat. I'd say more but I'm away from the books right now and don't have the time to scour the srd.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I said FATAL was one of the few things worse than it. If I had said it was the worst thing, people would've just replied "FATAL." If I said the more generic "one of the worst," that doesn't really say much. There could still be THOUSANDS of things worse than it and it'd still be in the bottom 1% of all RPG text just by sheer volume. It is in fact nearly unparalleled in its awfulness, so I listed the only things I could actually think of that were actually even more horrible than it.

Nope.

You: "PF is quite possibly the most abominable thing ever written in an RPG, outside of F.A.T.A.L"

That's a direct comparison.

If you didn't mean to do that then retract the comparison.

And lets look at that post some more too.


Yup, VoP in PF is quite possibly the most abominable thing ever written in an RPG, outside of F.A.T.A.L. and SKR's defense (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m8j3?Ultimate-Magic-Monks-Vow-of-Poverty#44) of the PF VoP The cognitive dissonance is astounding, both in wanting to punish the player for wishing to roleplay some restriction that he finds stupid*

You know its easy to not quote someone and portray them however you wish.

Me.

I see this:



ProfessorCirno wrote:Given how much you lose from this, mechanically speaking, why should someone take the Vow of Poverty ability?

Roleplaying?

Not every game option has to be the best option. Not every game rule option has to be a good option. In fact, some game choices are guaranteed to be BAD in terms of rules consequences, and people do them anyway because they want to play interesting characters. You can play a wizard with a 12 Int (I've done it, in the very first 3E playtest campaign, in fact). You can play a fighter who maximizes Con instead of Str. You can put ranks in Profession. You can take Skill Focus (Appraise). You can play a child, or a blind character, or a pacifist.

There are huge numbers of players who make and play characters that they think would be a fun or interesting concept. Players who don't worry about "optimal builds" to maximize AC or damage, because the game is designed for PCs to win and they can play characters that aren't minmaxed and not have them die all the time (I'll point out that the default encounter is CR = APL, which is an easy encounter that only uses 20% of the party's disposable resources... that's stacking the deck in the favor of the PCs).

The game expects you to have X gp worth of gear at every level. Deliberately choosing to play a character that ignores that and has essentially nothing at high levels is a very suboptimal design choice. You're allowed to do that. I think it's admirable for the people who want to play that sort of character. But it is unrealistic to say "because you've given up all these goodies, you gain other goodies that exactly make up for that choice which deliberately makes you a fragile character." And if you did build such a thing into the rules, it's basically saying, "you, the character that's made a sacrifice? It's not really a sacrifice at all, you're just as good as someone who didn't make that sacrifice. In other words, your sacrifice is meaningless because you're not really giving up anything."

If you want a game where all builds are equally viable, you should play a different game. Pathfinder lets you make suboptimal choices, or even poor choices, and it doesn't reward you for making those poor choices. Because rewarding poor choices is dumb. I don't see anyone clamoring that there should be a feat or vow or ritual for Int 8 wizards to get access to different powers to make up for his lack of spells, whether or not you call it the "Vow of Rincewind." I don't see anyone clamoring that the low-Dex fighter should get something that makes him awesome at dodging out of trouble and accidentally killing his enemies in comedic ways, whether or not you call it the "Vow of Jar-Jar."

I like the concept of the vow of poverty. It's a noble thing. And I understand that it sucks to be the impoverished character in a game where you're supposed to have 20,000 gp worth of goodies. So the VOP in UM gives you a bone in the form of extra ki. And another bone in the form of "you can have one item of value," which lets you put all your gp cheese in one item instead of ten. But I'm not going to let the rules make your impoverished monk as good as a regular monk. If you want to play a character that's making a sacrifice, make a sacrifice--don't pretend it's a sacrifice and expect a handout for pretending.

Far from some raving madman I find a completely legit philosophy. Not automatically one I share but clear and reasonable. He's not going to pretend giving up magic items doesn't make you less powerful by giving you special options.

It makes the point that if you are making a sacrifice you are making exactly that. If you didn't how is it a sacrifice.

Optimizing, he doesn't care. He's not blind or ignorant of it, but he's not going to go out of his way to ensure everything is an advantage either, and he's actually finds value in playing a weaker character so there needs to be ways for that to actually happen. And you know what that's probably actually smart. Because a balanced game would have to be idiot proof, you'd have to not actually be able to screw it up and everybody would have to be just as super.

At any rate its certainly NOT worth comparing to FATAL simply because you disagree.

[Raineh Daze]

Nope.

You: "PF is quite possibly the most abominable thing ever written in an RPG, outside of F.A.T.A.L"

That's a direct comparison.

If you didn't mean to do that then retract the comparison.


Yup, VoP in PF is quite possibly the most abominable thing ever written in an RPG, outside of F.A.T.A.L. and SKR's defense (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m8j3?Ultimate-Magic-Monks-Vow-of-Poverty#44) of the PF VoP.

Selectively quoting within a sentence does not make you look good. :smallannoyed:

As a philosophy, too, it's completely broken. 'There should be an ability to play a weak character, therefore certain archetypes and roles should be weak, inextricably making certain concepts weak despite the irrelevance of power to the idea'.

[georgie_leech]

It makes the point that if you are making a sacrifice you are making exactly that. If you didn't how is it a sacrifice.



Point of order, most people don't want to give up items for the sake of being weaker, but so they can fulfill the Ascetic archetype, the idea that they've overcome base desires and dpendency on material possessions. PF VoP doesn't let you do that all, as you still have that one item and you gain very vew benefits, or none at all if you're not a monk. Why shouldn't a Druid be able to forsake all possessions to become more in-tune with his animal nature? Why can't the Sorceror focus on ascetism and mediation to become more intune with his magic? Why can't the Cleric forsake his base desires to become better attuned with his diety?

[Raven777]

Far from some raving madman I find a completely legit philosophy. Not automatically one I share but clear and reasonable. He's not going to pretend giving up magic items doesn't make you less powerful by giving you special options.

It makes the point that if you are making a sacrifice you are making exactly that. If you didn't how is it a sacrifice.

Optimizing, he doesn't care. He's not blind or ignorant of it, but he's not going to go out of his way to ensure everything is an advantage either, and he's actually finds value in playing a weaker character so there needs to be ways for that to actually happen. And you know what that's probably actually smart. Because a balanced game would have to be idiot proof, you'd have to not actually be able to screw it up and everybody would have to be just as super.

At any rate its certainly NOT worth comparing to FATAL simply because you disagree.

The pony. He gets it.

[Raineh Daze]

Moving over the page...


As a philosophy, too, it's completely broken. 'There should be an ability to play a weak character, therefore certain archetypes and roles should be weak, inextricably making certain concepts weak despite the irrelevance of power to the idea'.

I don't see why the conceptual idea of 'ascetic' should mean 'you are mechanical dead weight beyond level one'. Penalising people for entire ideas is cruel. Hell, it verges on stating that people should roleplay how you think the game should be played, and to hell with their storytelling ideas. :smallsigh:

[Snowbluff]

The pony. He gets it.

Sorry, fellow Brony, but he does not.

The system has no value without character building and optimization. These things only exist to gimp your character mechanically, where as you can just as easily do that with fluff. We don't need mechanically poor feats. SKR might as well be telling us to sit around a table and just roleplay without dice.

[Raven777]

Sorry, fellow Brony, but he does not.

The system has no value without character building and optimization. These things only exist to gimp your character mechanically, where as you can just as easily do that with fluff. SKR might as well be telling us to sit around a table and just roleplay without dice.

I reckon Gary Gigax once advocated that very thing :P

[eggynack]

Sorry, fellow Brony, but he does not.

The system has no value without character building and optimization. These things only exist to gimp your character mechanically, where as you can just as easily do that with fluff. SKR might as well be telling us to sit around a table and just roleplay without dice.
I gotta agree. The might of the pony does not stand on his side. If you want build optimization to not take a dominant role in a game, it becomes all the more important for the options to be relatively balanced. That way, people who care mostly about roleplaying won't constantly fall into character build traps. His philosophy and his game design seem diametrically opposed. Also, this thread just became oddly pony. Not the worst thing for a thread to oddly become.

[Snowbluff]

I reckon Gary Gigax once advocated that very thing :P

Bold, please. I have no idea what you are referring to.

If it's to the thing about roleplaying without a system, of course he would. We wouldn't have to put up with SKR. It'd be awesome.

[Raineh Daze]

I gotta agree. The might of the pony does not stand on his side. If you want build optimization to not take a dominant role in a game, it becomes all the more important for the options to be relatively balanced. That way, people who care mostly about roleplaying won't constantly fall into character build traps. His philosophy and his game design seem diametrically opposed. Also, this thread just became oddly pony. Not the worst thing for a thread to oddly become.

Well no, that would be a list of praise for FATAL. Irrelevant pastel coloured animation is pretty bad for a PF thread, though. :smallconfused:

[eggynack]

Well no, that would be a list of praise for FATAL. Irrelevant pastel coloured animation is pretty bad for a PF thread, though. :smallconfused:
I'd come up with some clever analogy that breaks everything in pathfinder down into something having to do with ponies, but I've got nothing. It might have something to do with my lack of familiarity with the system. I could probably come up with something decent for 3.5 and ponies though. It's kinda a pointless endeavor though, I gotta admit.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Nope.

You: "PF is quite possibly the most abominable thing ever written in an RPG, outside of F.A.T.A.L"

................

You know its easy to not quote someone and portray them however you wish.

Attacking me for "misquoting" (in a paragraph where I didn't even direct quote him) immediately after misquoting me yourself. Ballsy.


Far from some raving madman I find a completely legit philosophy. Not automatically one I share but clear and reasonable. He's not going to pretend giving up magic items doesn't make you less powerful by giving you special options.

It makes the point that if you are making a sacrifice you are making exactly that. If you didn't how is it a sacrifice.

Why do you have to make a sacrifice? What's wrong with just wanting to play a character who doesn't need magic items draped all over himself like ornaments on a christmas tree to be effective? Who gains his power from within and from training?


Optimizing, he doesn't care. He's not blind or ignorant of it, but he's not going to go out of his way to ensure everything is an advantage either, and he's actually finds value in playing a weaker character so there needs to be ways for that to actually happen. And you know what that's probably actually smart. Because a balanced game would have to be idiot proof, you'd have to not actually be able to screw it up and everybody would have to be just as super.

Just playing a monk at all is playing a weaker character. In any case, his entire argument is hypocritical. 3E's VoP, which is what he was obviously attacking, actually tried to stay true to the concept of eschewing possessions. PF instead lets you keep one item and load it up with hundreds of thousands of gp worth of magic crap to make up for giving up everything.

We're not expecting perfection. We expect some basic effort, though. Again, 3E VoP is far from perfect. But few if anyone gets outright upset at the designers themselves because 3E VoP was a failure in execution, the intent and god will was at least present, it just didn't work out right. PF VoP, on the other hand, was explicitly meant to suck (and thus punish) people for choosing it.


And really, comparing anything in Pathfinder to FATAL just hurts your own credibility.


At any rate its certainly NOT worth comparing to FATAL simply because you disagree.

1E is better than FATAL
2E is better than FATAL
3E is better than FATAL
4E is better than FATAL
PF is better than FATAL
Monopoly is better than FATAL

ZOMG! I compared all of those games to FATAL, so clearly my opinion on them is invalid!

There's totally nothing ironic about saying someone's views on something are worth less than yours because he compared something to FATAL, thereby indirectly making a comparison to FATAL yourself. Nothing at all!

I guess just mentioning the game that shalt not be named is akin to playing "the game."
On that note, you just lost the game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(mind_game)).

[Gnaeus]

I'd come up with some clever analogy that breaks everything in pathfinder down into something having to do with ponies, but I've got nothing. It might have something to do with my lack of familiarity with the system. I could probably come up with something decent for 3.5 and ponies though. It's kinda a pointless endeavor though, I gotta admit.

I was going to point out how the ponies, themselves, are poorly balanced, with 2 full casters (one optimized, one not), an optimized tier 3-4 melee (cause Rainbow Dash can kill Starscream, proven fact), a slightly less optimized and unable to fly melee, a DMs girlfriend style druid who never wildshapes and spends most of her time talking to animals, and Pinkie Pie, down somewhere in T6.

But of course, the power of friendship overcomes any disparity in relative power levels. I think theres a lesson in there somewhere.

[eggynack]

I was going to point out how the ponies, themselves, are poorly balanced, with 2 full casters (one optimized, one not), an optimized tier 3-4 melee (cause Rainbow Dash can kill Starscream, proven fact), a slightly less optimized and unable to fly melee, a DMs girlfriend style druid who never wildshapes and spends most of her time talking to animals, and Pinkie Pie, down somewhere in T6.

But of course, the power of friendship overcomes any disparity in relative power levels. I think theres a lesson in there somewhere.
Well, there ya go. Ponies for everyone. I'd put Pinkie quite a lot above tier 6 though, given that she consistently breaks the laws of physics, but this feels like the argument for a different thread. Some kinda ponies as D&D characters thread. Also, Pinkie might be a tier 3 bard.

Edit: Also, it's a different edition, but it seems relevant (http://friendshipisdragons.thecomicseries.com/comics/).

[Gnaeus]

I'd put Pinkie quite a lot above tier 6 though, given that she consistently breaks the laws of physics, but this feels like the argument for a different thread..

So do commoners with their accursed chickens :-)

[Raineh Daze]

I...

-Facepalm-

Still not relevant to odd changes in PF! >:(

Irrelevant non sequitur ponies make me sad. At least keep them to discussions where it makes sense. :(

[eggynack]

I...

-Facepalm-

Still not relevant to odd changes in PF! >:(

Irrelevant non sequitur ponies make me sad. At least keep them to discussions where it makes sense. :(
Sure, it's not relevant to changes in pathfinder. However, it's definitely relevant to changes in pathfinder and ponies, which if you look above is pretty clearly the thread topic. :smallsmile:

[Snowbluff]

To keep things legitimate, how about something that Larkas can add?

I think Spike Chain was nerfed. Lost its reach.


I was going to point out how the ponies, themselves, are poorly balanced, with 2 full casters (one optimized, one not), an optimized tier 3-4 melee (cause Rainbow Dash can kill Starscream, proven fact), a slightly less optimized and unable to fly melee, a DMs girlfriend style druid who never wildshapes and spends most of her time talking to animals, and Pinkie Pie, down somewhere in T6.

But of course, the power of friendship overcomes any disparity in relative power levels. I think theres a lesson in there somewhere.

I'd say Applejack is Tier 5, despite being a Mary Sue. She doesn't have anything nice compared to the others. The pegasi and unicorns have their own forms of magic, and the other earth pony is a sorceress.

[Larkas]

To keep things legitimate, how about something that Larkas can add?

I think Spike Chain was nerfed. Lost its reach.

I'd say Applejack is Tier 5, despite being a Mary Sue. She doesn't have anything nice compared to the others. The pegasi and unicorns have their own forms of magic, and the other earth pony is a sorceress.

That was in the guide from the very beginning! :smallbiggrin: On that note, I'm glad that the discussion moved away from SKR, but, amused as I am, I don't know how ponies can add to the discussion. That is clearly a topic for a Legend thread (http://www.ruleofcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/My-Little-Legend.pdf). :smallwink:

[Soras Teva Gee]

The pony. He gets it.


I reckon Gary Gigax once advocated that very thing :P

Thank you.


I'd come up with some clever analogy that breaks everything in pathfinder down into something having to do with ponies, but I've got nothing. It might have something to do with my lack of familiarity with the system. I could probably come up with something decent for 3.5 and ponies though. It's kinda a pointless endeavor though, I gotta admit.

Its actually pretty relevant.

Ponyfinder (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P85I147ZjSZBJ8C-w9ZCDwJ6V3poJs5LtQSFiO-v2c8/edit), its exactly what it sounds like. :smallwink:

And that will be all I have to say on ponies and gaming



To keep things legitimate, how about something that Larkas can add?

I think Spike Chain was nerfed. Lost its reach.

No longer the only weapon worth it!:smallbiggrin:

Which reminds me I believe someone mentioned how the 15' corner reach exception is gone.

This is both true and deliberate. However if you have a 10' reach weapon you can still get an AoO on someone going from 15' to 5'. The rationale being essentially that the grid is not the reality of the game and the 10' diagonal doesn't exist merely as an artifact of this. So with normal movement you don't magically teleport from 15' to 5' without going through a 10' radius.

(I'm not aware of an official answer for if you say trip with that AoO where the tripped person ends up, so would default to GM discretion)

[Snowbluff]

No longer the only weapon worth it!:smallbiggrin:


Yes, unfortunately the number of reasons to take EWP have plummeted. To zero. :smalltongue:

I miss Spinning Sword, Greathorn Minotaur Hammer.

[Starbuck_II]

I was going to point out how the ponies, themselves, are poorly balanced, with 2 full casters (one optimized, one not), an optimized tier 3-4 melee (cause Rainbow Dash can kill Starscream, proven fact), a slightly less optimized and unable to fly melee, a DMs girlfriend style druid who never wildshapes and spends most of her time talking to animals, and Pinkie Pie, down somewhere in T6.

But of course, the power of friendship overcomes any disparity in relative power levels. I think theres a lesson in there somewhere.

Pinkie Pie can teleport (Swordsage?), fly (briefly given prep time), draw anything out of her backpack (bag of holding in a low magic item world), do the impossible, raw raw fight the powa, "who the hell; do you think I am", and she is immune to fear and can dispel fear.
I'd put her Tier 4 easily, maybe Tier 3.

[123456789blaaa]

<snip>
But of course, the power of friendship overcomes any disparity in relative power levels. I think theres a lesson in there somewhere.

Let's suppose that a company somehow managed to chemically alter pickles so that they were easier to grow and harvest. However, the side effect of this is that the pickles give whoever eats them very bad gas for a few days afterwards. Now the gas probably isn't a dealbreaker for most people. The pickles are still delicious enough to bear it plus you could just pass the gas when no one was around and hold it in when they were. You could work around it and still enjoy the pickles is what I'm saying.

However, wouldn't it be better for the pickles to not give you gas at all?

[3WhiteFox3]

Pinkie Pie can teleport (Swordsage?), fly (briefly given prep time), draw anything out of her backpack (bag of holding in a low magic item world), do the impossible, raw raw fight the powa, "who the hell; do you think I am", and she is immune to fear and can dispel fear.
I'd put her Tier 4 easily, maybe Tier 3.

Pinkie Pie was a class, once, long ago when she was still a finite being. She called upon a great entity and became infinitely powerful by abusing the power of a great artifact. However, life as an infinitely powerful deity was boring, so she decided to traverse the infinite number of universes and found the world of ponies. Disguising herself as one of them as well as choosing a name reminiscent of her old life, she vowed to only use her infinite powers in the name of having fun. On that day the one known to the world as Pun-Pun ceased to exist and there was only Pinkie Pie.

I'm sure someone has made that connection before, but I haven't seen it.

[eggynack]

Pinkie Pie was a class, once, long ago when she was still a finite being. She called upon a great entity and became infinitely powerful by abusing the power of a great artifact. However, life as an infinitely powerful deity was boring, so she decided to traverse the infinite number of universes and found the world of ponies. Disguising herself as one of them as well as choosing a name reminiscent of her old life, she vowed to only use her infinite powers in the name of having fun. On that day the one known to the world as Pun-Pun ceased to exist and there was only Pinkie Pie.

I'm sure someone has made that connection before, but I haven't seen it.
Eh, I haven't seen that specifically. There's a great fic where she's a planeswalker though, and that's kinda similar.

[Squirrel_Dude]

On topic
Arcane Discoveries ultimate magic:
- Wizards can remove aging penalties at level 20 as an arcane discovery

Rogue overshadowed by the ninja
The ninja class is better than the rogue, period. It still sucks, but man is it better than the rogue
- It has ki powers for more flexibility in application of tricks
- It uses charisma for it's ki pool so there is some synergy there
- It can gain powers equivalent to: invisibility(& greater), mirror image, disguise self, and feather fall, see invisibility, and ventriloquism.

Far more fun class than the rogue. At least the ki pool gives you options.

Feats
- Weapon finesse doesn't require a +1 BAB anymore
- Skill focus' bonus increases over time, as do the +2/+2 feats
- Intimidating Prowess and Dazzling Display make intimidate builds more reasonable for fighters to try out.

Skills
- Intimidate is now against a flat DC of 10+HD+Wisdom modifier, without bonuses to fear explicitly stated as added in the skill description. A Level 1, a character can have an intimidate check bonus of +9, with intimidating prowess. Orcs have an intimidate DC of 10. Yep.


Yes, unfortunately the number of reasons to take EWP have plummeted. To zero. :smalltongue:

I miss Spinning Sword, Greathorn Minotaur Hammer.There are some decent weapons

Aldori Dueling Sword
Fauchard
Double Chained Kama/Kusarigama

[Prime32]

Rogue overshadowed by the ninja
The ninja class is better than the rogue, period. It still sucks, but man is it better than the rogue
- It has ki powers for more flexibility in application of tricks
- It uses charisma for it's ki pool so there is some synergy there
- It can gain powers equivalent to: invisibility(& greater), mirror image, disguise self, and feather fall, see invisibility, and ventriloquism.

Far more fun class than the rogue. At least the ki pool gives you options.As a side note... (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/bewildering-koan-general)


- Intimidating Prowess and Dazzling Display make intimidate builds more reasonable for fighters to try out.

Skills
- Intimidate is now against a flat DC of 10+HD+Wisdom modifier, with not bonuses to fear explicitly stated as added in the skill description. A Level 1 ,a character can have an intimidate check bonus of +9, with intimidating prowess. Orcs have an intimidate DC of 10. Yep.They also let you increase the duration of Intimidate with a higher check result. But there's one other important change PF made:

This shaken condition doesn’t stack with other shaken conditions to make an affected creature frightened.
In other words nonmagical fear effects don't stack any more, but magic ones do.

[eggynack]

I apparently missed something before when I was talking about vow of poverty. You trade away all but one of your items for one ki point per monk level. And you also lose still mind for some reason. That just seems kinda mean to do to a monk.

Edit: It's apparently more than just a punitive loss. A lot of monk archetypes, at least one prestige class, and at least one feat, require still mind as a prerequisite. According to prime32, the list looks something like, martial artist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/martial-artist), duergar (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/uncommon-races/arg-duergar/gray-disciple-monk-duergar), monastic legacy (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/monastic-legacy-combat), zen archer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/zen-archer), ki mystic (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/ki-mystic), maneuver master (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/maneuver-master), and champion of the enlightened (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/c-d/champion-of-irori) take still mind as a prerequisite to entry. There might be others out there, but I'm not sure.

[NinjaInTheRye]

The simulacrum spell (in addition to the standard remove of XP costs for spells) had the prices of ruby powder increased from 100 gp per HD to 500 gp, but no longer requires a piece of the creature you are copying as a material component.

[Larkas]

I've parsed all posts up to #45. The additions can be found on the changelog.

So, how's the guide is coming out?

[Tanuki Tales]

Dunno about Fantasy Authors being the ones who made the concept of Vow of Poverty a pathway to super powers.

'Cause, you know, someone who has access to abilities like the Siddhis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhis) would probably be more at home in Mutants and Masterminds or Exalted than Pathfinder.

Just saying.

Edit:

And for the record, Pinkie Pie isn't a Sorceress, she's more a Cthonic Abomination of Happiness. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Or you could fly with magic items, not use up your precious ki at all and spend them on other awesome things.

You're missing the point of VoP, both in PF and in 3.5. It's not "Let's make a character who chooses not to use magic items be just as powerful as one who does." It's "let's give a character who chooses not to use magic items something, so they're not as useless as someone who just plain lost all their gear."



So how exactly is Qingong giving you the ability to "fly"?

You listed them. It's not the best flight, sure, but it's more than you'd get by being a regular monk with no magic items either.

[TuggyNE]

You're missing the point of VoP, both in PF and in 3.5. It's not "Let's make a character who chooses not to use magic items be just as powerful as one who does." It's "let's give a character who chooses not to use magic items something, so they're not as useless as someone who just plain lost all their gear."

Indeed, except there are two rather obvious counterpoints: First, why is it impossible for whatever nebulous forces of Good grant the VoP bonuses in the first place to go the rest of the way and actually make them nigh-equal? Since the Vow is already absurdly far beyond anything remotely realistic, there is no obvious reason not to make it on par*. Second, PF's changes arguably mix things up more than they already were, in ways that I think the thread already covered.

*Except for the argument that this nullifies their sacrifice, which is founded on incorrect assumptions; their sacrifice is of comfort and convenience, not effectiveness in service. In other words, VoP's drawbacks should reasonably be confined, for the most part, to roleplaying and confining build concepts to a narrower but not less powerful subset of other possibilities.

[Sith_Happens]

*Except for the argument that this nullifies their sacrifice, which is founded on incorrect assumptions; their sacrifice is of comfort and convenience, not effectiveness in service. In other words, VoP's drawbacks should reasonably be confined, for the most part, to roleplaying and confining build concepts to a narrower but not less powerful subset of other possibilities.

In 3.5, they've also sacrificed two feat slots, so there's that.

[eggynack]

In 3.5, they've also sacrificed two feat slots, so there's that.
Well, you're really giving up two feat slots for a billion worse feat slots, so there's a trade off there. I think that the main point here is that the original VoP at least looks good. You see it, and you say, "Man, these abilities might actually be worth giving up my money. Look at all of those cool feats and abilities!" With pathfinder vow of poverty, you're giving up both the majority of your items, as well as some loss in ability to qualify for stuff, for ki points. Even if you're somehow capable of fitting every ability onto a single item, it's still not very good because the payoff looks so low. I also don't really think it's possible to do that. It was just a terrible decision in general. If there's any upside to pathfinder's vow of poverty, it's that newer players are much less likely to take it, thinking it's good, because it's so obviously terrible.

[Squirrel_Dude]

One the topic of races

Elves:
- They actually made good (read: the best) wizards when the game first came out, as opposed to how it worked in the first game.
- +2 int, +2 dex, and the penalty to con is less damaging than it was in 3.5
- Bonuses to overcoming spell penetration and to spellcraft checks to identify magi items.

Humans:
- Humans make the best sorcerers thanks to a favored class bonus that gives them extra spells known every level, a 37% increase in spells known. Not sure how paragon surge impacts this, though.
- They're also now better at getting skill focus than half elves. They now have the alternate racial trait, focused study, that lets sacrifice their first feat for skill focus 3 times over their career.

Goblins:
- The best at being stealthy. At level 1. They can get a racial +4 bonus to stealth, a racial +4 to dex, a +4 size bonus to stealth, and can get a +4 bonus from skill ranks. Without any magic items or feats, a goblin can easily get a +16 to + 18 to stealth checks at level 1.

Aasimar:
- Who thought these were a good idea? +2 wisdom, +2 charisma, -nothing to everything else. In addition to a bunch of other abilities and resistances.

Drow Noble:
- No one plays these, but when the bestiary first came out, they were a good reason to ask for more advice one what races players should actually have as options. I'm just going to quote the prd on all this silliness


+4 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence, +2 Wisdom, +2 Charisma, –2 Constitution. Noble drow are very agile, observant, and regal. These ability score modifiers replace the standard drow ability score modifiers.

Spell Resistance: Drow nobles have spell resistance equal to 11 + their character level.

Spell-Like Abilities: Drow nobles can cast dancing lights, deeper darkness, faerie fire, feather fall, and levitate each at will, and have detect magic as a constant spell-like ability. A drow noble can also cast divine favor, dispel magic, and suggestion once per day each. In some cases, a drow noble's spell-like abilities might vary, although the level of a particular spell-like ability does not. A drow noble's caster level for her spell-like abilities is equal to her character level.
They don't show up in the advanced race guide. :smallbiggrin:

Tieflings
No longer have level adjustment. Gain a bonus to intelligence. Contender for best race for playing a wizard.

Dwarves
As the game has expanded, so has the number of exotic weapons with "dwarf" in them. Many of them are actually pretty damn good weapons, making it so that the dwarven weapon proficiency racial trait has become more and more of a bonus.

[Psyren]

Indeed, except there are two rather obvious counterpoints: First, why is it impossible for whatever nebulous forces of Good grant the VoP bonuses in the first place to go the rest of the way and actually make them nigh-equal? Since the Vow is already absurdly far beyond anything remotely realistic, there is no obvious reason not to make it on par*.

If it was truly on par with having items it would actually be the better choice; you would end up with guaranteed bonuses instead of being beholden to random loot tables or dry spells (i.e. several sessions without additional swag.) In addition, even if you are required to donate your wealth instead of simply reassigning it to the party (and increasing theirs), that still gives the party the freedom to choose what to donate, which means all the less useful magic items like rods of wonder and bags of tricks will get tossed into the charity bucket while the metamagic rods and similar are kept. So even in a benefits neutral scenario a savvy group will come out on top.


Second, PF's changes arguably mix things up more than they already were, in ways that I think the thread already covered.

I actually like PF's take since it lets you have one item. Just make it a legacy or intelligent item and give it whatever abilities you think the monk needs - you can tweak it however you need it to be while still keeping the sacrifice. I would personally let it give even more ki but the drawback isn't as bad.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm....not even going to comment on you actually defending PF's hypocritical vow of poverty and claiming the drawback isn't so bad.

But you seem to think not having items is such a huge benefit when in actual play, a DM is not stealing the party's equipment much if ever, and are overlooking the day-to-day flexibility and nova potential when needed having items affords a character vs. a set list of benefits or amount of magic item equivalents that are set in stone.


I made up a simple set of houserules (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?320057-Simple-(hopefully)-balanced-Vow-of-Poverty-Houserules!) to balance VoP with magic items last year, I think it is pretty good.

Vow of Poverty: You swear to forsake the use of all magic items, seeing them as wasteful extravagances in a world where many lack even a few coppers to purchase food. At 1st level, you gain a starting wealth of 100 gp (regardless of class, no more than half on any one item) spent on mundane, non-masterwork gear as you see fit. Should you expend or lose any items, you may replenish your supplies after spending at least 8 hours in a civilized area, up to the 100 gp value limit, including changing what gear it is.

Benefit: You gain boons equivalent to what masterwork and magical items could grant. Starting at 2nd level, based on the wealth per level for your level in gp, you gain an equal amount of "essence points." Select benefits equal to what you could have achieved through purchasing items of that value, with a limit of 1/3 your "essence points" or less on any one "item." You must pay the masterwork cost before adding enhancements to any arms or armor. You can only select continuous, unlimited use-activated or command word activated , or uses per day items. You cannot select expendable items such as wands, potions, and so forth. You may completely change your benefits each time you level up, otherwise your selections cannot be altered. All of these benefits are Su abilities and are suppressed in an antimagic field. If you imbue items such as weapons with this essence, they function as masterwork/magical items only for you.

Drawbacks: You lack the flexibility of using expendable items. Your effective wealth for any given level remains at the minimum expected level for the entire time you are at that level, before bumping up as you level, while as a normal character sees gradual increase in wealth and power over the course of the level.

Special: You cannot give your share of treasure to allies, it must be donated to the poor, used for charitable causes, and so forth. This vow requires no feat or class feature cost to select, it is meant to be a balanced option w/ using magic items. You must not willingly use or possess masterwork or magical items in order to retain these benefits, though you can receive helpful spells from allies if the spell has no expensive material component or focus costs. Should you willingly break this vow, you immediately lose all benefits until you receive an atonement spell.

Larkas, sorry for going off topic, I'll try and stick to PF changes from now on.

[Psyren]

But you seem to think not having items is such a huge benefit

I said no such thing - in fact, I agree with SKR that tossing items out of the game is such a foolish thing to do that there's no point in attempting to cater design to it. If you want to do that, homebrew some kind of replacement, don't expect the designers to brainstorm ways to kludge D&D and make it work.

[eggynack]

I said no such thing - in fact, I agree with SKR that tossing items out of the game is such a foolish thing to do that there's no point in attempting to cater design to it. If you want to do that, homebrew some kind of replacement, don't expect the designers to brainstorm ways to kludge D&D and make it work.
But that's crazy. We're playing a game that's designed by people because we don't want to homebrew replacements. Moreover, if the designers don't want to put vow of poverty into their game, that's their prerogative, but if you put something in a game I expect it to have work put into it. Aside from that, the idea of removing your attachment to worldly goods in order to gain access to spiritual powers is a pretty classic idea. He chose to put that idea in his game, so I think that there should be more to the archetype than, "Vow of poverty: If you want to get rid of all of your items, go screw yourself. This archetype is dumb, and you should feel dumb for wanting to play it." Doing it the way he did it is just insulting to people who like that kind of thing.

[Psyren]

But that's crazy. We're playing a game that's designed by people because we don't want to homebrew replacements.

Even so, they have to draw the line somewhere. They can't design every permutation that any table could possibly want, they have to cater to the largest demand as they perceive it.



Moreover, if the designers don't want to put vow of poverty into their game, that's their prerogative, but if you put something in a game I expect it to have work put into it. Aside from that, the idea of removing your attachment to worldly goods in order to gain access to spiritual powers is a pretty classic idea. He chose to put that idea in his game, so I think that there should be more to the archetype than, "Vow of poverty: If you want to get rid of all of your items, go screw yourself. This archetype is dumb, and you should feel dumb for wanting to play it." Doing it the way he did it is just insulting to people who like that kind of thing.

I didn't read his post that way. He was more saying "we put some suboptimal options in the game because there are people who like them, but we're not going to pretend they're not suboptimal." And again, the fact that you get one item lets you circumvent or mitigate the vow almost completely - you simply need a versatile enough item. If you don't have the system mastery or cooperative enough DM to pull that off, you're better off playing normally.

As he says - if you want a system where every path is equally viable, Pathfinder is not that system. Both 3.5 and PF expect you to have X wealth at Y level to be effective; PF is just more upfront about it, whereas 3.5's VoP is more of a trap.

[Larkas]

Psyren, please. It's only suboptimal because they made it suboptimal. If you're going to introduce something like that in your game, you might as well not introduce it at all, since it will be passed by people who know their game and will be a trap to people who don't know it better. That is not good game design as far as I'm concerned. They could've done a VoP that worked, just as several subsystems in 3.5 work. Instead, they chose to push something they didn't put much thought in. It doesn't matter what SKR said or not, as I'm pretty sure he isn't the only guy designing the system and picking him as a punchbag doesn't accomplish anything. Instead, what matters is what VoP really does to the game as a whole. And, as it stands, it has the potential of being a trap and worsening the game balance. This is what matters to this thread.

[eggynack]

stuff
It also seems relevant that it can be considered a change from 3.5, given the nature of the handbook. A nerf to vow of poverty just seems like an odd thing to do.