PF... am I missing something?

[bobthe6th]

It just seems... like a very half assed attempt at fixing 3.5... and bits are worse. At least in 3.5 you could make a chain tripper that could be fun. Right now, unless I am missing something... tripping sucks(no free attack, massive bitch to get working, and failure is even harsher).

The weapons are now all wierd, non standard in a bad way, and generally overly complected(yes it is good to have a bunch of different polearms... but the difference is miniscule). All of the archetypes dull(like PHBII dull), and a difference in a few numbers maybe.

I guess the skills are better, and standardizing combat manuvers is cool... but things like still making TWF the least mobile combat style(except possibly monks).

Am I missing something here? As of right now, I would rather just run homebrew heavy 3.5 with their skill system.

[Jormengand]

You're missing the fixes for lots of classes which didn't work, a lot of bookkeeping simplification, FIGHTERS WITH CLASS FEATURES, and generally being better than 3.5 in almost every way.

[Lord_Gareth]

(Scrubbed)

[Brookshw]

So I've flipped through a few books but never actually played PF, be very interested in further opinions.

2 things I'm especially curious about, did they tone down the cheese and action economy abuse available via splattered books, or have they tweaked monsters to compensate? My opinion on 3.5 is that the players pretty much won the arms race.

[Psyren]

Yippee, this thread again...

PF is not and never was intended to "fix" 3.5. Keeping it compatible with 3.5 necessitated not changing the core dynamic of the game, namely that magic has a higher ceiling than non-magic.


So I've flipped through a few books but never actually played PF, be very interested in further opinions.

2 things I'm especially curious about, did they tone down the cheese and action economy abuse available via splattered books, or have they tweaked monsters to compensate? My opinion on 3.5 is that the players pretty much won the arms race.

Why are you competing with your players?

[Lord_Gareth]

So I've flipped through a few books but never actually played PF, be very interested in further opinions.

2 things I'm especially curious about, did they tone down the cheese and action economy abuse available via splattered books, or have they tweaked monsters to compensate? My opinion on 3.5 is that the players pretty much won the arms race.

Ah...players won that arms race in core. All of the most powerful options in 3.X are solidly and completely in Core.

Pathfinder did not fix this problem either, though admittedly you do need splatbooks to Paragon Surge into being a god-sorcerer who knows any spell in the game on demand (not kidding).

[Squirrel_Dude]

Ah...players won that arms race in core. All of the most powerful options in 3.X are solidly and completely in Core.

Pathfinder did not fix this problem either, though admittedly you do need splatbooks to Paragon Surge into being a god-sorcerer who knows any spell in the game on demand (not kidding).Paragon Surge *Oracle* is the one who can know almost any spell in the game. Neither gets Druid spells, though.

I stand by the opinion that Pathfinder did balance the game, but they did so within the classes. Wizards and fighters are not significantly closer together, but the options available to a fighter are closer to each other. Archery, TWF, THF, are more equal in their quality of contribution than previous editions. Enchantment and Evocation are stronger schools (Protection for Evil no longer ends all enchantment spells automatically).

[Brookshw]

Yippee, this thread again...

PF is not and never was intended to "fix" 3.5. Keeping it compatible with 3.5 necessitated not changing the core dynamic of the game, namely that magic has a higher ceiling than non-magic.



Why are you competing with your players?

Who said I was? I object to your assumption. I'd like to see them challenged appropriately.

[Lord_Gareth]

Paragon Surge *Oracle* is the one who can know almost any spell in the game. Neither gets Druid spells, though.

I stand by the opinion that Pathfinder did balance the game, but they did so within the classes. Wizards and fighters are not significantly closer together, but the options available to a fighter are closer to each other. Archery, TWF, THF, are more equal in their quality of contribution than previous editions. Enchantment and Evocation are stronger schools (Protection for Evil no longer ends all enchantment spells automatically).

That's an interesting concept that I haven't come across before. Like, legitimately. No one's ever quite put it that way.

Unfortunately SKR still continues to flog the several concepts that I find despicable and to bully and belittle anyone who disagrees with him, so...yeah.

[Gnaeus]

I think pathfinder improved game balance in a low op environment. Yes, T1s are still T1s, and T5s are still T5s and there are still broken combos. (more broken? Less broken? who cares?). Vanilla, low op monk or fighter is much less overshadowed in melee combat by vanilla, low op cleric or druid. High op, they really didn't improve anything because the Devs did not understand the high op game and did not want to listen to those who did.

[Psyren]

Who said I was? I object to your assumption. I'd like to see them challenged appropriately.

You described it as an "arms race" that the players were "winning." I just think that's a very odd way to approach DMing in general.



Unfortunately SKR and his drool-monkeys still continue to flog the several concepts that I find despicable and to bully and belittle anyone who disagrees with them, so...yeah.

You know, I'm starting to have misgivings about you working on PoW after all. I mean, thinking of anyone this way is bad enough, but badmouthing potential customers/fellow designers like this is extremely immature.

[Fax Celestis]

FWIW, some of us (*toots own horn, vaguely waves at signature*) have made different options for rebalancing your 3.5 game. IMO, the successful ones used 3.5 as a jump point and said "screw backwards compatibility".

[Lord_Gareth]

You know, I'm starting to have misgivings about you working on PoW after all. I mean, thinking of anyone this way is bad enough, but badmouthing potential customers like this is extremely immature.

...The Paizo design team is potential customers?

Wait.

...Yeah, now that I think about it the way I phrased that was not the most clear I could have been. Excuse me while I go edit...

[Squirrel_Dude]

Unfortunately SKR and his drool-monkeys still continue to flog the several concepts that I find despicable and to bully and belittle anyone who disagrees with them, so...yeah.Yeah... he's not very good at hiding what kinds of character concepts he likes and which ones he doesn't like. Hint: If he doesn't like a character concept, he makes that concept hard to play and be effective

That said, I'm not necessarily opposed to how Paizo tries to use prestige classes and some of their archetypes. I kind of like how many of these are more attempts at creating concepts for campaigns or stories (see mythic heroes). I think it's frustrating that it sometimes seems to be coming from that perspective more than it is about creating classes with unique mechanics, but I like that they try approach their class creation from storytelling perspective.

[Psyren]

...The Paizo design team is potential customers?

1) You didn't specify you were only referring to Paizo staff. (Not that that makes it okay, because it doesn't.)
2) That's why I added "fellow designers."

[Morty]

I don't know what the designers' intentions were, but I wouldn't treat PF as a way to fix or rebalance 3.5. It has too big a degree of backwards compatibility to really fix 3.5. So I'd look at PF as '3.5 and then some', or a continuation of 3.5 after WotC gave up on it. Whether or not it succeeds at that I really don't know, of course.

[Lord_Gareth]

1) You didn't specify you were only referring to Paizo staff. (Not that that makes it okay, because it doesn't.)
2) That's why I added "fellow designers."

Well, I did edit the statement for clarity. I've been public about how little respect I have for SKR as a designer/human being for some time and my tune isn't going to change about that. What I can promise is that I don't compromise my personal standards for any reason when I'm working (and that my work is being double-checked because unfortunately I have brain farts like anyone else). Me having an axe to grind about Paizo won't affect what I'm writing for DSP.

[Psyren]

Me having an axe to grind about Paizo won't affect what I'm writing for DSP.

I would dearly love to believe that. Just keep in mind that your new bosses/partners don't have nearly the hostile attitude towards the company (or any individual there) that you do.

[Lord_Gareth]

I would dearly love to believe that. Just keep in mind that your new bosses/partners don't have nearly the hostile attitude towards the company (or any individual there) that you do.

Fret not, Psyren. I'm capable of behaving in a professional manner. I came down with an unfortunate case of Standards somewhere along the lines. Standards are sadly a lot like taking a film or literature class - they alter your life by driving you nuts.

(I both love and hate my English teachers for this very fact).

[Phase]

Honestly, while I like a lot of the changes and dislike some of them, my favorite thing about Pathfinder is that there's actual new content coming out, and maintained support. I still love me some flat 3.5, but the game has suffered from bloat over the years and now sits stagnant. Pathfinder's probably going to go the same way eventually, but for now it's still fresh and gives me what I like out of the game.

[Reverent-One]

I stand by the opinion that Pathfinder did balance the game, but they did so within the classes. Wizards and fighters are not significantly closer together, but the options available to a fighter are closer to each other. Archery, TWF, THF, are more equal in their quality of contribution than previous editions. Enchantment and Evocation are stronger schools (Protection for Evil no longer ends all enchantment spells automatically).

I've thought that myself. Most of the higher end mundane tricks that people complain about being gone (allegedly because Paizo thinks "melee can't have nice things") rendered a majority of the other material for them pointless if used.

[Psyren]

Mind Blank doesn't totally shut enchanters down either, and they even have Threnodic Spell to address undead. And in a real pinch they can prepare banned spells.

Polymorph no longer makes the Transmuter take over the fighter's job.

[IronFist]

Gareth, like Psyren before me, I have to say this - being professional means not offending fellow designers. No one needs to know how much you hate SKR or not (specially since everyone knows already).

Again like Psyren before me, what the OP missed is that PF never tried to "fix" 3.5. If you really care that much about balance, nothing 3.5 is not the game for you -try Legend or 4e.

I mean, you complain SKR badmouths people... while you badmouth him. :smallconfused:

[Lord_Gareth]

Again like Psyren before me, what the OP missed is that PF never tried to "fix" 3.5. If you really care that much about balance, nothing 3.5 is not the game for you -try Legend or 4e.

Statements from Buhlman disagree; he explicitly laid out fixing 3.5's flaws as a design goal for Pathfinder. This got reiterated during the now-famous playtest as well. I can charitably state that maybe they had a different definition of 'fix' but the point remains that they made a claim and didn't live up to the claim.

[eggynack]

I've thought that myself. Most of the higher end mundane tricks that people complain about being gone (allegedly because Paizo thinks "melee can't have nice things") rendered a majority of the other material for them pointless if used.
Wouldn't it have been just as easy to keep the high end melee tricks at the same power level, relative to the rest of the game, and then raise the power of the other melee tricks? Balancing out melee in D&D 3.5 doesn't require nerfing, because while tripping might be "imbalanced" in comparison to feinting, it's still one of the weaker things you can do in the game. You can talk all you want about how they constructed balance within the classes, rather than balance within the game, and that's a really good thing to have, but the two aren't mutually exclusive in the least.

The fact of the matter is, Paizo does think that melee can't have nice things, because melee generally doesn't have nice things. I suppose that there doesn't necessarily have to be some malevolent force denying fighters the good version of power attack, but my understanding is that there is one to some extent, and to another extent intent doesn't matter. In a game as cruel to fighters as 3.5 was, doing anything in the entire universe to limit that power strikes me as incredibly wrongheaded.

[Fax Celestis]

The fact of the matter is, Paizo does think that melee can't have nice things, because melee generally doesn't have nice things. I suppose that there doesn't necessarily have to be some malevolent force denying fighters the good version of power attack, but my understanding is that there is one to some extent, and to another extent intent doesn't matter. In a game as cruel to fighters as 3.5 was, doing anything in the entire universe to limit that power strikes me as incredibly wrongheaded.

I don't think Paizo's actively trying to make fighter-types worse. I think they're trying to constrict fighter-types to realism, which has the side effect of making them worse, since caster-types aren't constrained by that same limitation.

[IronFist]

Statements from Buhlman disagree; he explicitly laid out fixing 3.5's flaws as a design goal for Pathfinder. This got reiterated during the now-famous playtest as well. I can charitably state that maybe they had a different definition of 'fix' but the point remains that they made a claim and didn't live up to the claim.

You admit yourself your concept of "fix" is different than your concept of "fix" and then complain they "did not live upo to the claim"? You're not making much sense, buddy.

[eggynack]

I don't think Paizo's actively trying to make fighter-types worse. I think they're trying to constrict fighter-types to realism, which has the side effect of making them worse, since caster-types aren't constrained by that same limitation.
That might be true to some extent, but my impression of 3.5 fighting is that it was just about as realistic as PF fighting is now, and that several of the nerfed things were just items adapted from 3.5 (because that's what a nerf is). I don't see anything more realistic about PF's version of tripping or power attack. To those extents, this is an issue that is at least partially in the domain of balance, rather than one purely of flavor. In my ideal world, casters in pathfinder wouldn't be extremely overpowered in comparison to fighters, because they would have nerfed wizards and buffed fighters until that was the case. The game obviously doesn't have that kind of balance, and that's problematic, yet understandable. What is not understandable is making the situation worse in any way, and that's what they did.

[Lord_Gareth]

You admit yourself your concept of "fix" is different than your concept of "fix" and then complain they "did not live upo to the claim"? You're not making much sense, buddy.

I cannot English today >.>

There are some flaws that were flaws no matter what. No, not balance flaws or class flaws. Things like horrible wording or poor editing or what-have-you. Problems with the 'upkeep' of the system that manifest in things like Drown Healing. Pathfinder didn't really address any of those. They ALSO didn't address the issue of the CR system or, rather, the issue of wildly mis-CR'd monsters (see the Ship in a Bottle for a hilarious example).

[Fax Celestis]

That might be true to some extent, but my impression of 3.5 fighting is that it was just about as realistic as PF fighting is now, and that several of the nerfed things were just items adapted from 3.5 (because that's what a nerf is). I don't see anything more realistic about PF's version of tripping or power attack. To those extents, this is an issue that is at least partially in the domain of balance, rather than one purely of flavor. In my ideal world, casters in pathfinder wouldn't be extremely overpowered in comparison to fighters, because they would have nerfed wizards and buffed fighters until that was the case. The game obviously doesn't have that kind of balance, and that's problematic, yet understandable. What is not understandable is making the situation worse in any way, and that's what they did.

Not going to argue that at all.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think overall, I enjoy Pathfinder over 3.5, but even I'll say that they screwed up royally in a lot of cases. I tried a pathfinder pure build rogue. Did not last long, but maybe I don't play rogues very well? I also do not think they did anything good for the Monk.

I think the 3.5 compatibility was a mistake, but that's just likely my own taste.

[Psyren]

I mean, you complain SKR badmouths people... while you badmouth him. :smallconfused:

The irony is a tad staggering, isn't it?


Statements from Buhlman disagree; he explicitly laid out fixing 3.5's flaws as a design goal for Pathfinder. This got reiterated during the now-famous playtest as well. I can charitably state that maybe they had a different definition of 'fix' but the point remains that they made a claim and didn't live up to the claim.

Every time this so-called "claim"surfaces nobody is able to reproduce it. The closest I've ever seen was a design goal to rebalance individual spells (like Polymorph and Glitterdust), which is a promise they fulfilled.


I don't think Paizo's actively trying to make fighter-types worse. I think they're trying to constrict fighter-types to realism, which has the side effect of making them worse, since caster-types aren't constrained by that same limitation.

While it's true that they're not, their ability to overcome these constraints is due to magic - a system that, for all its capability, has many limitations of its own.

Also, quotes from the Giant:



4th Edition Dimension Roy: You have to remember that our foes aren't like us. They're using cheesy underhanded tactics against us - like logically extrapolating the possible consequences of the powers they have and then invoking those options, instead of just following the obvious intention and playing fair. We need to stop them, before that sort of thinking creeps into our world.



4e Vaarsuvius: My magic is now more in balance with the strength of my comrades. I do not overshadow them at every turn.

3e Vaarsuvius: Indeed? And how is that in any way a positive feature? Should you not be doing your best to bring as much force to bear on your enemies, fairness be damned?

4e Vaarsuvius: There are certain intangible morale benefits that I would not expect you to understand.

3e Vaarsuvius: Of course.

[IronFist]

I think the 3.5 compatibility was a mistake, but that's just likely my own taste.

It might have been a mistake in the sense of "making a better game" but it was the right move when it comes to "making a better product".
3.5 left a lot of orphans. Several companies tried to do "3.5, but..." products to varying degrees of success. Paizo just decided to keep going with 3.5 in their own way. Their success was pretty much guaranteed.
The majority of players could not care less about class tiers or melee not having nice things. They just want new material for the game they are used to playing, flawed or not.

[rockdeworld]

Am I missing something here?
You're not missing something. (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51845&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=8439d9d77e615b3b2d23c5d2201df1f6) Pathfinder's combining Listen and Spot into Perception, and Hide/Move Silently into Stealth, was great. So was their work on the Paladin, which Saph (and probably many others now) can attest to. Their nerfs for the Druid and Polymorph line aren't terrible. Giving Dragon Disciples and Arcane Archers spellcasting was good too.

On the other hand, they made Wizards much stronger (even without splatbook support), mundanes are still worse than spellcasters (even with supposedly-caster-killing abilities in pvp), they nerfed the Power Attack feat, and archery is still worse than melee, Gunslinger or no.

Pathfinder has some good things, and some bad things. It's far from better than 3.5.

[Reverent-One]

Wouldn't it have been just as easy to keep the high end melee tricks at the same power level, relative to the rest of the game, and then raise the power of the other melee tricks?

Given that said tricks were a fraction of the total material, no, it wouldn't be as easy.

[eggynack]

Given that said tricks were a fraction of the total material, no, it wouldn't be as easy.
Didn't they basically overhaul all of the not high power combat tricks anyway? They could have just overhauled them to be even more powerful, such that they would be on par with 3.5 tripping.

[Reverent-One]

Didn't they basically overhaul all of the not high power combat tricks anyway? They could have just overhauled them to be even more powerful, such that they would be on par with 3.5 tripping.

Not really, despite all their changes, many things stayed the same or very close to what they were in 3.5.

[rockdeworld]

Given that said tricks were a fraction of the total material, no, it wouldn't be as easy.
Exactly this. Shock Trooper provides 2 decent abilities and 1 that's a part of every optimized charger build in 3.5. Bringing Weapon Focus, Cleave, and Combat Expertise up to that level takes a lot of thought and effort, and you still have 30 other feats to change in core once you're done with them.

Part of that is the inefficiency of certain tactics compared with others. Improved Trip is useful to every tripper build, and tripping is a good build. Whirlwind Attack isn't useful at all for builds that move and attack, and that's a generally poor tactic sans pounce.

[kaminiwa]

Every time this so-called "claim"surfaces nobody is able to reproduce it. The closest I've ever seen was a design goal to rebalance individual spells (like Polymorph and Glitterdust), which is a promise they fulfilled.

"In fact, the Pathfinder RPG is designed to smooth over a number of the rough spots in the 3.5 rules set"

"the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game has enjoyed more than 10 years of active playtesting and revision, making it the most robust set of fantasy RPG rules ever published."

- http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG

"Improve the Game: The 3.5 rules set is excellent, but it has its flaws. Over the past few years, a number of common problems have seemed to crop up again and again, problems that delay the game or cause no end of arguments (grapple and polymorph, for example). I wanted the Pathfinder RPG to clean up these rules, by streamlining in places and adding options in others. You can still grapple in the Pathfinder RPG, but it is no longer the huge headache that it was. I also worked to even out some of the choices. A number of 3.5 skills are far less valuable than others, making them suboptimal choices. In my experience, few rogues took Forgery, but Spot was an incredibly common choice. These rules work to even out some of these choices. So while you might still take Perception over Linguistics, the latter is now a far more useful choice than it was before."

- http://web.archive.org/web/20080320230936/http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG

(You want the "From the Lead Designer" block, "History & Design Goals", it is the first goal listed by him.)

I bolded "suboptimal choices" just to make it clear that, yes, the Lead Designer Himself announced officially that suboptimal choices should be fixed or removed

(You know, I'd never even HEARD of this debate until now. Huzzah for Archive.Org settling claims? :))



You know, I'm starting to have misgivings about you working on PoW after all. I mean, thinking of anyone this way is bad enough, but badmouthing potential customers/fellow designers like this is extremely immature.


Not really my place, but you're posting this publicly so I feel okay chiming in...

I don't think you were particularly rude, and if this wasn't a work/boss sort of relationship I'd see nothing wrong with your behavior. That said, it's really not professional to call out your fellow employees in public. If you have a problem with an employee, whether they're a co-worker or someone you manage, you should do so in private. It is unprofessional to call someone out in public, or even just in front of their co-workers.

I figure if you're going to berate someone for being unprofessional, you owe it to them to at least be professional about it :)

[eggynack]

Not really, despite all their changes, many things stayed the same or very close to what they were in 3.5.
I suppose it might be somewhat easier to just lower the power of low power things, and keep the power of extremely low power things stagnant. In that way, you are correct. However, it is also stupid. If you're going to design a game, frigging design a game. Don't take shortcuts that harm the balance of your game. If the logic you're claiming is the same logic that they used when making the game, then I feel perfectly fair in saying that Pathfinder is a butt.

[Psyren]

"In fact, the Pathfinder RPG is designed to smooth over a number of the rough spots in the 3.5 rules set"

"A number of the rough spots" - and so it did.




"the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game has enjoyed more than 10 years of active playtesting and revision, making it the most robust set of fantasy RPG rules ever published."

Also true. 10 years of shelf life would make anything robust.



"Improve the Game: The 3.5 rules set is excellent, but it has its flaws. Over the past few years, a number of common problems have seemed to crop up again and again, problems that delay the game or cause no end of arguments (grapple and polymorph, for example). I wanted the Pathfinder RPG to clean up these rules, by streamlining in places and adding options in others. You can still grapple in the Pathfinder RPG, but it is no longer the huge headache that it was. I also worked to even out some of the choices. A number of 3.5 skills are far less valuable than others, making them suboptimal choices. In my experience, few rogues took Forgery, but Spot was an incredibly common choice. These rules work to even out some of these choices. So while you might still take Perception over Linguistics, the latter is now a far more useful choice than it was before."

Which part of this is untrue? CMB vs. CMD is cleaner. Skills were consolidated. You're not saying anything new.


I bolded "suboptimal choices" just to make it clear that, yes, the Lead Designer Himself announced officially that suboptimal choices should be fixed or removed

And many were. Forgery no longer exists for example.



(You know, I'd never even HEARD of this debate until now. Huzzah for Archive.Org settling claims? :))

You've "settled" absolutely nothing.



I don't think you were particularly rude, and if this wasn't a work/boss sort of relationship I'd see nothing wrong with your behavior. That said, it's really not professional to call out your fellow employees in public.

I have no employees here. Whatever you think is going on here, you're very far off.



I figure if you're going to berate someone for being unprofessional, you owe it to them to at least be professional about it :)

And you owe it to yourself to understand someone's position before leaping in to white-knight against them needlessly.

[Reverent-One]

I suppose it might be somewhat easier to just lower the power of low power things, and keep the power of extremely low power things stagnant. In that way, you are correct. However, it is also stupid. If you're going to design a game, frigging design a game. Don't take shortcuts that harm the balance of your game. If the logic you're claiming is the same logic that they used when making the game, then I feel perfectly fair in saying that Pathfinder is a butt.

You forget that their primary objective was continuing 3.5 and keeping backwards compatibilty, not fixing 3.5. The more changes you make, the less like 3.5 it is. They had a compelling reason not to rebuild the entire thing. If you want that, then there are plenty of other systems that went that route (Legend or Fax's system for example).

[Lord_Gareth]

Not really my place, but you're posting this publicly so I feel okay chiming in...

I don't think you were particularly rude, and if this wasn't a work/boss sort of relationship I'd see nothing wrong with your behavior. That said, it's really not professional to call out your fellow employees in public. If you have a problem with an employee, whether they're a co-worker or someone you manage, you should do so in private. It is unprofessional to call someone out in public, or even just in front of their co-workers.

I figure if you're going to berate someone for being unprofessional, you owe it to them to at least be professional about it :)

You, um, may want to note that I'm writing for Dreamscarred Press, which is unrelated to Paizo in the business sense. They create third-party material for Pathfinder, which does belong to Paizo, but SKR is nowhere in my chain of command, nor am I anywhere on his payroll.

[Psyren]

You, um, may want to note that I'm writing for Dreamscarred Press, which is unrelated to Paizo in the business sense. They create third-party material for Pathfinder, which does belong to Paizo, but SKR is nowhere in my chain of command, nor am I anywhere on his payroll.

I think he thought you were working for me, and I was dressing you down or something.

By the way, report to HR immediately!

[Lord_Gareth]

By the way, report to HR immediately!

But sir! I have a wife and son! No! DON'T SEND ME TO HUMAN RECYCLING!

*Dies in a blender*

I had way too much fun writing that. I need to get out more.

[eggynack]

You forget that their primary objective was continuing 3.5 and keeping backwards compatibilty, not fixing 3.5. The more changes you make, the less like 3.5 it is. They had a compelling reason not to rebuild the entire thing. If you want that, then there are plenty of other systems that went that route (Legend or Fax's system for example).
But then, y'know, don't actively work to make the game less balanced. If you don't want to go through the effort of balancing combat maneuvers, don't go through half the effort of balancing combat maneuvers, and leave the system worse off in some ways. In other words, they took a half measure, when they should have gone all the way.

[Psyren]

But sir! I have a wife and son! No! DON'T SEND ME TO HUMAN RECYCLING!

*Dies in a blender*

I had way too much fun writing that. I need to get out more.

Consider me mollified :smalltongue:

[Honest Tiefling]

Forgery IS in Pathfinder, its just under Linguistics for some bizarre reason. I accidentally made my Elven Wizard into a master criminal thanks to that. While I agree with MOST of the skill combinations, that one always perplexes me.

[Tyndmyr]

It just seems... like a very half assed attempt at fixing 3.5... and bits are worse. At least in 3.5 you could make a chain tripper that could be fun. Right now, unless I am missing something... tripping sucks(no free attack, massive bitch to get working, and failure is even harsher).

The weapons are now all wierd, non standard in a bad way, and generally overly complected(yes it is good to have a bunch of different polearms... but the difference is miniscule). All of the archetypes dull(like PHBII dull), and a difference in a few numbers maybe.

I guess the skills are better, and standardizing combat manuvers is cool... but things like still making TWF the least mobile combat style(except possibly monks).

Am I missing something here? As of right now, I would rather just run homebrew heavy 3.5 with their skill system.

That's pretty much what it is, really. 3.5 with homebrew. The skills part is pretty elegant, I think. Other parts..vary. Caster/melee imbalances persist, of course, and they missed some classic exploits, but there are elements of improved balance here and there.

The big advantage is it's in print, and it's standardized, so you can roll into a PF game pretty much anywhere, and know what's going on. Plus, if you've played 3.5, it's easy as hell to learn.

[Psyren]

Forgery IS in Pathfinder, its just under Linguistics for some bizarre reason. I accidentally made my Elven Wizard into a master criminal thanks to that.

1) Hey, nobody's making you use it :smalltongue:
2) The consolidation works against you too - now non-rogues have a chance at detecting it where they had absolutely no chance before.

[Lord_Gareth]

1) Hey, nobody's making you use it :smalltongue:
2) The consolidation works against you too - now non-rogues have a chance at detecting it where they had absolutely no chance before.

Is it still resisted only by another Forgery check? Because if so it's still kinda...I mean, why?

[Honest Tiefling]

I believe it is still Forgery, actually...So I really doubt that Rogue is going to beat my Wizard in the first place. Not that I really object to a Rogue, I dunno, being useful at something?

[Squirrel_Dude]

I believe it is still Forgery, actually...So I really doubt that Rogue is going to beat my Wizard in the first place. Not that I really object to a Rogue, I dunno, being useful at something?They're still the best at finding traps.

[ScrambledBrains]

They're still the best at finding traps.

*Cough* Factotum *Cough*

[Renegade Paladin]

I posted on Sean Reynolds' message boards way back when, and his instinct for knee-jerk nerfing anything that strikes him as looking "off" (and ribbing anyone who tried it) has been present for a long time, like this example (http://seankreynoldsboards.yuku.com/reply/4206/Most-Abusive-Build-Ever#reply-4213) from 2004:
This sort of thing makes me want to rule that ability score modifiers from templates should overlap, not stack; they're "racial bonuses," after all. It makes no sense that a half-ogre, half-dragon half-orc is somehow stronger than an actual dragon. These builds are ridiculous and silly.

And in a way, fun, but in an "Obviously I don't have a girlfriend" sort of way.
He's an interesting guy to talk to, but he's... abrasive, to put it charitably. I can understand why Gareth reacts the way he does, though I don't share the hatred.

[kaminiwa]

I think he thought you were working for me, and I was dressing you down or something.

By the way, report to HR immediately!

She. C'mon, there's gender indicators, like, right there <--- :)

And you did say "You know, I'm starting to have misgivings about you working on PoW after all" and "Just keep in mind that your new bosses/partners don't have nearly the hostile attitude towards the company (or any individual there) that you do."

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume there's a work relationship there, given you used the words "work" and "boss" :)

[Squirrel_Dude]

*Cough* Factotum *Cough*In Pathfinder.


Even then it's debatable or barely true >.>

[kaminiwa]

You've "settled" absolutely nothing.

Um...


Statements from Buhlman disagree; he explicitly laid out fixing 3.5's flaws as a design goal for Pathfinder. This got reiterated during the now-famous playtest as well. I can charitably state that maybe they had a different definition of 'fix' but the point remains that they made a claim and didn't live up to the claim.

And then you said...



Every time this so-called "claim"surfaces nobody is able to reproduce it.


I have now reproduced the claim, with a direct quote from the Paizo website, made by the Lead Designer, Jason Bulmahn, who explicitly stated that the first goal of Pathfinder is to "Improve the Game."

I'm not speaking to whether or not they met that goal. You were putting "claim" in "quotation marks" like you didn't believe it was real, so I did some research and now you can read the quote for yourself, and you have no reason to doubt it's validity.

[Brookshw]

You described it as an "arms race" that the players were "winning." I just think that's a very odd way to approach DMing in general.


Then I will be glad to clarify my position and what I've seen develop over the years.

As we watched monsters develop between MM1 and MM3 the hp, acs, and abilities continued to scale higher and higher without the CR changing much. More and more templates were developed to increase the power of monsters to add additional defenses, concealment, incorporeal etc. This I interpret was to help balance monsters to the Optimization potential that became available as the number of additional books was released.

This trend seemed to die off after a period to some extent and the monsters started to level off. This did not stop the number of splat books and new things being added for players. Eventually the Optimization options available became high enough that a player at level 20 could, as demonstrated by today's post on how to make disintegrate ridiculous, create something that in a single round, automatically going first, stand an incredibly high chance of defeating 3 great wyrm red dragons.

Further books (I'm looking at the MIC here) introduced further abilities/items to shut down any form of defense that monsters have. Example as force effect on a weapon, allows the complete negation of any monsters DR. Other such examples are where you can negate a creatures immunity to critical hits, another defense.

As monsters defense options continued to be easily removed this poses a problem of how to challenge players (I'm not asking for DMing advice here). If a monster can't survive more than a round it's not posing much of a challenge and the games a heck of a lot less engaging if you (a player) doesn't feel a sense of risk and challenge.

So what are the options here then? Off the top of my head: you give monsters similar abilities which turns into rocket tag and is equally boring and meaningless, you sculpt a monster to counter the specific players abilities which I consider unfair to the players, or you spend substantial time finding way to buff up monsters which involves a mass amount of time in high level campaigns (time I don't have).

So my response to you, no, I"m not trying to compete with my players. That's a meaningless exercise. What I want is to put reasonable challenges in front of my players that help establish a sense of danger and risk to increase engagement and drama with the game.

Now, back to my actual question. Did PF find a way to balance the players and monsters in such a way that none of the above matters? Will a monster, without me having to insert cheese / sink massive amounts of time into tweaking them, provide a reasonable challenge to players?

Edit: to further refine the question, how do monsters stack up to low, mid, and high OP levels?

[Turion]

She. C'mon, there's gender indicators, like, right there <--- :)

And you did say "You know, I'm starting to have misgivings about you working on PoW after all" and "Just keep in mind that your new bosses/partners don't have nearly the hostile attitude towards the company (or any individual there) that you do."

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume there's a work relationship there, given you used the words "work" and "boss" :)

for context:


So I had this big huge speech all worked up and forgot it before I posted.

The thrust of it is that I'm both very surprised and very pleased to announce that I've been brought on board to help with the design of a new Code of Conduct system for the Warder (I promise, things will get better) and for general help with the classes themselves. Here's hoping I can help make them the best they can be.

You, ah, you may need to treat some of mine fellow posters for shock.
-from the DSP Path of War thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=296871)

[JusticeZero]

Improvement does not mean "fix everything". It means "It is now somewhat better than it was". In many ways, I agree that it has been improved. Many things are not fixed, but it has been cleaned up and several obvious issues have been addressed. It is now slightly cleaner. That's improvement, ergo mission accomplished.

[ScrambledBrains]

In Pathfinder.


Even then it's debatable or barely true >.>

Ah. Fair enough, since I don't know much about Pathfinder. :smallsmile:

[bobthe6th]

Cool, I needed that brain dump. Thank you for generating 3 pages of interesting discussion for me to read through.

Still think it would be good to start making a homebrew list to staple to the PF system... but whatever.

[NEO|Phyte]

(did you know that in PF you can't AoO when you Total Defense? True facts).

Did you know that you can't in 3.5 either (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#totalDefense)?

[IronFist]

Did you know that you can't in 3.5 either (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#totalDefense)?

*slow clap*

[Renegade Paladin]

Did you know that you can't in 3.5 either (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#totalDefense)?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/Owned/Owned-truck.jpg

[navar100]

Here we go, again! :smallsigh:

Power Attack was not nerfed. It was side-stepped.

The complaint against it is that you can no longer do the Shock Trooper Leap Attack trick with it for oodles and oodles of damage. I view that as a feature, not a bug.

By this change to Power Attack, along with some feat support, other fighting styles now have worth. Two-Handed weapon style still gives the most damage output. Power Attack still gives you a good bang for the buck. -1 to hit for +3 damage at 1st level is huge. At 4th level it's -2/+6. Level 8 is -3/+9. That is significant. Without Shocktrooper, it would be rare for a warrior at level 8 to take a -8 to hit for +16 damage. What two-handed weapon doesn't do is be overly gross with its damage so that those who use other styles aren't chumps for using them.

Weapon & Shield users can also use Power Attack. They fight at the -1/+2 rate that everyone loves about 3E Power Attack. Shield users benefit from the AC and do various things with their shields.

Two-Weapon users are still feat heavy. They get support with feats and a fighter archetype. The feat tax turns off people. You either like two-weapon use or you don't. If you do, you aren't lagging far behind two-handed in damage and get to enjoy just the fun of it.

Archery got feat support. It has its own version of Power Attack. You still have build around the tactic with feats and class, but some people like that sort of thing.

The big deal is Maneuvers. Some people don't like the change to spike chain. I find it a feature because in 3E either you were a Charger or a Chain Tripper. I like the game forces/encourages a variety of fighting styles. However, there is still the matter that what was one feat in 3E is two or three feats in Pathfinder and getting more feats in Pathfinder doesn't mean anything with respect to this. These feat changes are a matter of taste. You like them or you don't.

If you are a disciple of the Tier System, Pathfinder is not for you. If you are enraged by what the Tier System says to you, 3E is not for you. Pathfinder made its choices in spell changes and spellcaster class design. It is still the 3E system. Despite your foaming of the mouth in outrage of 3E magic, other people like it. Those who have switched to Pathfinder like it. It is a feature, not a bug, sorcerers get class abilities based on bloodline. It is a feature, not a bug, wizards get class abilities based on school specialization. It is a feature, not a bug, that metamagic feats exist. It is a feature, not a bug, that Natural Spell, Gate, Stinking Cloud, Righteous Might exist.

[Spuddles]

Other than a few corner cases- paragon surge, infinite wealth, calling, and mailman type damage- I really dont see the argument that spellcasters are stronger in PF.

Virtually evey spell that made casters over 9000 has been nerfed. Sure, wizards and clerics got some minor class features, but 9001-1000+11 is still less than 9000.

The existence of teleport, shrink item, etc., still solidly puts casters in tier 1. Goodbye campaign rails. But there's no DCFS, Shapechange, Zodar, Avasculat, Timestop, or Persistent Spell. Metamagic abuse is virtually non-existant.

Clerics without DMM are kind of a joke. Czilla has always been underwhelming, but with the nerfs to Divine Power, the bread and butter of wanna be fighters, Czilla is definitely not as good in PF as it was in 3.5.

Again, spell nerfs have har a far greater effect on spellcasters than minor buffs to class features.

[eggynack]

Snip
Still, as I mentioned before, they could have just made not tripping and not charging viable without making tripping and charging worse. Your argument seems predicated on the idea that sword and board isn't getting some feat on par with improved trip and knockdown. I don't understand why that should be a premise of anything. I'm not even talking about how wizards are still powerful in PF, even though they are. I'm saying that if you have an underpowered class, you shouldn't nerf them. It's a really simple idea, when you get right down to it. You also shouldn't buff overpowered classes. There's saying that you don't care about fixing the balance of the original game, and there's doing things that remove the limited balance that was already there. This is an example of the latter, and it is, as I noted, a butt.

[Honest Tiefling]

Druids also got hit pretty hard--Now they have to make an actual choice, Wildshape and be a decent caster, or be an awesome caster? Which is probably reason enough to play Pathfinder.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Druids also got hit pretty hard--Now they have to make an actual choice, Wildshape and be a decent caster, or be an awesome caster? Which is probably reason enough to play Pathfinder.More precisely: They require ability scores, now.

[Reverent-One]

But then, y'know, don't actively work to make the game less balanced. If you don't want to go through the effort of balancing combat maneuvers, don't go through half the effort of balancing combat maneuvers, and leave the system worse off in some ways. In other words, they took a half measure, when they should have gone all the way.

Given that - like Squirrel_Dude - I think the game was made more balanced in a way, specifically within the different tiers of power, even if those tiers weren't moved closer together, I wouldn't say they actively worked to make it less so.

[eggynack]

Given that - like Squirrel_Dude - I think the game was made more balanced in a way, specifically within the different tiers of power, even if those tiers weren't moved closer together, I wouldn't say they actively worked to make it less so.
But I'm saying that you don't necessarily have to decrease inter-tier balance if you want inner-tier balance. You can just push the balance of an entire low tier to a higher point. My impression is that the reason they didn't is that they just didn't care about doing so, or didn't understand the balance problems intrinsic to the original game somehow. It's like, I'm saying, "They did this dumb thing," and you're saying, "but look over here, they also did this cool thing." Maybe they did, but that doesn't cause the dumb thing to stop existing. Your point does nothing to stop my point from being true.

[TheIronGolem]

Despite your foaming of the mouth in outrage of 3E magic, other people like it.
Strawman arguments do not count as golems. You don't get experience points for defeating them.


Those who have switched to Pathfinder like it
Do not presume to speak for anyone other than yourself, please. Many of us who switched to Pathfinder still find caster supremacy to be distasteful, despite Pathfinder's numerous improvements. It doesn't make PF a bad game, but it does prevent PF from being nearly as good as it could be.


It is a feature, not a bug, that metamagic feats exist. It is a feature, not a bug, that Natural Spell, Gate, Stinking Cloud, Righteous Might exist.

Another strawman. The bug is not that these things exist, it is the power they grant to render irrelevant characters who don't have those things.

[Reverent-One]

But I'm saying that you don't necessarily have to decrease inter-tier balance if you want inner-tier balance. You can just push the balance of an entire low tier to a higher point. My impression is that the reason they didn't is that they just didn't care about doing so, or didn't understand the balance problems intrinsic to the original game somehow.

Once again, you're missing how this is the more radical change, for a set of rules where backwards compatibility is the primary goal. Perhaps you don't think this is worthwhile, but you should recognize that as far as motivation goes it was their - explicitly stated - goal.


It's like, I'm saying, "They did this dumb thing," and you're saying, "but look over here, they also did this cool thing." Maybe they did, but that doesn't cause the dumb thing to stop existing. Your point does nothing to stop my point from being true.

Your point about them actively making balance worse? No, I don't think that's true at all.

[Psyren]

I have now reproduced the claim, with a direct quote from the Paizo website, made by the Lead Designer, Jason Bulmahn, who explicitly stated that the first goal of Pathfinder is to "Improve the Game."

"Improve the Game" does not mean "fix 3.5's flaws" - especially when nobody can seem to even agree on what those flaws actually are. So no, none of your quotes said that. Perhaps it's the fact that you and so many others assumed that's what it meant why you're grinding the axe that you do.

Perhaps reading what is actually written instead of what you want to see will cause less disappointment for you later in life.


Is it still resisted only by another Forgery check? Because if so it's still kinda...I mean, why?

It's resisted by Linguistics - but a lot more classes have that, and a lot more characters have reason to pick it up, because Decipher Script and Speak Language are oin there too.



As we watched monsters develop between MM1 and MM3 the hp, acs, and abilities continued to scale higher and higher without the CR changing much. More and more templates were developed to increase the power of monsters to add additional defenses, concealment, incorporeal etc. This I interpret was to help balance monsters to the Optimization potential that became available as the number of additional books was released.

You're already mistaken - MM2, a 3.0 book, has far more ridiculous monsters than anything in the later volumes.

[eggynack]

Once again, you're missing how this is the more radical change, for a set of rules where backwards compatibility is the primary goal. Perhaps you don't think this is worthwhile, but you should recognize that as far as motivation goes it was their - explicitly stated - goal.
It's fine, It's a perfectly fine goal. They should just have the other, also goal of not doing anything to reduce the power of low power classes. I'm not even asking that they buff fighters up to be as powerful as wizards. I could, and I do, at least to some extent, but that's not what I'm talking about right now. Could they really not keep backwards compatibility, while also increasing the power of low power options? Seriously, if their primary motivations are maintaining backwards compatibility, and being too lazy to push low power combat maneuvers up in power, why are they the people to listen to about game design?


Your point about them actively making balance worse? No, I don't think that's true at all.
So, you're saying that either old tripping was too powerful, or that new tripping isn't less powerful. Cause my argument is that they did reduce the power of tripping, and that tripping wasn't that powerful. The same goes for charging. Decreasing the power of low power things lowers balance. You can fix the balance to some extent by doing other things, but that doesn't change the reduction in balance from existing.

[bobthe6th]

My issue with the debuff to spiked chain is there are now 0 weapons I would happily spend a feat on. The spiked chain was the model all exotic weapons really needed to follow... it provided new options. Were most others were +1 to damage, it gave you new ways to fight. It was like someone saw how a whip should function, and decided to be nice for once...

On the subject of whips... they decided to be kind and require Whip users spend 2 feats to use them like real weapons, as opposed to never at all(outside of one magic item int the MIC).

I mean really... what is the issue with whips? They seem like a reasonable and fun weapon. Why all the hate?

[Spuddles]

MM1, FF, and MM2 have the most outrageous monsters, and they're all 3.0. 3.5 MM got a few improvements, but monster design was pretty crazt until MM3 or MM4.

[Vortenger]

On the subject of whips... they decided to be kind and require Whip users spend 2 feats to use them like real weapons, as opposed to never at all(outside of one magic item int the MIC).

I mean really... what is the issue with whips? They seem like a reasonable and fun weapon. Why all the hate?

I didn't know there was such a feat. It makes me nostalgic for the 3.X whip-knife. I had hoped PF would allow for a proper Belmont based character. It'll have to do, I suppose...

[Psyren]

I didn't know there was such a feat. It makes me nostalgic for the 3.X whip-knife. I had hoped PF would allow for a proper Belmont based character. It'll have to do, I suppose...

I forget the stats on the whip-knife, but PF has the Meteor Hammer and Rope Dart which I would guess function similarly.

[Reverent-One]

It's fine, It's a perfectly fine goal. They should just have the other, also goal of not doing anything to reduce the power of low power classes. I'm not even asking that they buff fighters up to be as powerful as wizards. I could, and I do, at least to some extent, but that's not what I'm talking about right now. Could they really not keep backwards compatibility, while also increasing the power of low power options?

They did do some of that. They didn't move everything up to the highest end of power, which would most likely require abandoning their compatibility goal.


Seriously, if their primary motivations are maintaining backwards compatibility, and being too lazy to push low power combat maneuvers up in power, why are they the people to listen to about game design?

The second clause does not follow the first.


So, you're saying that either old tripping was too powerful, or that new tripping isn't less powerful. Cause my argument is that they did reduce the power of tripping, and that tripping wasn't that powerful. The same goes for charging. Decreasing the power of low power things lowers balance. You can fix the balance to some extent by doing other things, but that doesn't change the reduction in balance from existing.

No, I'd say the additional balance within the classes is more significant than any change in balance between the classes. Magic beat mundane soundly before, it still beats mundane soundly, with little noticeable change in practice.

[eggynack]

They did do some of that. They didn't move everything up to the highest end of power, which would most likely require abandoning their compatibility goal.
I'm not asking for everything at the highest end of power. I'm talking about everything at the improved trip end of power. That is not the highest end of power. It's nearly at the lowest end of power, on the game's ultimate balance spectrum. Also, how does giving grapple a powerful feat require abandoning their compatibility goal? That just seems inaccurate.




The second clause does not follow the first.
It actually kinda does. A perfectly backwards compatible game could potentially just be the original game, which is about what I'm implying. It's on the hyperbolic end of things, but it's not like the logic is completely contradictory. For example, I could make a game called PG (Pathginder, for the uninitiated) which is functionally identical to 3.5, except it removes most of the good tripping feats from the game. That theoretical game would fulfill both the idea of maintaining backwards compatibility at all costs, and the idea of being too lazy to push the power level of low power stuff for balance purposes. I actually can't understand how the two clauses wouldn't connect.




No, I'd say the additional balance within the classes is more significant than any change in balance between the classes. Magic beat mundane soundly before, it still beats mundane soundly, with little noticeable change in practice.
One thing can be more important than another thing, and the less important thing could still be important. Seriously, your claim just seems like a non sequitur. I'm saying, "They reduced the balance of the game," and you're saying, "But they're not punching you in the face repeatedly. Therefore you're wrong." Your statement is possibly true, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

[Reverent-One]

I'm not asking for everything at the highest end of power. I'm talking about everything at the improved trip end of power. That is not the highest end of power. It's nearly at the lowest end of power, on the game's ultimate balance spectrum. Also, how does giving grapple a powerful feat require abandoning their compatibility goal? That just seems inaccurate.

You're talking about moving everything up to the highest end of existing melee power. Which yes would likely be significant enough to screw with backwards compatibility. If "everything" consisted only of grapple, I would agree that it wouldn't, but it's significantly more than that.


It actually kinda does.

No, not making <insert specific change here> doesn't automatically translate into laziness.


One thing can be more important than another thing, and the less important thing could still be important. Seriously, your claim just seems like a non sequitur. I'm saying, "They reduced the balance of the game," and you're saying, "But they're not punching you in the face repeatedly. Therefore you're wrong." Your statement is possibly true, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Good thing I'm not saying that then. I've already said that I disagree with your assertion about them reducing balance, which is not remotely comparable to them "not punching you in the face repeatedly".

[eggynack]

You're talking about moving everything up to the highest end of existing melee power. Which yes would likely be significant enough to screw with backwards compatibility. If "everything" consisted only of grapple, I would agree that it wouldn't, but it's significantly more than that.
But they could also just add a new couple of high power feats to other combat maneuvers. How does that hurt backwards compatibility at all? I just can't see it. I'm not asking for a complete overhaul of the entire combat maneuver system, even though they kinda did that already by assigning a single number to everything. I'm asking for just a regular old power boost. Maybe they could just increase power some, and maybe not subdivide all of the combat feat chains. Seriously, what's the point of that? Extend spell didn't get the prerequisite of lengthen spell, which multiples the duration of spells by 1.5. That's just weird.




No, not making <insert specific change here> doesn't automatically translate into laziness.
No, but that seems to be your argument. Your claim is that they lowered the power of tripping, because they wanted it in line with other combat maneuvers, and they didn't just push the other maneuvers, because it would have been too hard to do so. That just seems lazy to me.




Good thing I'm not saying that then. I've already said that I disagree with your assertion about them reducing balance, which is not remotely comparable to them "not punching you in the face repeatedly".
How does them reducing the power of tripping not reduce the balance between fighters and higher powered characters? Your counter argument seems to be that that type of balance just isn't as important as your internal class balance, and that counter argument is completely unrelated to what I'm saying

[Beowulf DW]

Gareth, like Psyren before me, I have to say this - being professional means not offending fellow designers. No one needs to know how much you hate SKR or not (specially since everyone knows already).

Screw professionalism, I have nothing but respect for a person who is willing to speak truth to power. If there had been somebody on Paizo from the beginning to give SKR a verbal slap in the face every now and then, things may have turned out just a bit better.

That said, due to the fact that the RL group I'm in consists of very good friends, we tend to go out of our way not to do anything too outrageous, except when the situation becomes dire or we think it would be awesome. As such, I honestly have no complaints about Pathfinder's balance, or anything else about it, really. I particularly enjoy the condensed skills, and now that Path of War is coming out anything that I felt was missing is suddenly right there.

[navar100]

Strawman arguments do not count as golems. You don't get experience points for defeating them.


Do not presume to speak for anyone other than yourself, please. Many of us who switched to Pathfinder still find caster supremacy to be distasteful, despite Pathfinder's numerous improvements. It doesn't make PF a bad game, but it does prevent PF from being nearly as good as it could be.



Another strawman. The bug is not that these things exist, it is the power they grant to render irrelevant characters who don't have those things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

[eggynack]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
How was what he said at all hyperbolic? It seemed pretty straightforward to me. I also thought that what he said was pretty accurate, but that's something of a different matter.

[Reverent-One]

But they could also just add a new couple of high power feats to other combat maneuvers.

That's still not everything. Which originally was what you were asking about.


No, but that seems to be your argument. Your claim is that they lowered the power of tripping, because they wanted it in line with other combat maneuvers, and they didn't just push the other maneuvers, because it would have been too hard to do so. That just seems lazy to me.

No, I said they couldn't change everything because that would conflict with their primary goal. Now, if you're asking why didn't they change <insert specific thing>, can't say specifically, but if they can't change the power level of everything, then some things are going to be left behind, which ones specifically are depend on decisions made behind the scenes we're not aware of.


How does them reducing the power of tripping not reduce the balance between fighters and higher powered characters? Your counter argument seems to be that that type of balance just isn't as important as your internal class balance, and that counter argument is completely unrelated to what I'm saying

Because tripping not giving you an free attack on a trip is insignificant in terms of the power difference between mundanes and spellcasters.

[TheIronGolem]

How was what he said at all hyperbolic? It seemed pretty straightforward to me. I also thought that what he said was pretty accurate, but that's something of a different matter.

I could be wrong, but I think he was saying that his statements were hyperbole, as a defense against my calling strawman on him. Of course, that is not only inaccurate (as he was exaggerating his opponents' positions rather than the established facts, which distinguishes a strawman from "legitimate" hyperbole), but doesn't really help his position, as he's merely trying to trade one form of disingenuous argument for another.

[IronFist]

Because tripping not giving you an free attack on a trip is insignificant in terms of the power difference between mundanes and spellcasters.
Also, there (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/punishing-kick-combat) are (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/vicious-stomp-combat) these (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/greater-trip-combat---final).

[eggynack]

That's still not everything. Which originally was what you were asking about.
It seems that what I was talking about at first is a lot like what I'm talking about now. You keep tripping at the same level or higher, because it wasn't that great, and then you push everything that wasn't at that level up to that level. You could do that by creating new feats, or you could do that by changing the mechanics of combat some (which they already did to some extent, so you'd just change it to approximately that extent, and make it better), or you could condense some of those feat chains instead of lengthening them. If that's everything, I guess I'm talking about everything.




No, I said they couldn't change everything because that would conflict with their primary goal. Now, if you're asking why didn't they change <insert specific thing>, can't say specifically, but if they can't change the power level of everything, then some things are going to be left behind, which ones specifically are depend on decisions made behind the scenes we're not aware of.
How would handing some reasonably high powered feats to each of the combat styles make the game less backwards compatible? It seems like that would put it at about the same level of backwards compatibility that it has now. Maybe you could remove some of the action inefficiency of grappling, or let disarm do that nifty thing where it tosses the weapon in one feat. You keep saying that this would hurt backwards compatibility in some way that's impossible to stop, and you have yet to really substantiate that.




Because tripping not giving you an free attack on a trip is insignificant in terms of the power difference between mundanes and spellcasters.
The two things are very different in power level, granted, but doesn't that just mean that you shouldn't make things worse? That just means that you should try even harder to not nerf fighters, because fighters don't need nerfing. It's kicking them when they're down. Fighters were pretty bad, especially compared to wizards, but they had a few halfway nice things. Now they do not have those things.

[IronFist]

The two things are very different in power level, granted, but doesn't that just mean that you shouldn't make things worse? That just means that you should try even harder to not nerf fighters, because fighters don't need nerfing. It's kicking them when they're down. Fighters were pretty bad, especially compared to wizards, but they had a few halfway nice things. Now they do not have those things.

I take it you have never heard of Weapon Training, Gloves of Dueling, Mobile Fighter or Lorewarden?

[eggynack]

I could be wrong, but I think he was saying that his statements were hyperbole, as a defense against my calling strawman on him. Of course, that is not only inaccurate (as he was exaggerating his opponents' positions rather than the established facts, which distinguishes a strawman from "legitimate" hyperbole), but doesn't really help his position, as he's merely trying to trade one form of disingenuous argument for another.
That would make sense. See, this is why I'm in favor of clarity in language use. Links to wikipedia articles are so ambiguous, especially in this case.

Also, there (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/punishing-kick-combat) are (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/vicious-stomp-combat) these (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/greater-trip-combat---final).
I can't tell what you're saying about these feats. They seem pretty bad, but I don't know if that's necessarily your meaning.

[IronFist]

I can't tell what you're saying about these feats. They seem pretty bad, but I don't know if that's necessarily your meaning.
So getting one free attack on a trip is good and should be the goal for melee.
Getting two free attacks on a trip, however, is bad. Probably because it comes from Pathfinder. Got it.

[Squirrel_Dude]

So getting one free attack on a trip is good and should be the goal for melee.
Getting two free attacks on a trip, however, is bad. Probably because it comes from Pathfinder. Got it.When it's an unarmed strike, so it does 1d4 damage, or you're a monk (well... there is Quiggong), it's not a great attack.

Actually, on the topic of Quiggong monk, if we're going to talk about how Paizo wrecked the fighter we should also give them credit for the best addition to the monk class in any 3e game. Quiggong is possibly the best archetype in terms of improving the base class in the game, and they were cool enough to give it to the class that needed it the most, and then they took it a step further and made it so it stacked with every other archetype.

[Reverent-One]

How would handing some reasonably high powered feats to each of the combat styles make the game less backwards compatible? It seems like that would put it at about the same level of backwards compatibility that it has now. Maybe you could remove some of the action inefficiency of grappling, or let disarm do that nifty thing where it tosses the weapon in one feat. You keep saying that this would hurt backwards compatibility in some way that's impossible to stop, and you have yet to really substantiate that.

No, I keep saying changing everything would hurt backwards compatibility, and then in response you keep talking about a far more limited set of changes and act like that's what I'm talking about. There are no (or perhaps very few) individual changes that cannot, in a vacuum, be made. They obviously made quite a few. Still, if everything cannot be changed, than by definition, some things must remain. There is no clear line before they change too much for too many people. Heck, I've heard complaints that the changes they've made so far hurt backwards compatibility too much (I disagree, but it goes to show how difficult their job is).


The two things are very different in power level, granted, but doesn't that just mean that you shouldn't make things worse? That just means that you should try even harder to not nerf fighters, because fighters don't need nerfing.

Certain individual elements might. Things that made other fighter options pointless would be a prime candidate for that.

[Psyren]

If you are a disciple of the Tier System, Pathfinder is not for you. If you are enraged by what the Tier System says to you, 3E is not for you. Pathfinder made its choices in spell changes and spellcaster class design. It is still the 3E system.

This.



Clerics without DMM are kind of a joke. Czilla has always been underwhelming, but with the nerfs to Divine Power, the bread and butter of wanna be fighters, Czilla is definitely not as good in PF as it was in 3.5.

Again, spell nerfs have har a far greater effect on spellcasters than minor buffs to class features.

This is the major point that a lot of people are missing. They look at the Wizard and say "Holy crap, they still have their bonus feats+familiar and they got school powers and discoveries on top of that?? Broken!" But what they don't look at is PF Grease, or PF Glitterdust, or PF Polymorph etc. And they don't look at PF binding staples like the Nightmare that got nerfed into the floor. There's too much surface-level analysis.

[georgie_leech]

So getting one free attack on a trip is good and should be the goal for melee.
Getting two free attacks on a trip, however, is bad. Probably because it comes from Pathfinder. Got it.

Punishing Kick isn't actually a trip attempt and has limited uses per day, so it doesn't actually trigger an AoO for Greater Trip; that is specific to the Trip maneuver. That said, to get 2 attacks per trip attempt using this method requires 6 feats: Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Greater Trip, Improved Trip, Improved Unarmed Strike, and Vicious Stomp. Even then, one of attacks is an Unarmed, and these extra attacks use AoO attempts. Contrast that with Combat Expertise + Improved Trip with 3.5.

[Terazul]

So getting one free attack on a trip is good and should be the goal for melee.
Getting two free attacks on a trip, however, is bad. Probably because it comes from Pathfinder. Got it.

It also takes 5 feats instead of 2, and requires it to be an unarmed strike, and one of them is a limited number of times per day for something the equivalent of a bullrush or trip.

That is substantially worse than Trip, Get an attack, yes.

Edit: Swordsaged, and better, to boot.

That said, I appreciate some of the changes PF made, but on the whole it just feels like 3.5 with some house rules thrown in, to me. At least I can grab the ones I want and ignore the ones I don't if I'm running something.

[eggynack]

So getting one free attack on a trip is good and should be the goal for melee.
Getting two free attacks on a trip, however, is bad. Probably because it comes from Pathfinder. Got it.
Getting three attacks out of a trip in PF requires combat expertise, combat reflexes, improved trip, greater trip, vicious stomp, improved unarmed strike, and high dexterity. I don't think I'm missing anything with that list, though I may be. Moreover, the vicious stomp extra is done with an unarmed strike, which presumably means that you're not doing this at range, and that you're dealing less damage than you would with a two handed attack. At the very least, you're dealing less damage than you would with a two handed attack in 3.5.

Anyways, getting three attacks out of a trip in 3.5 requires combat expertise, improved trip, and nothing else, if I'm not missing anything. The first attack is the trip, then you get a free high damage attack, and you get a third when the enemy stands up. We can add knockdown to that build, and the three attacks would be on the same turn, as yours are. You're also doing this at range, with a guisarme, because you can. I can do even better if I can use a barbarian for this. These two things are ridiculously different. You're comparing apples and really crappy and terrible apples here.

Edit: Swordsage'd a lot, I think. I'm pretty sure I added something or another though.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Punishing Kick isn't actually a trip attempt and has limited uses per day, so it doesn't actually trigger an AoO for Greater Trip; that is specific to the Trip maneuver. That said, to get 2 attacks per trip attempt using this method requires 6 feats: Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Greater Trip, Improved Trip, Improved Unarmed Strike, and Vicious Stomp. Even then, one of attacks is an Unarmed, and these extra attacks use AoO attempts. Contrast that with Combat Expertise + Improved Trip with 3.5.I have three additions to this.

1. Pathfinder also forces the character to wait until BAB +7 to get Greater trip, when the equivalent is available in 3.5 at level 1.

2. To be fair, Pathfinder also gives players more feats to work with than 3.5 does.

3. I hate Combat Expertise. I know it's random, but that feat is terrible. It's entire purpose is to be a prerequisite to the things we actually want. I have never seen any player use the bonus it gives. All it does it make me use a feat and make sure I have 13 intelligence.

F*** that feat.

[bobthe6th]

unless they 5ft step while prone, or moves otherwise. Its not like being prone limits movement(unless I am wrong... the summery only mentions penilties to attack and AC... nothing about move.)

[eggynack]

No, I keep saying changing everything would hurt backwards compatibility, and then in response you keep talking about a far more limited set of changes and act like that's what I'm talking about. There are no (or perhaps very few) individual changes that cannot, in a vacuum, be made. They obviously made quite a few. Still, if everything cannot be changed, than by definition, some things must remain. There is no clear line before they change too much for too many people. Heck, I've heard complaints that the changes they've made so far hurt backwards compatibility too much (I disagree, but it goes to show how difficult their job is).

I'm pretty sure that I've always been talking about this very specific and particular thing, which is the poor quality of PF combat abilities. Now that I'm looking more into it, the base problem here seems to be the ridiculous length of feat chains on melee classes, compared to wizard classes who apparently get their feats relatively unsplit.

[Squirrel_Dude]

unless they 5ft step while prone, or moves otherwise. Its not like being prone limits movement(unless I am wrong... the summery only mentions penilties to attack and AC... nothing about move.)Most would probably assume that if you're moving while prone (which you can do) you're crawling, which provokes AOOs.

[ShadowFighter15]

unless they 5ft step while prone, or moves otherwise. Its not like being prone limits movement(unless I am wrong... the summery only mentions penilties to attack and AC... nothing about move.)

Even if they can, I think there's a feat martial characters can take that lets them follow an enemy when they make a 5-foot-step. Can't recall anything about it more than that, though.

[georgie_leech]

2. To be fair, Pathfinder also gives players more feats to work with than 3.5 does.


Actually, Getting Imp. Trip in 3.5 uses about 28.6% of your Feat resources (11% for Fighters), while getting Greater Trip needs 30% (14.3% for Fighters). Pathfinder Tripping is actually more feat intensive, weirdly enough. :smallconfused:

[bobthe6th]

Think it is a maneuver, but that is another feat over just the improved trip chain.

Also, thing I miss in all the PF books... Maneuvers. Were is my favorite magic system? (I say this because I tend to build using shadow jaunt and other explicitly magical maneuvers.)

[Reverent-One]

I'm pretty sure that I've always been talking about this very specific and particular thing, which is the poor quality of PF combat abilities.

Of which there are a metric ton. And as for what you've said in the past:


Wouldn't it have been just as easy to keep the high end melee tricks at the same power level, relative to the rest of the game, and then raise the power of the other melee tricks?

You did not limit which melee tricks you were talking about here. Thus implying the entire metric ton of tricks (Combat Manuevers, fighting styles, random tricks granted by specific feats, ect).

[Squirrel_Dude]

Even if they can, I think there's a feat martial characters can take that lets them follow an enemy when they make a 5-foot-step. Can't recall anything about it more than that, though.It's Step-up. It's actually more than straight following them. You are allowed to immediately take a 5 ft. step when they do, and the only requirement is you end your turn adjacent to them. Unfortunately you also give up the 5 ft. step on your turn.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Think it is a maneuver, but that is another feat over just the improved trip chain.

Also, thing I miss in all the PF books... Maneuvers. Were is my favorite magic system? (I say this because I tend to build using shadow jaunt and other explicitly magical maneuvers.)1. Dreamscarred Press Announces Path fo War
(http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=296871)

2. Like with Psionics, Paizo wasn't a fan of how maneuvers were implemented, and so they haven't yet cared to approach that topic. Also like Psionics, ToB was a pretty controversial book, so Paizo probably didn't want to take the risk.

[TheIronGolem]

3. I hate Combat Expertise. I know it's random, but that feat is terrible. It's entire purpose is to be a prerequisite to the things we actually want. I have never seen any player use the bonus it gives. All it does it make me use a feat and make sure I have 13 intelligence.

F*** that feat.

Eh, I've used it on a character who had a "dodge tank" theme going on. It did okay when we were swamped with mooks. Still, that's a situational thing (and in retrospect I think the DM might have contrived that situation just for my sake), and it's a poor choice mechanically overall.

Combat Expertise is really how the "fighting defensively" option ought to work out of the gate; you shouldn't need to take it as a feat. Ditto for Power Attack and its cousins.

And yeah, Int 13 as a prerequisite? Not only does that not make sense, it adds an unnecessary ability-point tax to martial characters who want to take any of the hordes of feats for which CE is a prerequisite.

[IronFist]

It also takes 5 feats instead of 2, and requires it to be an unarmed strike, and one of them is a limited number of times per day for something the equivalent of a bullrush or trip.

That is substantially worse than Trip, Get an attack, yes.
For me, it comes down to tripping being an option instead of something you must do. You can make a very kickass tripper in PF. In 3.5, if you are not doing a tripper, you're pretty much doing it wrong.
It's what Psyren was talking about - PF tries to balance similar options with each other. Feinting is a lot better in PF, for example, with access to stuff like Improved Two-weapon Feint. When criticizing ignores most of the design philosophy for "it took less feats to trip before", I can only disagree.

[The Random NPC]

I have three additions to this.

1. Pathfinder also forces the character to wait until BAB +7 to get Greater trip, when the equivalent is available in 3.5.

2. To be fair, Pathfinder also gives players more feats to work with than 3.5 does.

3. I hate Combat Expertise. I know it's random, but that feat is terrible. It's entire purpose is to be a prerequisite to the things we actually want. I have never seen any player use the bonus it gives. All it does it make me use a feat and make sure I have 13 intelligence.

F*** that feat.

They give you three extra feats. They also split a lot of the feats so I feel it is a wash at best.

[eggynack]

You did not limit which melee tricks you were talking about here. Thus implying the entire metric ton of tricks (Combat Manuevers, fighting styles, random tricks granted by specific feats, ect).
I was mostly just figuring stuff that's like tripping, so combat maneuvers. Combat maneuvers are pretty much the backbone of melee optimization, so pushing those would be enough to keep relative balance within the tiers. You could also presumably give some power to things that aren't two handed fighting, possibly through the use of the improved combat maneuvers. For example, getting shield bash up to around tripping's power level would make sword and board somewhere near viable. You could say the same for unarmed strike and grappling. I'm not talking about world shaking and extensive changes. I'm just talking about changes such that old tripping is a balanced option within the tier.

[Terazul]

3. I hate Combat Expertise. I know it's random, but that feat is terrible. It's entire purpose is to be a prerequisite to the things we actually want. I have never seen any player use the bonus it gives. All it does it make me use a feat and make sure I have 13 intelligence.

F*** that feat.
Yeaaah. I used it a few times when I was really getting beat on, but it's usually filler in most builds. The exception being that time I used that Dragon Mag feat that grants you an AoO against the first person that missed you, and combining it with other shenanigans.

I do have a general complaint that while everyone says Pathfinder gives you more feats (which it does!), you generally have to take longer chains to accomplish the same results anyway, so it comes to about the same or worse. For example, the trip combo we're discussing at this moment.

[bobthe6th]

I have used it in arenas... great to have that +5 to AC when arrows are coming from behind cornners and you lack a shield.

[Reverent-One]

I was mostly just figuring stuff that's like tripping, so combat maneuvers.

Charging, which you've also talked about, isn't a combat maneuver. Nor are several of the other things you mentioned in the rest of your post (combat styles not two handed weapons, shield bash). So you seem to be discussing every possible mundane combat option, not just maneuvers.

[Psyren]

I think the feat-tallying is missing the point a bit. The 3.5 feats are still there; if you feel like Fighters are getting the short end of the stick, keep the PF feat allotments and reintroduce the 3.5 feat chains.

It's the same reason Paizo hasn't tackled Psionics or ToB - there were (and still are) plenty of tables out there that consider things like Dungeoncrasher and Robilar's Gambit to be broken beyond belief, and those same tables don't realize the golden rule of Psi or get apoplexy at the thought of a Warblade. Most of us here on messasge boards know better, and we have the system mastery to make these fixes ourselves. It's much easier for PF to design towards the simpler common denominator and trust the DMs to make the melee-friendly tweaks they deem necessary.

And you can't even claim they're charging you for the privilege since the whole thing is completely free.

[eggynack]

Charging, which you've also talked about, isn't a combat maneuver. Nor are several of the other things you mentioned in the rest of your post (combat styles not two handed weapons, shield bash). So you seem to be discussing every possible mundane combat option, not just maneuvers.
I think I was just using a potentially inaccurate term, rather than actively listing things outside of my brain list. I'm pretty sure that my list is comprised of important mundane options off of the special attacks list (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm). That'd presumably be that list, minus aid another, throw splash weapon, and turn or rebuke undead. That looks like it covers just about everything, and isn't entirely unreasonable. It'd mostly involve reworking the feats associated with those attacks, and maybe inventing some new ones. You could also kick some of the options out of the game, if they don't seem workable at a power level that's reasonably similar to tripping. You could even keep some as is, because PF seems to have no qualms with having some really poor options.

[Psyren]

You could even keep some as is, because PF seems to have no qualms with having some really poor options.

Poor options are not necessarily a bad thing. People often (mis)quote Monte Cook's design article about so-called "trap options" here, but I think there is merit to what he was trying to say (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2498/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-ivory-tower-design); namely that not every feat is meant for you and your max-power 1-20 or even 1-12 game, but that the game didn't do a great job of spelling out which feats were for whom.

Paizo didn't either - but frankly, I thought then and think now that their energy is better spent elsewhere. Look how many people are lining up to throw themselves at making handbooks for the game and redlining those very same feats - all for no time or money, because we enjoy doing it. At least in PF, we can talk about their feats properly (reproducing the text as needed) without getting the poor Giant slapped with a C&D.

[IronFist]

Look how many people are lining up to throw themselves at making handbooks for the game and redlining those very same feats - all for no time or money, because we enjoy doing it.
Please finish the Soulknife handbook. :smallbiggrin:

[eggynack]

Poor options are not necessarily a bad thing. People often (mis)quote Monte Cook's design article about so-called "trap options" here, but I think there is merit to what he was trying to say (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2498/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-ivory-tower-design); namely that not every feat is meant for you and your max-power 1-20 or even 1-12 game, but that the game didn't do a great job of spelling out which feats were for whom.

Paizo didn't either - but frankly, I thought then and think now that their energy is better spent elsewhere. Look how many people are lining up to throw themselves at making handbooks for the game and redlining those very same feats - all for no time or money, because we enjoy doing it. At least in PF, we can talk about their feats properly (reproducing the text as needed) without getting the poor Giant slapped with a C&D.
My general stance is that having some trap options is alright on the feat level, because that's all about build optimization, and that can be intrinsically interesting. However, I don't think it's alright on the class level, at least to this extent. People shouldn't be burdened with these levels of weakness after their very first choice in the game. My general philosophy, as far as solutions go, is that it would be alright if class imbalance were explicit, rather than something that it takes deep system knowledge to understand. That'd mean having something like the tier system within the actual contents of the book.

[Psyren]

Please finish the Soulknife handbook. :smallbiggrin:

All right all right :smalltongue: that Deadly Fist thread did rekindle me a bit!


My general stance is that having some trap options is alright on the feat level, because that's all about build optimization, and that can be intrinsically interesting. However, I don't think it's alright on the class level, at least to this extent. People shouldn't be burdened with these levels of weakness after their very first choice in the game. My general philosophy, as far as solutions go, is that it would be alright if class imbalance were explicit, rather than something that it takes deep system knowledge to understand. That'd mean having something like the tier system within the actual contents of the book.

But you're assuming that this "weakness" is something that people aren't actively seeking out. Fighter is primarily for people that just want something simple to play, either because they are (a) new to the game in general, (b) bored with more complicated classes, or (c) looking for an optimization challenge. Are there some folks that misconstrue the power level of the class? Sure, but I posit that those players are very few. Tons of other RPGs, e.g. Diablo, Ultima and Final Fantasy, give the fighter classes nothing to do but attack. So the expectation is set in other systems besides 3.5/PF.

I'll quote the Giant again:

4e Roy: "Right! Because sometimes you might want balance, and other times, you might not mind one member of the team solving all of the problems."

3e Roy: "Right. Just like sometimes, you might want a wealth of strategic options that reward creativity, and other times you just want to pick your actions off a short menu without really thinking about it."

*they begin bickering*

[eggynack]

But you're assuming that this "weakness" is something that people aren't actively seeking out. Fighter is primarily for people that just want something simple to play, either because they are (a) new to the game in general, (b) bored with more complicated classes, or (c) looking for an optimization challenge. Are there some folks that misconstrue the power level of the class? Sure, but I posit that those players are very few. Tons of other RPGs, e.g. Diablo, Ultima and Final Fantasy, give the fighter classes nothing to do but attack. So the expectation is set in other systems besides 3.5/PF.

What I said supports that idea entirely. You just write, "This class is pretty frigging weak," next to fighters, and then the decision is in the hands of the player. That's what I was saying about the tier system. If it were an actual component of the books, then players and DM's could make informed decisions about how they want their game to run. You make the people who misconstrue the power of the class happy, because now they won't do that, and you make people who want to be a fighter happy, because they can totally do that. There're a number of different ways that this idea could be implemented, some more involved than others, but the general goal of class transparency remains the same.

[Keneth]

PF fighters work just fine in non-theoretical situations. So do barbarians, paladins, or rogues. Pathfinder has some sweet options and it has some horrible options, just like 3.5 does. And honestly, at this point people are just pointing fingers at anything that lets them say "my system is so much better than that piece of crap," even when the presented issue is virtually meaningless.

I play Pathfinder because, after all these years, there are just too many good things about it for me to ever want to switch back to 3.5. But that in no way means that I have to take the good with the bad, that's what backward compatibility and house rules are for. Rule 0 is no excuse for the flaws of a system, but it does fix everything when used correctly with care.

[Talya]

Some of us did not feel balance was a major problem in 3.5.

Which isn't to say things were balanced, they aren't. But it's not a tactical miniatures game, it's an RPG, and the lack of balance can be controlled. I, personally, agree, that magic should have potential that the mundane should never ever have -- or else, there's no point to magic, and it ceases to be magic.

[Psyren]

What I said supports that idea entirely. You just write, "This class is pretty frigging weak," next to fighters, and then the decision is in the hands of the player.

But that's still not true - Fighters are capable of massive amounts of damage for example, in both editions; they just aren't capable of much else. But any class that can two-shot a Balor can't realistically be called "frigging weak."

A better tag to write is that they're very straightforward - but as I pointed out with my "other RPG" examples, they really don't have to, just about everybody knows fighters are straightforward.

Now if anyone needs a disclaimer it's the monk, the class really isn't for anyone except as a dip or a challenge.


That's what I was saying about the tier system. If it were an actual component of the books, then players and DM's could make informed decisions about how they want their game to run.

But then you run the risk of turning off newcomers by putting in all that information up front. Can you imagine if the tier system was given a section in the core rules? It would be instantly intimidating. Look how many people are misreading it even now to say that "Fighters are bad and you're bad for wanting to play one" or that "Wizards are awesome at everything and can never die no matter how badly you play them." And those are just the ones we know about, i.e. the ones coming to forums to ask "is this really what it means?" How many would just pick up the book, read that section, get instantly put off, and pick up a different game instead? And hell, even we can't agree on the tier of things like Bard, Warlock, Warblade, Wu Jen, Truenamer etc., and that's not even getting into PrCs and ACFs...

It's much better to let people come to that realization on their own than confuse them trying to kludge in an explanation up front.



You make the people who misconstrue the power of the class happy, because now they won't do that, and you make people who want to be a fighter happy, because they can totally do that. There're a number of different ways that this idea could be implemented, some more involved than others, but the general goal of class transparency remains the same.

Again, I don't think there are enough "misconstruers" to cater to them via metagame rankings or recommendations. Again, I would easily guess that the majority of folks who play fighter do so because they want something simple, either as a break from their more complicated routine, as a challenge, or because they're new and just want to sit down with friends and play something that lets them skip the "Spells" chapter. They're okay with not having the spotlight because they don't want it anyway.

In addition, transparency is a noble goal on its face, but it comes at the cost of discovery and depth. Putting aside the disheartening feeling of being told up front that your chosen class is weak and another one is strong (whether or not your playstyle/knowledge actually let you tap into/realize that strength), coming to that realization on your own and then wanting to try a more powerful option like multiclassing or a gish-in-a-can like Magus/Duskblade is much more rewarding in the long run. Put another way - if the water is crystal clear, you can already see the bottom, so why bother diving?


Some of us did not feel balance was a major problem in 3.5.

Which isn't to say things were balanced, they aren't. But it's not a tactical miniatures game, it's an RPG, and the lack of balance can be controlled. I, personally, agree, that magic should have potential that the mundane should never ever have -- or else, there's no point to magic, and it ceases to be magic.

All of this.

[Big Fau]

"Improve the Game" does not mean "fix 3.5's flaws" - especially when nobody can seem to even agree on what those flaws actually are. So no, none of your quotes said that. Perhaps it's the fact that you and so many others assumed that's what it meant why you're grinding the axe that you do.

They had facts upon facts laid out before them during the Open Beta, and they outright ignored a huge amount of research from people who knew what they were doing.


Actually, on the topic of Quiggong monk, if we're going to talk about how Paizo wrecked the fighter we should also give them credit for the best addition to the monk class in any 3e game. Quiggong is possibly the best archetype in terms of improving the base class in the game, and they were cool enough to give it to the class that needed it the most, and then they took it a step further and made it so it stacked with every other archetype.

I hate it when people bring that up. All they did was admit that the Monk's class features sucked, and then gave it a way to replace those features with spells.

At that point you might as well play a Magus or Gish Wizard.


This is the major point that a lot of people are missing. They look at the Wizard and say "Holy crap, they still have their bonus feats+familiar and they got school powers and discoveries on top of that?? Broken!" But what they don't look at is PF Grease, or PF Glitterdust, or PF Polymorph etc. And they don't look at PF binding staples like the Nightmare that got nerfed into the floor. There's too much surface-level analysis.

They didn't do very much to spells beyond 5th level. I'd wager that PF Wish is vastly more powerful than 3.5 Wish. Conjuration and Transmutation are still the best schools, and Wizards lose next to nothing for specializing. Spells like Teleport still exist, and they still ruin campaigns if the DM doesn't go out of his way to prepare for them.

The low-level spells were just the tip of the iceberg, and Paizo decided to take the long way around rather than deal with the rest of it. Encounter-ending spells, like Glitterdust or Black Tentacles, were fine in my book, I'm alright with my players being able to curb-stomp enemies. I'm not fine with a single character being able to completely annihilate a module's plot just because I forgot about a single spell. Hell, I'm not OK with that even when I'm the player doing it!

[kaminiwa]

"Improve the Game" does not mean "fix 3.5's flaws" - especially when nobody can seem to even agree on what those flaws actually are. So no, none of your quotes said that. Perhaps it's the fact that you and so many others assumed that's what it meant why you're grinding the axe that you do.

Um... I don't have an axe. Really. Honest. :smallsmile:

I don't have any opinion on Pathfinder vs 3.5 because I've never played PF or even read the rulebook. I'm guessing you're used to fending off people who are trying to twist this quotation. That's not me. I'm just trying to establish that Buhlman made "fixing 3.5's flaws" one of his goals as Pathfinder's lead designer.

I'm not saying it was the top goal. I'm not saying that he promised to Fix Everything. I'm just saying that he wanted Pathfinder to move in that direction, to fix at least a few minor aspects.

I quote Buhlman directly: "The 3.5 rules set is excellent, but it has its flaws [...] I wanted the Pathfinder RPG to clean up these rules."

That's all I'm saying, is that Buhlman Himself stated, officially, that "cleaning up the flaws of the 3.5 rules set" / "fix 3.5's flaws" was a goal of Pathfinder.

There is no ulterior motive, there is no argument over whether he succeeded, because, again, I've never even read the rulebook :smalltongue:



Every time this so-called "claim" surfaces nobody is able to reproduce it.


I saw an opportunity to have some fun with my research skills, so I found the original quote for you. That's all I was doing here.

[Psyren]

They had facts upon facts laid out before them during the Open Beta, and they outright ignored a huge amount of research from people who knew what they were doing.

1) As I pointed out repeatedly above, the game wasn't just made for optimizers. There were plenty of groups out there for whom the Fighter was fine. "Fixing" it and alienating those groups was too heavy a risk, not when they could choose to slip in archetypes, feats and conversions later instead for the more op-minded folks.

2) Judging from places like BG or 339, I can only imagine the manner in which this "helpful research" was delivered.



I hate it when people bring that up. All they did was admit that the Monk's class features sucked, and then gave it a way to replace those features with spells.

At that point you might as well play a Magus or Gish Wizard.

It was a good compromise. Those who are fine with the monk as-is get their standard monk, those who want "monk, but a little better" have other archetypes to choose from like MoMS and Tetori, and those who want a full-blown fix have ZA and Qinggong. Everybody wins.


They didn't do very much to spells beyond 5th level. I'd wager that PF Wish is vastly more powerful than 3.5 Wish.

You've got to be kidding. It can't even create items! Did you even read it before saying that?



Conjuration and Transmutation are still the best schools, and Wizards lose next to nothing for specializing. Spells like Teleport still exist, and they still ruin campaigns if the DM doesn't go out of his way to prepare for them.

Banning one potentially disruptive spell isn't really "going out of your way." The primary goal was backwards compatibility, so removing such an iconic tool from the utility belt would have been noticed and decried - much the same way that 4e's 20 square teleport is being ridiculed even now.



The low-level spells were just the tip of the iceberg, and Paizo decided to take the long way around rather than deal with the rest of it. Encounter-ending spells, like Glitterdust or Black Tentacles, were fine in my book, I'm alright with my players being able to curb-stomp enemies.

They can still end encounters, it just takes more bad luck on the enemies part.



I'm not fine with a single character being able to completely annihilate a module's plot just because I forgot about a single spell. Hell, I'm not OK with that even when I'm the player doing it!

Again, if one spell is "completely annihilating your module," ban it! Shocking!

[Talya]

All of this.

I'll take it further:

I really like pathfinder, having looked through it, and playing a witch and an oracle. I will say, I'm tempted to continue using 3.5 polymorph spells and druid wildshape in my PF games, just the same.

Oh, I know why they did it. I can even understand it. However, there are certain fantasy ideas that are workable in 3.5 that aren't nearly so useful in PF. For me, characters like Maleficent in Disney's Sleeping Beauty (I could go on naming similar ones, but when my second was Jafar turning into a giant snake, I realized that my impending trip to Orlando was influencing my examples) are staples of fantasy. Shapeshifting spellcasters are much harder to pull off in PF, not without sacrifices that make them far less viable spellcasters.

Also, Bardic feat support...I need to import half of 3.5's options to make bards the way I like them.

[Keneth]

Pathfinder did clean up and fix a good deal of rules though. No one ever stated they were out to fix everything. Hell, there are plenty of things that they intentionally decided not to fix, even though they've shown on several occasions that they recognize the problem and know how to tackle it. The way I see it, they did their job well enough to attract a lot of people, and with multiple accessories still being released on a monthly basis, the player base is steadily growing.

[Psyren]

I quote Buhlman directly: "The 3.5 rules set is excellent, but it has its flaws [...] I wanted the Pathfinder RPG to clean up these rules."

That's all I'm saying, is that Buhlman Himself stated, officially, that "cleaning up the flaws of the 3.5 rules set" / "fix 3.5's flaws" was a goal of Pathfinder.

"Clean up the rules" and "fix 3.5's flaws" are not the same thing.

The change to CMB/CMD was a cleanup. It doesn't change a thing about linear warriors/quadratic wizards. Buhlman did not say what you think he did.



I saw an opportunity to have some fun with my research skills, so I found the original quote for you. That's all I was doing here.

Your research skills aren't what I have an issue with, it's your reading comprehension of what you think you've found that's causing the disconnect here.

[kaminiwa]

"Clean up the rules" and "fix 3.5's flaws" are not the same thing.

Your research skills aren't what I have an issue with, it's your reading comprehension of what you think you've found that's causing the disconnect here.

Like I said, no axe. While you may feel that "fix" and "clean up" are clearly distinct concepts, I'm used to them being basically synonyms. Language can be weird like that. I'm guessing you're from the States, so it might be helpful to point out that my English is a hodge-podge of States, Canadian, British, and Australian. It's my native language (and my only one!), but I'm aware there's a lot of different ways to speak it.

My point is simply that the claim is now properly sourced and reproduced. I don't give an axe how it's interpreted. Use it to prove that he really did say "clean" instead of "fix" for all I care. Just don't dismiss it as something unsourced, 'cause it isn't :)

[Psyren]

Like I said, no axe. While you may feel that "fix" and "clean up" are clearly distinct concepts, I'm used to them being basically synonyms.

And that's fine for you, but nobody told you they were in this context. You assumed that. So taking someone else's words to fit the meaning you want them to is neither fair to that person nor ultimately accurate.

So when you're able to research and actually find a quote where they promised to fix 3.5, you can get back to me then. I have yet to see one.

(Also, I live in the States, but I'm not American at all. I'm from the Caribbean.)

[kaminiwa]

And that's fine for you, but nobody told you they were in this context. You assumed that. So taking someone else's words to fit the meaning you want them to is neither fair to that person nor ultimately accurate.

Now mate, that's not fair play at all, is it? Bit of a double standard, really! What makes it fair for you to assume that Buhlman used the words the way you use them, and not the way I use them?

[Talya]

Personally, I don't take my car to the mechanic to be cleaned. Nor do I vacuum it when it won't start.

Fixing and Cleaning have very different connations. One makes an assumption that something is broken, the other does not.

[Psyren]

Now mate, that's not fair play at all, is it? Bit of a double standard, really! What makes it fair for you to assume that Buhlman used the words the way you use them, and not the way I use them?

Because I know what "clean" and "fix" mean? What kind of question is that?

[kaminiwa]

Personally, I don't take my car to the mechanic to be cleaned. Nor do I vacuum it when it won't start.

Fixing and Cleaning have very different connations. One makes an assumption that something is broken, the other does not.

Ahh, but context is important too! If someone said they were going to clean up the problems with your car, make sure it's no longer "the huge headache that it was", that'd be a mechanic's work, eh? Fixing sort of work?

Buhlman, he was talking about how 3.5 "has its flaws" and "common problems", and he wanted Pathfinder to "clean up these rules", so that "it is no longer the huge headache that it was."

[kaminiwa]

Because I know what "clean" and "fix" mean? What kind of question is that?

What I'm trying to say is, words mean different things in different dialects. Like, in the States, "boot" means footwear, and in Britan, "boot" is the place you store your luggage on the way to the airport. Does that make sense?

So, we both know what the words "clean" and "fix" mean. It's just that I assume one dialect, where it'd be acceptable to use 'em as synonyms, and you assume another dialect, where they ain't, yeah? Still with me?

So what I'm saying is, given there's two different interpretations, based on which dialect you assume Buhlman was using, why is it that I ought to assume your dialect is the correct interpretation? You ken the question now?

(Edit: If not, might be worth your time to poke the old Alpha forum archives. Lots of people there celebrating the "fixing" of 3.5, and I've seen nary a soul pointing out that Buhlman said "clean". I'm really not alone in viewing these as synonyms in this context :))

[Psyren]

Ahh, but context is important too! If someone said they were going to clean up the problems with your car, make sure it's no longer "the huge headache that it was", that'd be a mechanic's work, eh? Fixing sort of work?

But they did do that. "Clean up" means "improve," not "absolutely repair everything forever." And CMB/CMD is less of a headache - you compare two numbers, done.



So what I'm saying is, given there's two different interpretations, based on which dialect you assume Buhlman was using, why is it that I ought to assume your dialect is the correct interpretation? You ken the question now?

Which brings us right back to my original statement, that if you read the more extensive/absolute meaning into someone's words, you're only setting yourself up for disappointment. If someone promises to clean up your house and you assume that means replacing your broken window, you have no reason to get upset when you come home and it's still damaged (but the floor's been vacuumed.)

And considering that you leaped into this fray with a number of wrong assumptions from the start, it's not hard for me to imagine that this is just one more misreading on your part.



(Edit: If not, might be worth your time to poke the old Alpha forum archives. Lots of people there celebrating the "fixing" of 3.5, and I've seen nary a soul pointing out that Buhlman said "clean". I'm really not alone in viewing these as synonyms in this context :))

I know you're not alone, but a hundred wrong people are still wrong.

[Stux]

Does PF fix 3.5? Not really, though it depends what your problems with 3.5 are. It changes a lot of things though, some you might agree with, some you might not. It doesn't really address balance at all, if that is what you were expecting from it.

Is it more fun to play? Totally up to personal preferences of you and your group, but in my opinion yes.

Are you missing something? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it just doesn't appeal to you and that is fair enough.

[Gnaeus]

Psyren, I think you are arguing with the wrong person here.

You stated that the claims that PF was going to fix the system were unsourced. Kaminiwa sourced them. He sourced them with direct quotations that at least strongly imply in context, if not clearly state, that those were design goals. Given that PF did, indeed, make changes which were cearly intended as fixes to some problems, that strongly supports this interpretation.

Whether they fixed enough, or anything at all, are not things that Kaminiwa are arguing, and I think he has stated that he has no opinion on. I do not see any misconceptions that he brought to the argument. He has stated that he is not a PF expert, and merely provided research support, which should be commended.

But given his quotes, I am persuaded that they did intend to fix things that they saw as problems in an otherwise good system.

[Psyren]

You stated that the claims that PF was going to fix the system were unsourced. Kaminiwa sourced them.

No, she didn't. None of Kaminiwa's quotes say "PF was going to fix the system." Not one. That's the whole point.

[Yora]

I think it was just wishful thinking of everyone when it became known that they would be changing some things.
Though a completely justified assumption that when people change something, they are going to remove some problems and add some improvements.

[kaminiwa]

Psyren, I think you are arguing with the wrong person here.

You stated that the claims that PF was going to fix the system were unsourced. Kaminiwa sourced them. He sourced them with direct quotations that at least strongly imply in context, if not clearly state, that those were design goals. Given that PF did, indeed, make changes which were cearly intended as fixes to some problems, that strongly supports this interpretation.

Whether they fixed enough, or anything at all, are not things that Kaminiwa are arguing, and I think he has stated that he has no opinion on. I do not see any misconceptions that he brought to the argument. He has stated that he is not a PF expert, and merely provided research support, which should be commended.

But given his quotes, I am persuaded that they did intend to fix things that they saw as problems in an otherwise good system.

Thanks you, and spot on. It's reassuring to know that at least one person understood what I was saying, and appreciated the research!

<--- Oh, and, uh, it's "she", but no worries :)

[Gnaeus]

No, she didn't. None of Kaminiwa's quotes say "PF was going to fix the system." Not one. That's the whole point.

I'm sorry, Psyren. I am immune to spells with the "reclassification/definition" descriptor. "smoothing over rough spots in the rules set", "cleaning up these rules", "Streamlining", "evening out choices". These things can all be defined as fixing. MOST ESPECIALLY when they are accompanied by actions which are quite obviously intended as fixes. They said they were going to fix the game, although not in those exact words. Then they tried to fix things that they saw as problems.

Did he say he was going to solve all the problems in 3.5? No. But if someone says they tried to fix 3.5, there is lots of ammunition there for that claim. That is not out of context, it is a clear understanding based on their words + their actions. Making analogies with cars and vacuum cleaners is not helpful.

Did they fix parts of 3.5? IMO yes.
Did they fix everything wrong with 3.5? IMO no.
Was 3.5 broken and actually need fixing? IMO no.
Did they come up with a result that was overall better than 3.5? IMO yes.
Did the PF design team display both really bad judgment and profound lack of system mastery in picking and implementing fixes? IMO yes.
Does arguing about the definition of fix help anyone know anything? No.


<--- Oh, and, uh, it's "she", but no worries :)
Sorry. And you pointed that out earlier, and I read it, then forgot it. My bad.

[Turion]

I'm sorry, Psyren. I am immune to spells with the "reclassification/definition" descriptor. "smoothing over rough spots in the rules set", "cleaning up these rules", "Streamlining", "evening out choices". These things can all be defined as fixing. MOST ESPECIALLY when they are accompanied by actions which are quite obviously intended as fixes. They said they were going to fix the game, although not in those exact words. Then they tried to fix things that they saw as problems.


eh...
"Fixing" entails cleanup. The reverse is not necessarily true, however. I'd find it fairly easy to clean up Tome of Magic (actually organizing the vestiges, and making sure all the truenamer-whatsits had DCs, for a start), but I wouldn't want to touch Truenamer with a standard issue 10-foot pole, which a fix would necessarily require.

[Reverent-One]

But if someone says they tried to fix 3.5, there is lots of ammunition there for that claim.

No, there isn't, you said so yourself.


Did he say he was going to solve all the problems in 3.5? No.

Fixing 3.5 means solving all the problems. Saying there's a few things one wants to fix doesn't mean you're fixing the whole thing.

[LordBlades]

1) As I pointed out repeatedly above, the game wasn't just made for optimizers. There were plenty of groups out there for whom the Fighter was fine. "Fixing" it and alienating those groups was too heavy a risk, not when they could choose to slip in archetypes, feats and conversions later instead for the more op-minded folks.



To my knowledge (most of it hearsay, but hearsay from people with quite good reputation), Paizo did ask (or at least showed willingness to receive) feedback on PF early on, and when people offered said feedback, they chose to silence those whose opinions they didn't like.

Also, I've lurked a bit around Paizo boards a while ago, and SKR doesn't seem to take divergence of opinion very well. That, and he has proven to be quite ignorant about the inner workings of 3.5 (for those interested, this might prove a comical read: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html)

[Abaddona]

Psyren - would you kindly explain to me why designer of PF was talking about "bad rules" in same sentence in which he said that rules are messy and he want to clean them up? Going by your example: if someone keeps talking about broken window in the kitchen and cleaning things then in my humble opinion it's certainle fair on my part to assume that he meant to "fix the window" and not only "clean the floor".

Also when people are talking about players who wants easy rules - did something was "not easy" about 3.5 Power Attack rules? Basically you take -1 from BAB, you add +1 (or +2) to Damage - making other feats scaling in similiar ways (for example Weapon Focus giving +1 to your BAB for every 5 character levels) in no way would make them far more complicated. Not mentioning that lengthening feat chains and dividing single feat into several is actually example of making rules more complex.

[Jade_Tarem]

Having played a *lot* of Pathfinder Society lately, I'll admit to being a bit bamboozled by the general content of this thread.

I've extensively played both 3.5 and Pathfinder. Mind you, Society piles on a few new rules, and effectively ends the moment you hit level 12, and also bans some of the cheesier things (lookin' at YOU, synthesist summoner).

Yes, there is some imbalance between the classes... no one is going to argue that an optimized rogue can take an optimized summoner or wizard in combat. I still maintain that PF is a better system. But why?

Well... the PvP thing is a bit silly, to be honest. It's schlong-measuring and has no place in a game that should be about team tactics. It doesn't matter that my Feyblood Sorcerer could easily enchant the fighter and the barbarian into killing each other, because I need those guys when a Glass Golem crashes through the wall like the world's nastiest Kool-Aid man.

Meanwhile, the fighter has tons of combat options. He fights with a gauntlet and as shield, and the shield is his primary weapon. He uses it to push enemies around the battlefield, into the pits I create, into lighting bolt formation, or just into walls so he can beat the tar out of them as they drop prone. His feat chain lets him increase the AC of nearby allies or even take hits for them. Sometimes he just dual-wields for a ton of damage. Without him our party would have TPK'd many times over - even if he was replaced with another caster. Same goes for the barbarian and his raging anti-spellcaster berserking. Or the Alchemist dropping stink bombs and actual explosives everywhere. Or the Oracle making enemies reroll every time they might crit while trying to set them on fire.

It's a lot of fun. I like the simplification of the skills, the expansion of the combat feats, the lack of dead levels, the way archetypes and new classes basically replaced prestige classes (maybe I was just nostaligic for the old "kits"). I like the changes made to polymorph and enchantment. I even like the rogue class, because I understand that my job is to have the skills, find the traps, woo the ladies, dodge the fireballs and occasionally shove my mithril rapier into someone's vitals - which can include constructs and undead now, thank you very much - and not to do all the damage all the time like in World of Warcraft. I like the fact that you can make a paladin/oracle build that actually has the kind of ludicrous heroic defenses that allow you to go toe to toe with demon kings while the wizard has to hide and teleport.

But apparently it's wrong to enjoy those things, because the spiked-chain trip fighter isn't around anymore. Because the designers might act like a butt sometimes. Because high level casters are still clearly better than high level non-casters on an infinite flat field versus each other, which is definitely a thing that happens all the time in adventure modules and isn't a purely hypothetical situation. I shall correct my thinking at once.

[Gnaeus]

Fixing 3.5 means solving all the problems.

No it doesn't. :smalltongue:

If it did, it would clearly be completely and utterly impossible without throwing out all 3.5 and starting over, which would not really be "fixing" either. How could anyone fix every single problem in the 4 dozen books that were 3.5? Does that include the stat blocks for all the badly written npc examples? Does that include all the features that some players regard as bugs? Because I promise that if you, Psyren, Jason and I all sat down and made a list of 3.5 problems, we would get some conflicting lists.

Wordnet says fix means: "Verb 1. fix - restore by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or broken; "She repaired her TV set"; "Repair my shoes please"
Synonyms: furbish up, mend, repair, bushel, doctor, touch on, restore".

Did PF restore 3.5 by replacing parts? Mend it? That appears to be their intent, regardless of your opinions of its success.

It might be defined as ambitiously as solving the problems that were all of:
1. Apparent to PF design team
2. Significant enough to be a problem in play
3. Correctable without harming their other goal which was backwards compatibility.

Frack, maybe in Jason's mind, he accomplished that. I dunno.

Clearly they were concerned about some rules being too clunky. They did not like trap options, and meant to fix them (with wildly varying degrees of success). Clearly they disliked some spells being overly abusable. And they worked to fix all these things.

[Psyren]

@ Turion/Reverent_One: Yep.


These things can all be defined as fixing.

Your definition is irrelevant, except insofar as you can vote with your wallet when what you get doesn't match your expectations.


To my knowledge (most of it hearsay, but hearsay from people with quite good reputation), Paizo did ask (or at least showed willingness to receive) feedback on PF early on, and when people offered said feedback, they chose to silence those whose opinions they didn't like.

Obviously some banning happened, but I'm sorry - without seeing the threads in question for myself I can't comment on the level of justification involved.


Psyren - would you kindly explain to me why designer of PF was talking about "bad rules" in same sentence in which he said that rules are messy and he want to clean them up?

They did fix bad rules. CMB/CMD is one such fix - replacing all the byzantine steps in various combat maneuvers with a simple check. For some monsters, CMD scales too quickly, but this is easily tweaked. Save or Dies were another - for monsters and PCs alike, the binary and anticlimactic pass-fail check was replaced with more counterplay-friendly mechanisms.

Your problem (and that of others in this thread) is that you interpeted their statement to mean "we will fix every single thing that was wrong with 3.5. Throw your money at us." Quite apart from the fact that we can't even seem to agree on what the problems are, much less how to solve them, that conclusion just doesn't follow from any of the quotes being provided to me.

[bobthe6th]

But apparently it's wrong to enjoy those things, because the spiked-chain trip fighter isn't around anymore. Because the designers might act like a butt sometimes. Because high level casters are still clearly better than high level non-casters on an infinite flat field versus each other, which is definitely a thing that happens all the time in adventure modules and isn't a purely hypothetical situation. I shall correct my thinking at once.

See... it is more that I like whips/chain trippers as they let me **** around with combat without needing to do lots of damage. They make this a massive bitch to do. So I am not the most happy.

Also, the hundreds of pages of homebrew I have read/made makes me think of the other things they could have done. So I am again not the most happy.

You are allowed to have fun. I am still entitled to be over obsessed with parts of the game and the fiddly bits of the system. Neither is mutually exclusive.

[Gnaeus]

Your definition is irrelevant, except insofar as you can vote with your wallet when what you get doesn't match your expectations.

My definition is the ONLY one that is relevant when I say "The PF design team fixed/intended to fix 3.5". Jason's definition doesn't matter, since he never used the word. I could say "streamline". I could say "clean up". I like "fix" and I am going to use it from here on out. And my statement is supported by PF's actions, as you point out, and by the statements posted.



They did fix bad rules. CMB/CMD is one such fix - replacing all the byzantine steps in various combat maneuvers with a simple check. For some monsters, CMD scales too quickly, but this is easily tweaked.

So, Fix here means to make improvements on to improve play, even if it does not solve every possible problem. I agree. They fixed it.


Your problem (and that of others in this thread) is that you interpeted their statement to mean "we will fix every single thing that was wrong with 3.5. Throw your money at us." Quite apart from the fact that we can't even seem to agree on what the problems are, much less how to solve them, that conclusion just doesn't follow from any of the quotes being provided to me.

That is not my interpretation at all.

[Reverent-One]

No it doesn't. :smalltongue:

If it did,it would clearly be completely and utterly impossible without throwing out all 3.5 and starting over, which would not really be "fixing" either. How could anyone fix every single problem in the 4 dozen books that were 3.5? Does that include the stat blocks for all the badly written npc examples? Does that include all the features that some players regard as bugs?

EXACTLY!

Someone else gets it. That's why Bulhman didn't say they were going to fix 3.5. He said there were several things they wanted to fix, but as those things were a subset of all of 3.5, that's not the same as saying they were fixing 3.5.


Wordnet says fix means: "Verb 1. fix - restore by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or broken; "She repaired her TV set"; "Repair my shoes please"
Synonyms: furbish up, mend, repair, bushel, doctor, touch on, restore".

Did PF restore 3.5 by replacing parts? Mend it? That appears to be their intent, regardless of your opinions of its success.

Not all of 3.5, just select parts of it. That's not the claim Psyren was responding to though, that claim was that they would "fix 3.5", all of it, not just a few parts. If all they did was change Dodge, who would say they "fixed 3.5", even if they made Dodge exactly what it should be? No one, because Dodge is not equivalent to 3.5. While they've done more than change just Dodge, it's still far less than all of 3.5, even just Core 3.5.

If I dent your car, and say I'm going to fix that, you don't have the right to complain later that I said fix your car (including the problems with your air conditioner and headlights).

EDIT: Also, I should note that I don't think you, Gnaeus, are saying that you thought they said they would fix everything, but that's what the claim you're trying to defend is saying.

[Psyren]

My definition is the ONLY one that is relevant when I say "The PF design team fixed/intended to fix 3.5". Jason's definition doesn't matter, since he never used the word.

So you're basing their intent on something they didn't even say? :smallconfused:


I could say "streamline". I could say "clean up". I like "fix" and I am going to use it from here on out.

Whereas I like what they actually said. So it sounds like you folks don't have a quote to back up the endlessly reposted meme after all.

[Abaddona]

My problem is not "fix everything" but rather "fix major problems" - one of such problems is power difference between casters and mundane. Going by car example - if my car has broken engine, reflectors and brakes and mechanic reapir the last one - can he really say that he "fixed" my car?

And problem is not based on "casters and mundanes in no way can coopertate and have fun" it's rather: "can party of 4 fighters be able to participate in various sort's of quests and have fun? Because there is certainly possible to make party of 4 wizards who will be succesfully solving both challenges based on fighthing, social encounters (political intrigue) or solving puzzles (various traps, navigating mazes etc.). What's more - each of this mages could rather easily replace each other when need arise by simply swaping their prepared spells list.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I swear, I sometimes wonder why people who complain about balance in Pathfinder and 3.5 aren't playing 4th edition. If you want balance, isn't that the game to be playing?

[Gnaeus]

So you're basing their intent on something they didn't even say? :smallconfused:

Whereas I like what they actually said. So it sounds like you folks don't have a quote to back up the endlessly reposted meme after all.

No, I am telling you that what they said means my definition of "Fix" and apparently the definitions of a whole lot of other people. So when we say that Pathfinder intended to fix the system, we can base it on those quotes and be correct. And when you try to argue with me, you are telling me that my definition of "fix" is incorrect, which is foolish in the extreme. They intended to make changes with the intention of solving problems and improving play. That is called "fixing".


My problem is not "fix everything" but rather "fix major problems" - one of such problems is power difference between casters and mundane.

No it isn't. That is a feature, not a bug.


Going by car example - if my car has broken engine, reflectors and brakes and mechanic reapir the last one - can he really say that he "fixed" my car?

If you drive a 15 year old clunker, and I rear-end you, and I promise to fix your car, do you think you are going to get a totally different car? Or that you are going to get a 15 year old clunker with the rear-end damage repaired.


EXACTLY!

Someone else gets it. That's why Bulhman didn't say they were going to fix 3.5. He said there were several things they wanted to fix, but as those things were a subset of all of 3.5, that's not the same as saying they were fixing 3.5.

So, if you can interpret "fixing" as solving every conceivable problem, or as solving the problems which satisfy those criteria I mentioned above, and if the first definition is clearly impossible, then we are not being ambiguous when we use the more limited definition.

[Lord_Gareth]

I swear, I sometimes wonder why people who complain about balance in Pathfinder and 3.5 aren't playing 4th edition. If you want balance, isn't that the game to be playing?

Well, I play Legend for that reason. It has the advantage of being free (unlike 4e) and extremely well-designed. Did I mention it's free? Because it's free.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Well, I play Legend for that reason. It has the advantage of being free (unlike 4e) and extremely well-designed. Did I mention it's free? Because it's free.I have it downloaded. I just haven't invested myself in learning the system.

[Lord_Gareth]

I have it downloaded. I just haven't invested myself in learning the system.

Welp, you can find helpful folks on its IRC chat (check out the RoC website for a link) if you decide you do wanna learn it.

[Abaddona]

Squirell_Dude -> probably because people usually like when they footwear is both comfortable and elegant. Balance is great thing, but 3.5/PF has some other great feature which 4th ed apparently lost (at least that other people are saying) - basically it's like LEGO. You have lot's of pieces with which you can accomplish great things. Those pieces come from different sets and can be easily put together. Problem is that one set is this great starship, and the other is unispiring badly designed truck.

[LordBlades]

Having played a *lot* of Pathfinder Society lately, I'll admit to being a bit bamboozled by the general content of this thread.

I've extensively played both 3.5 and Pathfinder. Mind you, Society piles on a few new rules, and effectively ends the moment you hit level 12, and also bans some of the cheesier things (lookin' at YOU, synthesist summoner).

Yes, there is some imbalance between the classes... no one is going to argue that an optimized rogue can take an optimized summoner or wizard in combat. I still maintain that PF is a better system. But why?

Well... the PvP thing is a bit silly, to be honest. It's schlong-measuring and has no place in a game that should be about team tactics. It doesn't matter that my Feyblood Sorcerer could easily enchant the fighter and the barbarian into killing each other, because I need those guys when a Glass Golem crashes through the wall like the world's nastiest Kool-Aid man.

Meanwhile, the fighter has tons of combat options. He fights with a gauntlet and as shield, and the shield is his primary weapon. He uses it to push enemies around the battlefield, into the pits I create, into lighting bolt formation, or just into walls so he can beat the tar out of them as they drop prone. His feat chain lets him increase the AC of nearby allies or even take hits for them. Sometimes he just dual-wields for a ton of damage. Without him our party would have TPK'd many times over - even if he was replaced with another caster. Same goes for the barbarian and his raging anti-spellcaster berserking. Or the Alchemist dropping stink bombs and actual explosives everywhere. Or the Oracle making enemies reroll every time they might crit while trying to set them on fire.

It's a lot of fun. I like the simplification of the skills, the expansion of the combat feats, the lack of dead levels, the way archetypes and new classes basically replaced prestige classes (maybe I was just nostaligic for the old "kits"). I like the changes made to polymorph and enchantment. I even like the rogue class, because I understand that my job is to have the skills, find the traps, woo the ladies, dodge the fireballs and occasionally shove my mithril rapier into someone's vitals - which can include constructs and undead now, thank you very much - and not to do all the damage all the time like in World of Warcraft. I like the fact that you can make a paladin/oracle build that actually has the kind of ludicrous heroic defenses that allow you to go toe to toe with demon kings while the wizard has to hide and teleport.

But apparently it's wrong to enjoy those things, because the spiked-chain trip fighter isn't around anymore. Because the designers might act like a butt sometimes. Because high level casters are still clearly better than high level non-casters on an infinite flat field versus each other, which is definitely a thing that happens all the time in adventure modules and isn't a purely hypothetical situation. I shall correct my thinking at once.

It's not about a wizard beating a fighter in PVP, it's about a wizard beating a fighter at providing solutions to typical adventuring challenges.

You say you could enchant the party fighter into killing whomever you want (for example the party barbarian, as you say). If so, why not enchant an NPC fighter to kill your foes, and so free a party slot, maybe for another caster that can enchant another NPC fighter?

[eggynack]

But that's still not true - Fighters are capable of massive amounts of damage for example, in both editions; they just aren't capable of much else. But any class that can two-shot a Balor can't realistically be called "frigging weak."

A better tag to write is that they're very straightforward - but as I pointed out with my "other RPG" examples, they really don't have to, just about everybody knows fighters are straightforward.

Now if anyone needs a disclaimer it's the monk, the class really isn't for anyone except as a dip or a challenge.
I wasn't doing an actual write up. The real thing would probably look a bit like the why each class is in its tier (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256.0) thread, except probably a bit more formalized. There'd likely be something in there about power level, and maybe something about how the class plays out. They actually have stuff like this in the books already, like the role section, and the part about ability score allocation. The real problem is that those sections tend to be somewhat inaccurate. For example, the druid section names dexterity as the logical secondary stat, when that is clearly untrue. In my version of things, those sections would be expanded, and would reflect the actual way that things play out.




But then you run the risk of turning off newcomers by putting in all that information up front. Can you imagine if the tier system was given a section in the core rules? It would be instantly intimidating. Look how many people are misreading it even now to say that "Fighters are bad and you're bad for wanting to play one" or that "Wizards are awesome at everything and can never die no matter how badly you play them." And those are just the ones we know about, i.e. the ones coming to forums to ask "is this really what it means?" How many would just pick up the book, read that section, get instantly put off, and pick up a different game instead? And hell, even we can't agree on the tier of things like Bard, Warlock, Warblade, Wu Jen, Truenamer etc., and that's not even getting into PrCs and ACFs...
It could be a bit problematic, but I feel that there's a way to do it in a reasonably diplomatic fashion. The tier system is a good basis, and sticking that wholesale into the books would be a good start, but it might not be the best implementation. I don't know what the best implementation is, because it's quite the tricky thing to figure out, but I think that it could be a useful enough thing to be worth the difficulty.




Again, I don't think there are enough "misconstruers" to cater to them via metagame rankings or recommendations. Again, I would easily guess that the majority of folks who play fighter do so because they want something simple, either as a break from their more complicated routine, as a challenge, or because they're new and just want to sit down with friends and play something that lets them skip the "Spells" chapter. They're okay with not having the spotlight because they don't want it anyway.
This is barely true on this very board, let alone within the wider player base. Sure, many people might want to play a fighter for its simplicity, but I somehow doubt that all of those people are aware of the power cost involved. Maybe it doesn't matter to them, but that's not my choice to make. There's no onus on people to use this transparency in any particular way.



In addition, transparency is a noble goal on its face, but it comes at the cost of discovery and depth. Putting aside the disheartening feeling of being told up front that your chosen class is weak and another one is strong (whether or not your playstyle/knowledge actually let you tap into/realize that strength), coming to that realization on your own and then wanting to try a more powerful option like multiclassing or a gish-in-a-can like Magus/Duskblade is much more rewarding in the long run. Put another way - if the water is crystal clear, you can already see the bottom, so why bother diving?
Probably because of everything in the game that is not class. This isn't super universal game transparency, where jump is labeled with, "probably not worth it," and improved trip has a, "combat specialist stamp of approval." Removing all of the value of book diving would necessitate having an incredibly lengthy handbook right there in every class listing. I'd rather start diving after I pick a class than before I do. I'm not looking for crystal clear water. I'm just looking for water that isn't filled with crap.

[Reverent-One]

Whereas I like what they actually said. So it sounds like you folks don't have a quote to back up the endlessly reposted meme after all.

No, I am telling you that what they said means my definition of "Fix" and apparently the definitions of a whole lot of other people. So when we say that Pathfinder intended to fix the system, we can base it on those quotes and be correct. And when you try to argue with me, you are telling me that my definition of "fix" is incorrect, which is foolish in the extreme. They intended to make changes with the intention of solving problems and improving play. That is called "fixing".

The debate between whether they meant "fixing" or "cleaning up" or whatever is really irrelevant. The key point is what they said they were fixing/cleaning up/whatever. If they said they were going to "fix 3.5", that would mean that they were intending to fix the entire thing (or at least the majority of it), meanwhile saying that they wanted to fix <subset of 3.5 rules> means that they just wanted to fix a limited section of 3.5.


If you drive a 15 year old clunker, and I rear-end you, and I promise to fix your car, do you think you are going to get a totally different car? Or that you are going to get a 15 year old clunker with the rear-end damage repaired.

At that point the only thing you're thinking about fixing is damage done. It's imprecise and technically inaccurate to say that, but something people still do.

But since Lord_Gareth is in the thread, let's just ask him. Gareth, when you claimed they said they were going to "fix 3.5", did you mean just mean streamlining combat manuevers and condensing skills and the other select things mentioned in the quote? Or did you mean more major, overall changes to the system?

[Psyren]

My problem is not "fix everything" but rather "fix major problems" - one of such problems is power difference between casters and mundane.

That's not a "major problem" for everyone. Certainly it isn't for me. If they had "fixed" that, I probably would have stuck with 3.5, because magic being superior to not-magic makes sense.



can party of 4 fighters be able to participate in various sort's of quests and have fun?

They actually can, they just need more DM help. PF Fighters can craft wondrous items/magic arms and armor/rings etc. without assistance, so it would simply be a matter of making sure they are kitted out like Ironmen.


No, I am telling you that what they said means my definition of "Fix" and apparently the definitions of a whole lot of other people. So when we say that Pathfinder intended to fix the system, we can base it on those quotes and be correct.

No, all you can do is say how you read their intent. Not what their intent actually was.

In other words, you are correct that you thought they would fix everything. You are not correct that they said they would fix everything.

[Lord_Gareth]

But since Lord_Gareth is in the thread, let's just ask him. Gareth, when you claimed they said they were going to "fix 3.5", did you mean just mean streamlining combat manuevers and condensing skills and the other select things mentioned in the quote? Or did you mean more major, overall changes to the system?

Mm. This goes into that playtest dealie. What I would've wanted out of a 'fixed' 3.5 included some of the stuff they did (though the streamlined CManeuvers have brand-new issues of their own) but when the playtest happened what went down was this: the playtesters offered to stress-test Pathfinder and give Paizo the data so that they could improve the game. They did so, and then SKR and the other designers blew up in their faces, said that they were 'playing the game wrong', and threw all the data out.

I'm not confident that they did all of the thing specifically mentioned in the quote, mostly because (as evidenced by PFS) they didn't care about the game past a certain level of play. But I'd be willing to concede that they felt that some of the things that I see as problems weren't problems and thus didn't need to be fixed.

[Gnaeus]

The debate between whether they meant "fixing" or "cleaning up" or whatever is really irrelevant. The key point is what they said they were fixing/cleaning up/whatever. If they said they were going to "fix 3.5", that would mean that they were intending to fix the entire thing (or at least the majority of it), meanwhile saying that they wanted to fix <subset of 3.5 rules> means that they just wanted to fix a limited section of 3.5.

Well, that same design blog quote cited was included in a section of design goals called "Improve the Game" . Not parts of the game. The game. I see minimal difference between "Planned to fix 3.5" and "Planned to improve 3.5" in this context.

[Psyren]

Well, that same design blog quote cited was included in a section of design goals called "Improve the Game" . Not parts of the game. The game.

Every whole is made up of parts. If a car has a flat tire, busted headlight, and a missing radio, and you replace the flat tire, you've improved the car.


I wasn't doing an actual write up. The real thing would probably look a bit like the why each class is in its tier (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256.0) thread, except probably a bit more formalized. There'd likely be something in there about power level, and maybe something about how the class plays out.

Even that is skill-dependent. Trying to formalize it in any way is pointless because whether the player can realize that potential or not depends on them (and the challenges put forth by the DM.)



I don't know what the best implementation is, because it's quite the tricky thing to figure out, but I think that it could be a useful enough thing to be worth the difficulty.

I don't. It seems to me that people can find out about tiers just fine through play and discussion forums. (And often, the ones that don't come are having fun, ergo the system is working for them.) Let designers spend their time on errata, APs and new content instead of formalizing an inherently skill-dependent system.


This is barely true on this very board, let alone within the wider player base.

You're not extrapolating correctly here. The people that go on gaming forums and care about tiers... for the most part, they're already here. The "wider player base" - i.e. the folks that aren't - don't care about that stuff. If they did... they'd be here.


I'm not looking for crystal clear water. I'm just looking for water that isn't filled with crap.

"Crap" is situational. To use Monte Cooke's example, Craft Staff is almost always a better feat for your elf wizard than Toughness. But if you're at a convention running a level 1 one-shot, the crafting feat will generally be pointless while the Toughness could end up doubling your HP and saving your life.

[Gnaeus]

Every whole is made up of parts. If a car has a flat tire, busted headlight, and a missing radio, and you replace the flat tire, you've improved the car.

Agreed. You also fixed it.

[Brookshw]

Well, I play Legend for that reason. It has the advantage of being free (unlike 4e) and extremely well-designed. Did I mention it's free? Because it's free.

I'll take that as an endorsement of the system. Any particular pieces you like?

[Lord_Gareth]

I'll take that as an endorsement of the system. Any particular pieces you like?

On the whole, the technical bits (the mechanics) are easier to comprehend, deal with, and use (to quote the devs: "We want this game to be so comprehensible that extraterrestrials can play it."). However, my absolute without-a-doubt favorite aspect is the variety and versatility it brings to letting players and GMs bring a concept to life. Legend is intentionally modular and designed so that you can take whatever's in your head, from "cyborg gnome from Hell," to "Fiona Cooper, an exiled faerie making her living as a mercenary in a war against Hell," without having to sell your firstborn.

[Jade_Tarem]

It's not about a wizard beating a fighter in PVP, it's about a wizard beating a fighter at providing solutions to typical adventuring challenges.

You say you could enchant the party fighter into killing whomever you want (for example the party barbarian, as you say). If so, why not enchant an NPC fighter to kill your foes, and so free a party slot, maybe for another caster that can enchant another NPC fighter?

Two reasons.

1. Our fighter is *vastly* superior to NPC mook #13. It's like asking why you should have Rambo on your team when you could hire a rent-a-cop to take his place.
2. Not everything is about one PC class versus another in a completely fair one-on-one scenario. In fact, few things are. There are a *lot* of monsters in this game, and some fairly well designed encounters. If nothing else, the point I was trying to make in my other post was that Pathfinder is not played like Mortal Combat - there's not a me and a them on a level playing field.

My sorcerer can take like four or five of the party fighter if they come at me one at a time from a distance. With his absurdly-high-DC confusion and Fleeting Glance ability, he might even be able to take all of them at once. But this never happens. The more likely outcome is that the party is either outnumbered, surrounded, and ambushed, attacked by a bunch of mooks who are supported by their own spellcaster, or possibly up against some huge nasty thing with good saves, a few choice immunities, and possibly SR, too, once you get into EL 8+ stuff. Plus there could be anything from bad terrain to bad weather to a room full of poison gas that we could be fighting in. All of these are reasons why I can't just necessarily wave my hand and make the problem go away. And if I do lose a spell or have it fail due to the aforementioned defenses, or if I'm just overwhelmed with targets or problems, that's when the party's tougher-to-mess-with fighter and barbarian step in. They can defeat those enemies, or at least keep them off the party's higher-firepower players long enough for one of our gimmicks to work and turn the battle. My sorcerer walks into traps. Golems are a HUGE problem (no cheesy Orb spells in PF! My best move is Glitterdust against them). Sometimes the enemy gets clever and a bunch of archers ready actions to shoot anyone casting a spell with magic bows. Sometimes the fight takes place in a falling cage elevator. Sometimes we can't proceed without a Knowledge (Engineering) check, which we rely on the Fighter for, since everyone else needed the skill points somewhere else. Tactics matter, and if you're rocking an all-caster group, you don't have as many tactical options.

I'm not saying PF has no problems. Summoner *desperately* needs to have there be some sort of penalty for the Eidolon dying. The PF design team seems to have no vision for the monk other than "run around really fast and be sort of good at combat maneuvers, but not really." Crazy combat maneuver builds could use more love. High level gameplay still needs to be carefully tailored or it becomes rocket tag. But shrugging and saying that an entire class is weaksauce/replaceable because, hypothetically, another class can do X, Y, and Z as long as the encounter is really boring is... a little limiting.

Edit: Sorry, one more. Again, this might be just PFS, but PFS mods are very good about throwing a ticking clock into the mix. A wizard certainly can cut loose with the fury and explode all the bad guys... once. Twice, at high levels. But there can be as many as 4-6 encounters in a mod (or up to 12 in a special!), and a narcoleptic party *will* fail the mission. The vast majority of adventure paths don't give you time to rest and reprepare spells once, and I've only seen one that let you do it twice. It's part of the reason I'm playing a sorcerer instead, just so I can actually cast each round without having to worry so much about resources. The, uh, generalist wizard? He's going to run out in the second combat if he plays like I do. And don't say "hur hur, he only needs one spell!" Again, well-designed encounters typically are built in such a way that it doesn't work like that.

[Abaddona]

Psyren - as for feats value being situational - I of course agree (and also bless the guy who invented retraining rules). Dodge feat from 3.5 is horrible but yet probably each one of us had problems with monster who took this feat and managed to avoid your blows by exactly this one point, but it's not exactly relevant. It's entirely possible to make a world in which VoP Monk will be better choice than wizard (low wealth, lots of terrain obstacles, 20+ encounters a day but with weak creatures) but this requires some skills and knowledge to know how to change the world to better incorporate PC abilities. As an example: 5 entirely new players who take modules from official books/website - they will probably have fun, but I dare to say that there will be times when guy playing a fighter will be simply sitting down because he can't contribute to play (at least without giving OoC advices and ideas). Even if wizard used fireball and magic missile there will be a time when guy playing him will read something on internet or simply will take some battlefield control spell (because he had spare slots or found some scrolls) and he will see how effective they are - after 8 hours he is now optimized (to some extent of course). Guy playing a fighter don't have such freedom.

As for "magic being superior to mundane makes sense" - ok, but why it must be executed in such a way? Maybe wizard can level up a city with his powerfull magic - but it will cost him few days/weeks/monts of preparation, not a single round? And another way around - take Spiderman: he has lots of abilities (he is super hero after all) simply because he was biten by a mutated spider; well - typicall DnD/PF fighter at level 10 would probably be chewed by dozens of magical ones (and considering all those templates like for example spellwarped - magic clearly can cause mutations) and is still regular guy. I mean - hey, if wizards tap into natural magical power and can convert it into spells then why fighters cannot do something similiar unconsciously to get for example natural armor?

[Psyren]

I have it downloaded. I just haven't invested myself in learning the system.

Legend is a definite improvement over 4e. But it's still emphasizes short-term tactics over long-term strategy, to borrow the Giant's phrasing. Many of the disadvantages to 4e he pointed out in SSDT can be laid at Legend's feet as well, simply because those are qualities you have to give up to balance the game.


Agreed. You also fixed it.

Well that changes things. If you consider a single improvement to be a "fix," then PF did indeed fix 3.5.

[Gnaeus]

Well that changes things. If you consider a single improvement to be a "fix," then PF did indeed fix 3.5.

I think context matters. In the car example, there were 3 problems, you fixed one, and it was the important one that kept you from driving the car.

In the PF example, there are a large number of problems in 3.5. PF addressed a smaller but significant number of those issues, in a way designed to address what they saw as the things that made it not run. Whether the end result is a system that runs more smoothly is something that reasonable people can disagree on (I think it does, at least for my group), so they can argue about whether it WAS a fix. Regardless of outcome, I think it was intended to be a fix. An overhaul of what they saw as the most glaring problems with the intention of improving the whole.

Edit: come to think of it. Even that might be overstating my position. I think fixing pathfinder was a stated design goal. As such, it was balanced with other design goals, like backwards compatibility. That is like saying that my goal is to fix your car, and spend less than 4000$. That might mean that I fix less than I otherwise could, but I still improve the operation as much as I can under those constraints.

[Psyren]

I think context matters. In the car example, there were 3 problems, you fixed one, and it was the important one that kept you from driving the car.

That depends. Driving at night with no headlights can be easily as perilous as driving on a flat. (And if all you meant was "well, I can still physically drive the car - I'll point out that you can do that on a flat as well, it's just not the safest idea.)


Regardless of outcome, I think it was intended to be a fix. An overhaul of what they saw as the most glaring problems with the intention of improving the whole.

That viewpoint is fine; it's the folks saying "they promised us a fix and we didn't get one" that I'm taking issue with. If you define "fix" as "improvement" then they did it. If you define "fix" as "repair every problem" then they didn't promise that. Either way, the complaints need to be reworded.

[JusticeZero]

Yes. i LIKE Pathfinder. It didn't overhaul 3.5; it wasn't supposed to. I describe it to friends as being "3.5, with enough tweaks that they could say they weren't just printing the SRD and charging for it". It has a couple of tweaks to mildly improve things, but it is basically the same game. As for the fixes to the base classes, arguably those exist in the form of the added classes introduced later.

[LordBlades]

Two reasons.

1. Our fighter is *vastly* superior to NPC mook #13. It's like asking why you should have Rambo on your team when you could hire a rent-a-cop to take his place.
2. Not everything is about one PC class versus another in a completely fair one-on-one scenario. In fact, few things are. There are a *lot* of monsters in this game, and some fairly well designed encounters. If nothing else, the point I was trying to make in my other post was that Pathfinder is not played like Mortal Combat - there's not a me and a them on a level playing field.


1. Except you're not replacing the fighter with a NPC. In the scenario I suggested (sorcerer enchants one NPC fighter, the party slot of the PC fighter is now occupied by a 2nd sorcerer with another enchanted NPC fighter). Can you say your fighter is 'vastly superior' to 2 NPC fighters and a PC sorcerer backing them up?

2. It's not about one class vs the other. Practical optimization seldom discusses this scenario. A wizard is not better than a fighter because it can kill a fighter in a duel (that's just a side effect). A wizard is better than a fighter because he has infinitely more tools to tackle the variety of challenges that an adventuring group might face, whereas a fighter is usually limited to tacking those that can be solved by application of HP damage.

[IronFist]

I swear, I sometimes wonder why people who complain about balance in Pathfinder and 3.5 aren't playing 4th edition. If you want balance, isn't that the game to be playing?
I agree completely.


To my knowledge (most of it hearsay, but hearsay from people with quite good reputation), Paizo did ask (or at least showed willingness to receive) feedback on PF early on, and when people offered said feedback, they chose to silence those whose opinions they didn't like.

I was there. It didn't happen like that.
Feedback came along with heaps of trolling and arrogance. People were not banned because they were giving feedback - they were banned because they were being jerks about it.

[navar100]

How was what he said at all hyperbolic? It seemed pretty straightforward to me. I also thought that what he said was pretty accurate, but that's something of a different matter.

I wasn't saying he was using hyperbole.

I was using hyperbole.




3. I hate Combat Expertise. I know it's random, but that feat is terrible. It's entire purpose is to be a prerequisite to the things we actually want. I have never seen any player use the bonus it gives. All it does it make me use a feat and make sure I have 13 intelligence.

F*** that feat.

True, it is rarely used, but anecdotal I can say I have seen a player use it. It was desperation when he was close to Death's Door and just went total defense until the combat was over or helped arrived, which ever came first.

Generally, if players are willing to take a penalty to hit voluntarily they want it for some awesome attack, Power Attack as the staple.


Having played a *lot* of Pathfinder Society lately, I'll admit to being a bit bamboozled by the general content of this thread.

I've extensively played both 3.5 and Pathfinder. Mind you, Society piles on a few new rules, and effectively ends the moment you hit level 12, and also bans some of the cheesier things (lookin' at YOU, synthesist summoner).

Yes, there is some imbalance between the classes... no one is going to argue that an optimized rogue can take an optimized summoner or wizard in combat. I still maintain that PF is a better system. But why?

Well... the PvP thing is a bit silly, to be honest. It's schlong-measuring and has no place in a game that should be about team tactics. It doesn't matter that my Feyblood Sorcerer could easily enchant the fighter and the barbarian into killing each other, because I need those guys when a Glass Golem crashes through the wall like the world's nastiest Kool-Aid man.

Meanwhile, the fighter has tons of combat options. He fights with a gauntlet and as shield, and the shield is his primary weapon. He uses it to push enemies around the battlefield, into the pits I create, into lighting bolt formation, or just into walls so he can beat the tar out of them as they drop prone. His feat chain lets him increase the AC of nearby allies or even take hits for them. Sometimes he just dual-wields for a ton of damage. Without him our party would have TPK'd many times over - even if he was replaced with another caster. Same goes for the barbarian and his raging anti-spellcaster berserking. Or the Alchemist dropping stink bombs and actual explosives everywhere. Or the Oracle making enemies reroll every time they might crit while trying to set them on fire.

It's a lot of fun. I like the simplification of the skills, the expansion of the combat feats, the lack of dead levels, the way archetypes and new classes basically replaced prestige classes (maybe I was just nostaligic for the old "kits"). I like the changes made to polymorph and enchantment. I even like the rogue class, because I understand that my job is to have the skills, find the traps, woo the ladies, dodge the fireballs and occasionally shove my mithril rapier into someone's vitals - which can include constructs and undead now, thank you very much - and not to do all the damage all the time like in World of Warcraft. I like the fact that you can make a paladin/oracle build that actually has the kind of ludicrous heroic defenses that allow you to go toe to toe with demon kings while the wizard has to hide and teleport.

But apparently it's wrong to enjoy those things, because the spiked-chain trip fighter isn't around anymore. Because the designers might act like a butt sometimes. Because high level casters are still clearly better than high level non-casters on an infinite flat field versus each other, which is definitely a thing that happens all the time in adventure modules and isn't a purely hypothetical situation. I shall correct my thinking at once.

Preach it!


I swear, I sometimes wonder why people who complain about balance in Pathfinder and 3.5 aren't playing 4th edition. If you want balance, isn't that the game to be playing?

And I get yelled at for "strawmanning" when I said the same thing using different words.

[eggynack]

I wasn't saying he was using hyperbole.

I was using hyperbole.

I think we came to that conclusion awhile back. Still, it seems to me that this is a decent case for clarity in language, or something of that variety.



Preach it!

So, you think that he should, "preach," a poor understanding of how we define this game's imbalance? That seems to be a thing that should not be preached. Seriously, imbalance that we're discussing has just about nothing to do with PvP.


And I get yelled at for "strawmanning" when I said the same thing using different words.
Well, you said that people were foaming at the mouth about 3.5 magic in this thread, when they were generally just saying that it was imbalanced. You can call it hyperbole if you like, but it also has the appearance of constructing a strawman. I actually do think that Squirrel_Dude was constructing a bit of a strawman, because my general point, and the general point of this thread, is about the change in balance between 3.5 and PF, rather than with the absolute imbalance of either system. It is my firm belief that changing an imbalanced system in a manner that makes it less balanced is a bad thing to do. In any case, he put stuff in a somewhat more diplomatic manner, so his arguments didn't get attacked in the same way. Saying the same thing using different words makes all the difference sometimes.

[georgie_leech]

Saying the same thing using different words makes all the difference sometimes.

Indeed. Consider the difference between "To be, or not to be, that is the question." with "Yo, dawg, I was thinkin' about whether I should off myself."

[navar100]

Indeed. Consider the difference between "To be, or not to be, that is the question." with "Yo, dawg, I was thinkin' about whether I should off myself."

One's a classic and the other is Shakespeare.
:smallbiggrin:

[Beowulf DW]

Indeed. Consider the difference between "To be, or not to be, that is the question." with "Yo, dawg, I was thinkin' about whether I should off myself."

You just explained in one sentence what one semester barely could. Well done.

[georgie_leech]

You just explained in one sentence what one semester barely could. Well done.

Heh, I can't take the credit, I heard the second line from Extra Credits, complete with a picture of the Yo, Dawg! meme guy.

[Snowbluff]

The problem with pathfinder...

Well, if it's not a 3.5 fix (something it failed at), then what is it? Backwards compatability aside, I would like to get something out of buying third party material. I have a ton of character concepts to hash out in 3.5. It really has very few reasons to exist.

Additionally, I've found the community, developers, and material are openly toxic and contradictory. You guys should have seen the reactions of the forum members when the Synthethist was banned for PFS.

Speaking of which, the whole summoner class is pretty much Druid: PF Edition. Meanwhile, the actual Druid class was nerfed through a signature increased in blandness (along with Polymorph). The paladin changes are nice, but have little effect on how the class actually plays. Fighter has gained little to no improvement in capability, with a significant number of the buffs being numerical. Gunslinger is a hot mess with a pointless and mishandled resource mechanic. Rogue died with the skill changes. Bard... well... some nerfs, some interesting things, but it's Bard. Still, they are now some of the the best skill users, and they completely replace rogues through ACFs.

I play in a PFS campaign to better acclimate myself with PF rules for future games and to get some roleplaying in. It's rather grindy. The group I play with includes some of my favorite roleplaying buddies, which help significantly. The 3.PF campaign another person I know was running had so many requests to use the 3.5 versions of feats and the like, that he just told us to assume the 3.5 versions.

[navar100]

The problem with pathfinder...

Well, if it's not a 3.5 fix (something it failed at), then what is it? Backwards compatability aside, I would like to get something out of buying third party material. I have a ton of character concepts to hash out in 3.5. It really has very few reasons to exist.


Wizards of the Coast fired many of its customers when it went into 4E. Not only did they gut the system the fired customers loved but also trash talked them. Paizo saw this as an opportunity to cater to the disenfranchised. They took the system players really, really like despite the rage you find in this forum (there I go being hyperbolic again :smallyuk: ), made some changes with their ideas on improving the game, and put it on the market. While not universally loved by those who like 3E, it is still well loved by many who like the 3E System and are very happy the game they like will continue with new stuff.

Like the changes, don't like the changes. Your preference. That the 3E System has been resurrected/reincarnated from the ashes is a blessing to many.

[Snowbluff]

Yes, we all know that Paizo preyed on the community while it was weakest, but they disenfranchised a large number of customers by what they did as well. I have yet to receive new material from Paizo I do not consider redundant or pointless, and the base provided is still too weak.

There are no ashes, Navar. Game systems do not live and die by their developers. The only real way to kill a system is to kill its community. I am still here, as are my associates? Now tell me, if there are no ashes, then what is this creature that has been "reincarnated?"

[IronFist]

Yes, we all know that Paizo preyed on the community while it was weakest, but they disenfranchised a large number of customers by what they did as well. I have yet to receive new material from Paizo I do not consider redundant or pointless, and the base provided is still too weak.

There are no ashes, Navar. Game systems do not live and die by their developers. The only real way to kill a system is to kill its community. I am still here, as are my associates? Now tell me, if there are no ashes, then what is this creature that has been "reincarnated?"

Pathfinder is the world's best selling RPG.

[Snowbluff]

Pathfinder is the world's best selling RPG.

Your point? Bay's Transformers movies have grossed millions. Are they our generation's Citizen Kane?

Yeah, mega-burn. Please bring an argument concerning the state of 3.5, or the behavior of the community or devs that I have called into question.

[Beowulf DW]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The best thing about PF is that it's all online. My friends and I don't have to start our own private libraries just build a decent character or encounter. It's all right there on the website.

[IronFist]

Your point? Bay's Transformers movies have grossed millions. Are they our generation's Citizen Kane?

Yeah, mega-burn. Please bring an argument concerning the state of 3.5, or the behavior of the community or devs that I have called into question.

Dungeons & Dragons is the Transformers of RPG. It is simple and shallow and people love it. D&D never was the Citizen Kane of RPGs, it never tried to be and it never will be. PF outdit D&D in its own game by giving the public what it wanted.

I play PF when I want to play something fun, simple and shallow. It's how most of my friends see RPGs, anyway. When I want something else, I play something else. Between FATE, Anima Prime, Fight!, Legend of the Five Rings, GUMSHOE and similar games, it's easy to find the likes of Casablanca and Citizen Kane.

[Snowbluff]

Dungeons & Dragons is the Transformers of RPG. It is simple and shallow and people love it. D&D never was the Citizen Kane of RPGs, it never tried to be and it never will be. PF outdit D&D in its own game by giving the public what it wanted. I would say that, personally, the complexity of 3.5 is what draws me. While the mechanics like HP are (thankfully) straightforward, the rest of the game is full of pleasant nuances and it overall makes for an interesting optimization environment. This is another thing that PF woefully lacks. I can't even pick up a PF character and invest time into it.

Not that I was calling 3.5 the anything of anything. I was just pointing out that sales are a lousy measure of the quality or traits of a system. PF isn't inherently anything more than 3.5 based on figures.



I play PF when I want to play something fun, simple and shallow. It's how most of my friends see RPGs, anyway. When I want something else, I play something else. Between FATE, Anima Prime, Fight!, Legend of the Five Rings, GUMSHOE and similar games, it's easy to find the likes of Casablanca and Citizen Kane.
I like WoD for simple and shallow, but I generally don't like simple and shallow. That's what hanging out and riffing anime is for. :smalltongue:


I've said it before and I'll say it again. The best thing about PF is that it's all online. My friends and I don't have to start our own private libraries just build a decent character or encounter. It's all right there on the website. Huh? I've that people think that it matters, but I don't seen the appeal. Tabs and windows are a pain. I guess it would account for some of the sales, but that's just... yuck. The McDonald's way of doing things, I guess. Do it if it is convenient.

[Beowulf DW]

Huh? I've that people think that it matters, but I don't seen the appeal. Tabs and windows are a pain. I guess it would account for some of the sales, but that's just... yuck. The McDonald's way of doing things, I guess. Do it if it is convenient.

...Soooo...Games only meet the Snowbluff standard if they're inconvenient? Aren't games suppose to be fun? Doesn't that imply a certain level of convenience? Or was looking through thousands of pages spread across dozens of books the point of 3.5 and no one told me?

[Squirrel_Dude]

Huh? I've that people think that it matters, but I don't seen the appeal. Tabs and windows are a pain. I guess it would account for some of the sales, but that's just... yuck. The McDonald's way of doing things, I guess. Do it if it is convenient.It's not necessarily the easiest way to access things (10 tabs can be annoying) but easy access is important. It's incredibly helpful that I can easily access and look through information, and that players who are interested in playing have easy access to game rules. It makes testing out the game a very low cost (there's always time) investment, which also helps to bring in more interest to the overall hobby.

It's also interesting because it was a rather large gamble to do something like this. They were confident in their product (or their writing), they were willing to give out their mechanics for free, and still expected people to buy their material. If nothing, it's hopefully something that I would like to see other publishers do, at least with the basic rules for their system.

[eggynack]

Dungeons & Dragons is the Transformers of RPG. It is simple and shallow and people love it. D&D never was the Citizen Kane of RPGs, it never tried to be and it never will be. PF outdit D&D in its own game by giving the public what it wanted.

D&D 3.5 is simple and shallow? How do you figure that? There are just so many ways to build up any kind of character, even if you're only making feat selections. I'm constantly seeing and discovering new and interesting things about the game. For example, about a month ago I figured out that the weather prediction application of the survival skill could be helpful for druid spell selection, because of the pile of druid spells that are fueled by weather conditions. I don't know if this was a thing that everyone already knew, but I can't remember anyone ever talking about it, and more importantly, I didn't know about it. It was just an utterly new thing that I found, despite my massive druid related knowledge. Those kindsa things are hidden everywhere in the game.

That's not even getting into the actual game play. Some classes and archetypes might be shallow, but many are decidedly not that. A single spell can have a massive pile of applications, and wizards have a pretty huge pile of spells. The tactical implications of that stuff is staggering to consider, and not in the, "Oh man, you can take one step in any direction 100 times, and that'd be a massive pile of options," way either. It's just an incredibly complicated game sometimes.

[IronFist]

I would say that, personally, the complexity of 3.5 is what draws me. While the mechanics like HP are (thankfully) straightforward, the rest of the game is full of pleasant nuances and it overall makes for an interesting optimization environment. This is another thing that PF woefully lacks. I can't even pick up a PF character and invest time into it.
When it comes to complexity and optimization, 3.5 doesn't get even close to GURPS.
Also, PF has plenty of goodies and its own optimization mini-game. I recently showed some stuff to JanusJones and the man went crazy with the possibilities.


Not that I was calling 3.5 the anything of anything. I was just pointing out that sales are a lousy measure of the quality or traits of a system. PF isn't inherently anything more than 3.5 based on figures.
But no one said anything about quality (well, except for you). You said "there were no ashes", except there were ashes. D&D sales were decreasing, 4e kept it afloat a bit, went down as well and PF outsold it soundly. Yes, there were ashes.

[Snowbluff]

When it comes to complexity and optimization, 3.5 doesn't get even close to GURPS. GURPS is GURPS. From what I've seen, you get complexity for it's own sake. I would like to do a game sometime, though.

Also, PF has plenty of goodies and its own optimization mini-game. I recently showed some stuff to JanusJones and the man went crazy with the possibilities.
Eh. I am still flooded with 3.5 ideas. I don't have time for older, regurgitated classes.


But no one said anything about quality (well, except for you). You said "there were no ashes", except there were ashes. D&D sales were decreasing, 4e kept it afloat a bit, went down as well and PF outsold it soundly. Yes, there were ashes.
*facepalm*
4e is not the same system as 3.5. Even then you can't figure out what I wrote. I made it clear that the lifespan of a system is related to the community and not the developer.


It's not necessarily the easiest way to access things (10 tabs can be annoying) but easy access is important. It's incredibly helpful that I can easily access and look through information, and that players who are interested in playing have easy access to game rules. It makes testing out the game a very low cost (there's always time) investment, which also helps to bring in more interest to the overall hobby. It's kind of a wash for me, since I also dislike the girth of the PF books. The smaller books can be opened to different pages where as one big book has to be flipped and just... ugh.


It's also interesting because it was a rather large gamble to do something like this. They were confident in their product (or their writing), they were willing to give out their mechanics for free, and still expected people to buy their material. If nothing, it's hopefully something that I would like to see other publishers do, at least with the basic rules for their system.
I agree with this. WoTC and Paizo have made leaps with this. I hope they both do more of this, for the sake of openness. Being able to look into a system without your group investing in it is a huge boon.

[IronFist]

*facepalm*
4e is not the same system as 3.5. Even then you can't figure out what I wrote. I made it clear that the lifespan of a system is related to the community and not the developer.
You made clear what you think. You just happen to be completely wrong.

[Snowbluff]

You made clear what you think. You just happen to be completely wrong.

Yeah, but you posted in a thread about cool class features, and you replied with a 3.5 one. 3.5 lives! :smallsmile:

[eggynack]

You made clear what you think. You just happen to be completely wrong.
How's that? People still play 3.5, so its lifespan hasn't ended, even if the game's publication has. They stopped printing books for awhile, but they reprinted some recently because people just kept using the system. It just keeps on chugging right along.

[Lans]

Clerics without DMM are kind of a joke. Czilla has always been underwhelming, but with the nerfs to Divine Power, the bread and butter of wanna be fighters, Czilla is definitely not as good in PF as it was in 3.5.

Honestly, nerfing a clerics ability to be a fighter is like nerfing a radiologist's ability to be a VCR repair man.


. In 3.5, if you are not doing a tripper, you're pretty much doing it wrong.

Other than Archery, throwing, charging, counter attacking, bashing people with a shield, and bullrushing.
If your talking about multiclassing at all you can even add TWF to that list.


Considering how this is a game of characters vs monsters, how do the various fighter styles stack up against monsters?

Like say if a pathfinder version and 3.5 version each of the above fighting styles ran into a tiger at 4th and a dire tiger at 8th who would do the best?

[IronFist]

How's that? People still play 3.5, so its lifespan hasn't ended, even if the game's publication has. They stopped printing books for awhile, but they reprinted some recently because people just kept using the system. It just keeps on chugging right along.

Yes, they reprinted some stuff and are selling .pdfs, because they learned from Paizo it still sells. Yet another reason why Paizo brought it back from the ashes.

[Psyren]

Well, if it's not a 3.5 fix (something it failed at), then what is it?

An opportunity, that's all.

- To continue 3.5 under many of the same designers who liked it and wanted to keep writing stories for it.
- To streamline some of the more byzantine artifacts like combat maneuvers and class skills.
- To open design space by powering up LA 0 races.
- To remove XP as a resource and thus all need to track it moment-to-moment.
- To reword abusive spells like Polymorph and Divine Power.
- To redesign monsters like the Nightmare and Ogre Mage, and monster abilities like Regeneration and damage reduction.


Honestly, nerfing a clerics ability to be a fighter is like nerfing a radiologist's ability to be a VCR repair man.

Yeah but now the guy who wanted to be a VCR repair man can be one, at the same table. Who cares that the radiologist can still do radiology? Both of them chose to be what they are.

[Squirrel_Dude]

How's that? People still play 3.5, so its lifespan hasn't ended, even if the game's publication has. They stopped printing books for awhile, but they reprinted some recently because people just kept using the system. It just keeps on chugging right along.People still play AD&D, but for a long time now you could probably say it's impact on the larger community had died off.

It's something I've never played, and am really only somewhat aware of it ("THAC0," right?). I only know one person personally who has ever had any interaction with it, and they've never played it either. When publishing stops, growth of the game also stops. I wouldn't go so far as to say that 3e gaming was in ashes, but Pathfinder rejuvenated it, and allowed it to grow again.

[JusticeZero]

I am trying to figure out if I actually saw the argument I think I did - did someone who plays 3.5 just say that they dislike PF because it didn't fix enough 3.5 issues... while still playing 3.5 with all of the same problems?

[Snowbluff]

Well, a prerequisite of PF having a point is that it would be an overall improvement over an existing system.


An opportunity, that's all.

- To continue 3.5 under many of the same designers who liked it and wanted to keep writing stories for it.
- To streamline some of the more byzantine artifacts like combat maneuvers and class skills.
- To open design space by powering up LA 0 races.
- To remove XP as a resource and thus all need to track it moment-to-moment.
- To reword abusive spells like Polymorph and Divine Power.
- To redesign monsters like the Nightmare and Ogre Mage, and monster abilities like Regeneration and damage reduction.

Well, aside from it's the opposite of 3.5 in most ways, the skills and the maneuvers changes were bad (Rogue says he misses you, btw), Polymorph got a bland button, and Tenser's Transformation still gives BAB, there is nothing in this post that isn't horrible.

XP tracking is something my groups rarely did. We hardly ever craft. The other guy who crafts in our group plays only artificers, so PF has little to offer him as well.

[olentu]

People still play AD&D, but for a long time now you could probably say it's impact on the larger community had died off.

It's something I've never played, and am really only somewhat aware of it ("THAC0," right?). I only know one person personally who has ever had any interaction with it, and they've never played it either. When publishing stops, growth of the game also stops. I wouldn't go so far as to say that 3e gaming was in ashes, but Pathfinder rejuvenated it, and allowed it to grow again.

I might be willing to agree that pathfinder rejuvenated D&D 3e if pathfinder was not, you know, a different system.

[Snowbluff]

I might be willing to agree that pathfinder rejuvenated D&D 3e if pathfinder was not, you know, a different system.

I agree they are different systems, but PF might have had an effect. Not that I'll ever know; I don't track data on how often people who started with PF go to 3.5, or if 3.5 grew at all. :smalltongue:

[Squirrel_Dude]

I might be willing to agree that pathfinder rejuvenated D&D 3e if pathfinder was not, you know, a different system.Yes, just like how 3.5 killed 3.0. I guess I don't see them as entirely different systems, just the new iteration of it.

[Psyren]

The skills and the maneuvers changes were bad

Disagree.


Polymorph got a bland button

It needed one.


and Tenser's Transformation still gives BAB

While taking casting away, and not being on the cleric/druid list besides, so the sacrifice is meaningful. Transformation is considered terrible in 3.5 for a reason, because it's fine.


there is nothing in this post that isn't horrible.

Nice try :smalltongue:



XP tracking is something my groups rarely did. We hardly ever craft.

Did you also avoid using all the spells or psionic powers with XP components?

[olentu]

I agree they are different systems, but PF might have had an effect. Not that I'll ever know; I don't track data on how often people who started with PF go to 3.5. :smalltongue:

Yeah that is a good point, I don't have the appropriate data, merely my personal experience. Which as we all know is merely anecdotal and so does not really justify widespread claims.


Yes, just like how 3.5 killed 3.0. I guess I don't see them as entirely different systems, just the new iteration of it.

Eh, I suppose then that there can be no agreement between the two of us on the matter with such a fundamental difference as that in the way.

[Snowbluff]

Disagree.
We know you do. You said so in the post I quoted. :smallbiggrin:



While taking casting away, and not being on the cleric/druid list besides, so the sacrifice is meaningful. Transformation is considered terrible in 3.5 for a reason, because it's fine. My line of thought involves the benefit of your BAB being what you want it to be for qualification. Divine Power isn't much weaker that it was before, and I've heard it argued that it's stronger.

As for polymorph, I lament the changes. Simulacrum (note it wasn't changed in PF) is a very similiar spell, in that it allows PCs to use monsters of their choosing. I consider them some of the most interesting spells in the game, but I agree that they are really strong.

Also, synthethist. Paizo isn't drinking the kool aid they've been making.


Did you also avoid using all the spells or psionic powers with XP components? Yes, and definitely yes. I abhor using the more powerful, XP consuming spells. I don't consider things like Gates and Simulacra (which is one of my favorites spells) appropriate in my groups, which tend to be lower OP. I usually end up playing Warlock or something similiar. Online, I actually tend to err on the conservative side compared to my peers.

[Metahuman1]

This.



This is the major point that a lot of people are missing. They look at the Wizard and say "Holy crap, they still have their bonus feats+familiar and they got school powers and discoveries on top of that?? Broken!" But what they don't look at is PF Grease, or PF Glitterdust, or PF Polymorph etc. And they don't look at PF binding staples like the Nightmare that got nerfed into the floor. There's too much surface-level analysis.

Um, can I point out that they can craft all the freaking items for no XP cost for a default of half there market value giving them both early access to all the items they want and giving them a limitless reserve of disposable items and the ability to have every item to fix every problem on hand, before they get into putting other arbitrary restrictions on the items to make them even cheaper? , thus on top of all of that there WAY more powerful just from that one thing, and with everything else, now it's not the big 5, it's the big 1. One big class that breaks this game proportionally more then any of the big five did in the old one.



It also doesn't help that so far, for all the talk of backwards compatibility, every time I've ever tried to bring something 3.0 or 3.5 into a pathfinder game, Ive been told "No, this is pathfinder, can't have it.". This is especially infuriating when I want to bring incrnum or the Binder of a tome of battle class to the game. The backwards compatibility claim, my experience has been, is a thing that was either trumpet up, misrepresented, or just an out right lie to get people to try there product.


And While the druid and cleric are less powerful, it is still not hard for them to overshadow a melee character with careful gear and spell preparation choices, they just have to actually think about it for ten minutes.

And while they may not do it out of the box, don't worry, the summoner makes you irrelevant out of the box with it's summon spells and buffs and Debuffts. And that's with OUT the Synthesis Archatype, which makes your physical stats irrelevant and gives you all kinds of amazing ability's Mundane desperately needs, on TOP of the spell casting.

So yeah, when your doing that stuff but your making the fighter and barbarian actively weaker, theirs a problem.

[IronFist]

Um, can I point out that they can craft all the freaking items for no XP cost for a default of half there market value giving them both early access to all the items they want and giving them a limitless reserve of disposable items and the ability to have every item to fix every problem on hand, before they get into putting other arbitrary restrictions on the items to make them even cheaper? , thus on top of all of that there WAY more powerful just from that one thing, and with everything else, now it's not the big 5, it's the big 1. One big class that breaks this game proportionally more then any of the big five did in the old one.
You do know that anyone can craft magical items in Pathfinder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final), right?

[Jade_Tarem]

1. Except you're not replacing the fighter with a NPC. In the scenario I suggested (sorcerer enchants one NPC fighter, the party slot of the PC fighter is now occupied by a 2nd sorcerer with another enchanted NPC fighter). Can you say your fighter is 'vastly superior' to 2 NPC fighters and a PC sorcerer backing them up?

Yes. Our fighter can take a fireball to the face, operate a siege engine, and tank a hostile golem or SR-heavy monster while simultaneously keeping arrow volleys from pelting me in the face. Two NPC fighters and a sorcerer... can't.


2. It's not about one class vs the other. Practical optimization seldom discusses this scenario. A wizard is not better than a fighter because it can kill a fighter in a duel (that's just a side effect). A wizard is better than a fighter because he has infinitely more tools to tackle the variety of challenges that an adventuring group might face, whereas a fighter is usually limited to tacking those that can be solved by application of HP damage.

I see that I'm still not getting my point across, and someone else is accusing me of preaching poor game balance. Let me try one more time, to be absolutely clear.

I fully understand and believe that the tier list is a real thing, and that wizard is a more versatile and powerful class than the fighter when handling any one challenge. See below as to why I don't think that's a reason to toss the fighter into the garbage bin.

My comment about the game "not working like" it seems to in Practical Optimization discussions is not based entirely or even mostly on PvP. From what I have seen of these discussions, they tend to assume several very erroneous things about the scenarios in question. They assume that the wizard is dealing with a single issue, has no objectives other than keeping himself alive and overcoming the singular obstacle before him, never runs out of spells, always has time to rest and prepare new spells, and always has exactly the spell needed for a given issue. The. Game. Should. Not. Work. That. Way. If it does, then your main problem is bad adventure writing or game mastering. Class imbalance is real, but is secondary to the other issue.

I've already tossed out the caveat that most of my game experience has been with PFS. Those modules throw a variety of wacky situations at the party, many of which will see a full caster struggling to stay alive and relying - heavily - on the beefy guys to give him time to breathe. There is not an infinite supply of easily dominated super tanks that can take the fighter's place. You don't even *get* dominate until toward the end of PFS, and I personally guarantee that whatever you're grabbing with it will be highly inferior to a player fighter in terms of stats, equipment, and capability.

So yes, a wizard can take almost any challenge better than his fighter/barbarian/whatever colleagues. Except a resource-intense environment. Or creatures with SR or spell immunity. Or a guy who starts the fight with a level 8 party by Cone-of-Colding them all for 45 damage out of nowhere. Or dealing with situations that require non-knowledge skills (of which there are many in PFS, especially since you can't use enchantments to magic your way through social encounters). Or most other forms of surprise attack. And he especially can't do all of that while also doing his wizard-stuff to support the party. That's the beauty of it, you see... a number of these mods try to heavily tax a party that likes to wizard their way through every problem. You can't do that AND be a beast at combat. Even if you try to be a beast at combat instead, you can't do it every combat. You're just not tough enough... or magical enough.

*That* is my point. I'm, say, 99% sure that actually spending a lot of time playing this game is more relevant to a discussion about what's useful when playing the game than what someone calculated on the charOp board in a sterile, variable-barren setup. It's the same reason that we test planes before we let passengers get on board. Sometimes what's on paper isn't how it works in practice. That's been my experience with the Fighter, the Rogue, and all of these so-called "useless" classes that are supposedly overshadowed by the almighty evil wizard at every turn. They're not. They just aren't.

[IronFist]

*That* is my point. I'm, say, 99% sure that actually spending a lot of time playing this game is more relevant to a discussion about what's useful when playing the game than what someone calculated on the charOp board in a sterile, variable-barren setup. It's the same reason that we test planes before we let passengers get on board. Sometimes what's on paper isn't how it works in practice. That's been my experience with the Fighter, the Rogue, and all of these so-called "useless" classes that are supposedly overshadowed by the almighty evil wizard at every turn. They're not. They just aren't.
http://31.media.tumblr.com/31b8ab8746927957760c96ea167c635a/tumblr_mlgy51JgE61qdeg0do1_500.jpg
Brillian. Just... brilliant.
*slow clap*
I have considerable CharOp experience and have been playing 3.x systems since before they were officially released. All I can say is: finally someone gets it.

[eggynack]

Yes. Our fighter can take a fireball to the face, operate a siege engine, and tank a hostile golem or SR-heavy monster while simultaneously keeping arrow volleys from pelting me in the face. Two NPC fighters and a sorcerer... can't.
Why not?


My comment about the game "not working like" it seems to in Practical Optimization discussions is not based entirely or even mostly on PvP. From what I have seen of these discussions, they tend to assume several very erroneous things about the scenarios in question. They assume that the wizard is dealing with a single issue, has no objectives other than keeping himself alive and overcoming the singular obstacle before him, never runs out of spells, always has time to rest and prepare new spells, and always has exactly the spell needed for a given issue. The. Game. Should. Not. Work. That. Way. If it does, then your main problem is bad adventure writing or game mastering. Class imbalance is real, but is secondary to the other issue.

I don't really think that many of these are core assumptions of our understanding of balance. Wizards can deal with more than one obstacle at a time, or in sequence, because spells are powerful. Wizards tend to not run out of spells at that fast a rate, because you don't need all that many spells to turn the tide of a given encounter. You don't always need the exact right spell for the job, because spells are highly versatile, and you can often substitute a perfect spell with a merely great spell.



So yes, a wizard can take almost any challenge better than his fighter/barbarian/whatever colleagues. Except a resource-intense environment. Or creatures with SR or spell immunity.
Fighters expend resources, just like wizards do, because they stand on the front line, and use their face as a shield. There're a good number of spells that work against SR and spell immunity in 3.5, and I suspect that this is also the case in PF. If they got rid of a good majority of the strong BFC's and buffs, I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that some of those are still there.


*That* is my point. I'm, say, 99% sure that actually spending a lot of time playing this game is more relevant to a discussion about what's useful when playing the game than what someone calculated on the charOp board in a sterile, variable-barren setup. It's the same reason that we test planes before we let passengers get on board. Sometimes what's on paper isn't how it works in practice. That's been my experience with the Fighter, the Rogue, and all of these so-called "useless" classes that are supposedly overshadowed by the almighty evil wizard at every turn. They're not. They just aren't.
Wizards handle odd situations and encounters that aren't just arena fights far better than any melee class. That's why they're good. Fighters are the ones who are at their best when you're on a flat featureless plane with a perfectly mundane enemy. Wizards, by comparison, adapt. A single spell can find use in many different situations, and those situations are often disparate and complex. In general, a fighter can only do a couple of things, and those things can't adapt to anything. That's what the tier system is all about. The idea that our understanding of D&D balance hinges on flat surfaces and perfect situations is an incorrect one.

[JusticeZero]

Also, the ToB and Incarnam stuff is being rebuilt in PF.. Both are in alpha playtest in various stages now.

[IronFist]

Also, the ToB and Incarnam stuff is being rebuilt in PF.. Both are in alpha playtest in various stages now.

In open playtest, something everyone and their moma learned from Paizo.

[LordBlades]

I fully understand and believe that the tier list is a real thing, and that wizard is a more versatile and powerful class than the fighter when handling any one challenge. See below as to why I don't think that's a reason to toss the fighter into the garbage bin.

My comment about the game "not working like" it seems to in Practical Optimization discussions is not based entirely or even mostly on PvP. From what I have seen of these discussions, they tend to assume several very erroneous things about the scenarios in question. They assume that the wizard is dealing with a single issue, has no objectives other than keeping himself alive and overcoming the singular obstacle before him, never runs out of spells, always has time to rest and prepare new spells, and always has exactly the spell needed for a given issue. The. Game. Should. Not. Work. That. Way. If it does, then your main problem is bad adventure writing or game mastering. Class imbalance is real, but is secondary to the other issue.

I've already tossed out the caveat that most of my game experience has been with PFS. Those modules throw a variety of wacky situations at the party, many of which will see a full caster struggling to stay alive and relying - heavily - on the beefy guys to give him time to breathe. There is not an infinite supply of easily dominated super tanks that can take the fighter's place. You don't even *get* dominate until toward the end of PFS, and I personally guarantee that whatever you're grabbing with it will be highly inferior to a player fighter in terms of stats, equipment, and capability.

*That* is my point. I'm, say, 99% sure that actually spending a lot of time playing this game is more relevant to a discussion about what's useful when playing the game than what someone calculated on the charOp board in a sterile, variable-barren setup. It's the same reason that we test planes before we let passengers get on board. Sometimes what's on paper isn't how it works in practice. That's been my experience with the Fighter, the Rogue, and all of these so-called "useless" classes that are supposedly overshadowed by the almighty evil wizard at every turn. They're not. They just aren't.

Actually, most of oru experience comes from playing the game too. I (and probably most other guys speaking about practical optimization) have extensive gaming experience too.

I've played tons of 3.5 under most varied conditions, and some PF (enough to realize I don't like it, because it didn't fix most stuff I wanted fixed and as such for me it wasn't worth the effort to learn all the small rules changes but that's behind the point) and from my experience a fighter just doesn't keep up if the caster knows what he's doing.

Take Animate Dead for example (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/animate-dead). It seems to work identically to 3.5 animate dead, except you also get a Lesser Aniamte Dead at level 2). I've successfully provided melee power many times in 3.5 with Animate Dead. Since PF melee tends to be weaker than PF melee (most stuff got nerfed, no ubercharging, no Tome of Battle etc.), why would that not work in PF?

[IronFist]

Actually, most of oru experience comes from playing the game too. I (and probably most other guys speaking about practical optimization) have extensive gaming experience too.
CharOp forums are full of people that don't get to play much.


Take Animate Dead for example (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/animate-dead). It seems to work identically to 3.5 animate dead, except you also get a Lesser Aniamte Dead at level 2). I've successfully provided melee power many times in 3.5 with Animate Dead. Since PF melee tends to be weaker than PF melee (most stuff got nerfed, no ubercharging, no Tome of Battle etc.), why would that not work in PF?
He is not saying it doesn't work. He is saying you could use those resources for something else and let the Fighter do his thing. In fact, if you used that slot to buff the Fighter, you would have a far better meatbag between you and whoever wants a piece of your d6 hit die.

[eggynack]

He is not saying it doesn't work. He is saying you could use those resources for something else and let the Fighter do his thing. In fact, if you used that slot to buff the Fighter, you would have a far better meatbag between you and whoever wants a piece of your d6 hit die.
Of course the party is better because it has a fighter in it. It'd be completely illogical for that not to be the case, because a party with more members in it is better than a party with less members in it. The wizard will get some use from this fighter, even if it's only as a marginally more powerful zombie meatbag. The problem arises when the fighter is compared to other options. The wizard doesn't need to fill the fighter's role completely in order to make fighters incredibly weak. He only needs to fill the fighter's role enough to get by, and then use his remaining resources to do higher order things. Additionally, he'll have plenty of resources to do so, because the fighter is presumably being replaced by another caster, and they can also shoulder the slight amount of weight that the fighter carries, while devoting the rest of their resources to higher order things.

[Jade_Tarem]

Brillian. Just... brilliant.
*slow clap*
I have considerable CharOp experience and have been playing 3.x systems since before they were officially released. All I can say is: finally someone gets it.

Thanks. The credit really goes to my friend *playing* the fighter, just for showing me how it's done. He's actually the tactical leader of our little group.


Why not?

Okay, let's break down a couple of recent game play examples.

Warning: Pure awesome contained within.
Our party fighter has most of the shield feat line. He also has the Bodyguard and In Harm's Way feats, as well as decent two weapon fighting. As I've mentioned before, he fights with a gauntlet and shield.

Actual scenario:

Party assaulted by enemy Aspis Consortium agents. Some close to melee while others hang back and throw bombs/cast spells.

My sorcerer is attacked by the enemy fighter partway through the fight. He rolls very well versus my AC of twenty, several times. True, I could be invisible, or displaced, or god only knows what else, but it turns out that those things don't all just happen when you're level 8-9, and I had spent those intervening turns disrupting the enemy's back line rather than buffing up while my party died around me. The fighter, with his combat reflexes feat, uses Bodyguard to crank my AC to 24, negating two of the hits, and then In Harms Way'd the one that got through anyway - a crit that would have put me out of the fight. Then on his turn (the fighter did all of that out of turn using AoO's), he shield bashed the enemy fighter for decent damage and sent him flying into the pit I'd dropped the enemy alchemist into, took a step, punted the enemy cleric into the wall and proceeded to beat her half to death. My sorcerer then concentrated fire on finishing off the annoying alchemist...

If you can find me an NPC fighter that can do that in a PFS mod, I will personally mail you 100 dollars. (Pro tip: you can't). Even the vaunted wizard would not have kept me from getting my head cut off in that situation.

No, don't tell me that the wizard would have waved his hands earlier in the fight and put the fighter out of commission. It's just as likely he would have failed. The fact is that they're called "save-or-die" spells, not just "die" spells.


I don't really think that many of these are core assumptions of our understanding of balance. Wizards can deal with more than one obstacle at a time, or in sequence, because spells are powerful. Wizards tend to not run out of spells at that fast a rate, because you don't need all that many spells to turn the tide of a given encounter. You don't always need the exact right spell for the job, because spells are highly versatile, and you can often substitute a perfect spell with a merely great spell.

You're still thinking of extremely high levels, where I have already admitted an imbalance exists. Even so, observe a level 11 wizard learning humility in my next example:

Warning: Spoilers from Words of the Ancients Pathfinder module within.
I played a mod called "Words of the Ancients" at Dragoncon recently. Among our merry band were my sorcerer, a UMD rogue, a diviner wizard, a barbarian, and something else. Some sort of divine caster, I think. Our first encounter was a social one with a Copper Dragon, whom we had to convince to let us continue past the area he was guarding from hostile cultists. For this, the wizard...

Oh wait, he didn't do anything. Turns out there's not really a high-success-rate spell that makes a mature copper dragon magically like you, and if you try it they tend to get pissed. Instead the sorcerer and rogue stepped up to the plate with their high charisma and ranks in actual social skills. Eventually, we got past.

Next, we entered the uber-dangerous dungeon of the Lissalan cultists. Upon entry, we were ambushed by, I kid you not, invisible flying outsiders with gaze attacks, who did damage every time you look at them. Lots of damage, if you fail a fortitude save.

Aha! But the mighty diviner wizard gets to act in the surprise round. He cast a spell that, IIRC, failed to overcome the creature's fairly good saving throws. For this, they beat the flying tar out of him. He spent the rest of the fight trying not to die. He wasn't a bad wizard, just not one that could take the Invisible Gaze Attack Outsider Ambush at level 11 all by his lonesome. Instead, the UMD rogue and sorcerer beefed up the Barbarian (since he could look at these things without taking the equivalent of Meteor Swarm damage) and let him have at them. They eventually died.

Then we encountered the puzzle room, where we had to work out a riddle to find the right way to get through a series of teleporty-type gates. For this, the diviner wizard simply cast a spell and divined the answer. Wait... no he didn't. He didn't have one prepared and had to use his bonded item earlier in the fight to not die. Plus the spell that would have let him get past was kinda weak. Instead we worked it out as players. I think the rogue got it first.

Then we encountered the sphinxes that told us a bunch of mod specific stuff. They sent the party down a certain hallway to collect what we came here for... and then the trap happened. A gelatinous cube dropped right on the party. The wizard, of course, teleported right out... oh, no, he didn't do that either. Turns out it's really freaking hard to cast a spell when you're submerged and taking acid damage every round. The barbarian freed himself, my sorcerer buffed him, and we eventually beat it that way.

At that point, we decided to become significantly more cautious. The wizard had already scouted the hallways magically (alas, the cube thing was a weight triggered trap, and floating arcane eyes just aren't that good at setting those off). The rogue was more careful, and eventually we managed to get what we came for. Of course, the sphinxes were actually an ambush. They attacked us and one of them had this curious Roar ability that could produce a variety of save effects, including the fort save. Once again, combat was up to those who could actually take a hit.

And that's the story of how a wizard doesn't necessarily dominate a mod. Again, he had a versatile spell list full of powerful must-have spells. His "build" is considered one of the most powerful in PFS. It wasn't enough to render everything else irrelevant. Not even close.


Fighters expend resources, just like wizards do, because they stand on the front line, and use their face as a shield.

Your fighter is doing it wrong if he's getting hit all the time.


There're a good number of spells that work against SR and spell immunity in 3.5, and I suspect that this is also the case in PF. If they got rid of a good majority of the strong BFC's and buffs, I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that some of those are still there.

NOPE! Most of those spells are gone, replaced with either nothing, or spells that don't really end the encounter on the spot. In PF, you're stuck with spells like Glitterdust, Aqueous Orb, and Acid Arrow, none of which are going to make that enemy Vrock roll over and die on its own. An infinite plethora of spells that bypass SR and antimagic defenses entirely is a 3.5 problem, not a PF problem.


Wizards handle odd situations and encounters that aren't just arena fights far better than any melee class. That's why they're good. Fighters are the ones who are at their best when you're on a flat featureless plane with a perfectly mundane enemy. Wizards, by comparison, adapt. A single spell can find use in many different situations, and those situations are often disparate and complex. In general, a fighter can only do a couple of things, and those things can't adapt to anything. That's what the tier system is all about. The idea that our understanding of D&D balance hinges on flat surfaces and perfect situations is an incorrect one.

Except they don't. They don't adapt nearly as well as the charOp people want you, or perhaps have accidentally led you, to believe. The wizard needs 2 feats and to reduce his overall spellcasting potential to be able to spend a full minute to prepare some of his spells on the fly. If he took those feats, he has to give up Greater Spell Focus or Greater Spell Penetration, meaning that his spells aren't as effective as you claim. Even then, there's only so much he can do. Once again, you're ignoring the full import of what I'm saying, and the language you use makes this clear. A single spell does *not* find use in many different situations, it is used once and then it is expended. A wizard is *not* faced with one challenge, he is faced with many, and they require far more resources that you seem to think they do. Sometimes enemies aren't terribly built things that fall apart just because the wizard squints at them. Sometimes there isn't a spell that makes the issue go away, and *much* more frequently, the wizard doesn't have that spell available, or even one like it.

And for the final time, I have never said that the wizard isn't better. You keep coming back to that argument because that's the one you can win, but unfortunately that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, now and then, that the "underpowered" classes are in fact quite capable of holding their own, are more versatile than 3.5 ever made them, and more likely to last through a particularly intense adventure mod. You can point at a charOp board and shriek about spell versatility until you turn blue, but I'm still right.

Edit: I also find it interesting that arguments have moved from something solid to "well I'm sure there's some way the wizard can easily get around all SR forever." Really? Could you find it for me please?

[eggynack]

I'll try to cover other stuff at some other point, but for now, some basics.


Your fighter is doing it wrong if he's getting hit all the time.
I'm not saying he's getting hit all the time. He's just getting hit some of the time, because a fighter stands on the front lines. A fighter isn't a training dummy, getting hit by anything that breathes on him, but a wizard tends to be better protected from damage, just because he doesn't have to be in melee range to do his thing.




NOPE! Most of those spells are gone, replaced with either nothing, or spells that don't really end the encounter on the spot. In PF, you're stuck with spells like Glitterdust, Aqueous Orb, and Acid Arrow, none of which are going to make that enemy Vrock roll over and die on its own. An infinite plethora of spells that bypass SR and antimagic defenses entirely is a 3.5 problem, not a PF problem.

I'm checking through, and it looks like a lot of my favorite SR: no spells are still there. Black tentacles exists, though it seems marginally less powerful, and many of the wall spells are still there, just as capable of blocking a golem as they ever were. Many of the fogs are still doing their thing, like stinking cloud, though solid fog was nerfed. I'm not sure how web compares without some information, and my understanding is that grease might be even better than before if you're not using it to activate a rogue. It just seems like you've left many of these off, is what I'm saying.



Except they don't. They don't adapt nearly as well as the charOp people want you, or perhaps have accidentally led you, to believe. The wizard needs 2 feats and to reduce his overall spellcasting potential to be able to spend a full minute to prepare some of his spells on the fly. If he took those feats, he has to give up Greater Spell Focus or Greater Spell Penetration, meaning that his spells aren't as effective as you claim. Even then, there's only so much he can do. Once again, you're ignoring the full import of what I'm saying, and the language you use makes this clear. A single spell does *not* find use in many different situations, it is used once and then it is expended. A wizard is *not* faced with one challenge, he is faced with many, and they require far more resources that you seem to think they do. Sometimes enemies aren't terribly built things that fall apart just because the wizard squints at them. Sometimes there isn't a spell that makes the issue go away, and *much* more frequently, the wizard doesn't have that spell available, or even one like it.
I don't think I've made my point clear enough, about spells having use in multiple situations. I'm not saying that you can use a spell more than once (at least without some external force compelling you to). I'm saying that the same fly spell which keeps you out of range of enemy fighters, can also lift you over a chasm, or allow you to engage aerial enemies if you buff up. The same stone shape that can block a doorway, can also divide up an encounter to cut down the enemy's action economy, bridge a hole, cause stone blocks to rain from the ceiling, hole a bridge, block ranged enemy attacks, or pretty much anything else. These spells can fill many purposes, so it's rare that you won't have a spell that can help with a problem.

[Jade_Tarem]

I'll try to cover other stuff at some other point, but for now, some basics.

I'm not saying he's getting hit all the time. He's just getting hit some of the time, because a fighter stands on the front lines. A fighter isn't a training dummy, getting hit by anything that breathes on him, but a wizard tends to be better protected from damage, just because he doesn't have to be in melee range to do his thing.

But he doesn't become less effective in subsequent combats, because he can get hit points back in between fights, you see? Those basics can be tricky when it comes to attrition.


I'm checking through, and it looks like a lot of my favorite SR: no spells are still there. Black tentacles exists, though it seems marginally less powerful, and many of the wall spells are still there, just as capable of blocking a golem as they ever were. Many of the fogs are still doing their thing, like stinking cloud, though solid fog was nerfed. I'm not sure how web compares without some information, and my understanding is that grease might be even better than before if you're not using it to activate a rogue. It just seems like you've left many of these off, is what I'm saying.

Black Tentacles, Walls, Solid Fog, etc. are all 4th level and up spells. If you're casting one, you are A) In the last half of PFS, and B) not in possession of an infinite supply of them. At level 7, your Black Tentacles is 33-50% of your highest level spells for the day. You can't do it in every fight, let alone do it in every fight *and* also cast wall spells and solid fog and Dragon's Breath and... you get it. At level 11, you still don't get a lot of them, unless you're a Sorcerer or Oracle.


I don't think I've made my point clear enough, about spells having use in multiple situations. I'm not saying that you can use a spell more than once (at least without some external force compelling you to). I'm saying that the same fly spell which keeps you out of range of enemy fighters, can also lift you over a chasm, or allow you to engage aerial enemies if you buff up. The same stone shape that can block a doorway, can also divide up an encounter to cut down the enemy's action economy, bridge a hole, cause stone blocks to rain from the ceiling, hole a bridge, block ranged enemy attacks, or pretty much anything else. These spells can fill many purposes, so it's rare that you won't have a spell that can help with a problem.

I never said you can't help, just that the wizard flying circus isn't the best answer. Your statements lead me to believe that you see the fighter as literally nothing more than something that stands up front and gets hit while doing damage, and can therefore be easily replaced by a random zombie. That's how it was in 3.5, but if nothing else, my gameplay example was intended to prove that this is flat wrong. Your fighter should be busy. Your rogue should be busier. Your wizard should be far too busy to do his job and theirs at the same time, even if another wizard is helping. These are not classes that can be replaced with CR 3 creatures.

Nor does the possession of Black Tentacles make for an "I win" button. Two wizards are faced with a Stone Golem. Are they going to Wall and Black Tentacle it to death? No they are not. Walls and Black Tentacles won't even slow a mid-strength demon down. They need someone else to actually kill it. That someone else can't really be a summoned creature or undead. I recommend the Paladin, which even at level 11-12 is MUCH better at fighting demons, evil dragons, and undead than most wizards.

Similarly, your best bet for getting through a locked and trapped door is still a rogue. Your wizard can do the sequence of steps that will disable the trap and open the door, but it will consume literally infinitely more resources than the rogue solution, as does teleporting to the other side. Your best bet for a social encounter is still a class that's good at social encounters (try enchanting your way through a social encounter in PFS. I dare you). Adding more wizards doesn't really fix the problem - especially since sometimes everyone just takes a lot of damage and the high hit point characters have to step up. That's a real thing that happens in games, but never on charOp boards.

[eggynack]

Black Tentacles, Walls, Solid Fog, etc. are all 4th level and up spells. If you're casting one, you are A) In the last half of PFS, and B) not in possession of an infinite supply of them. At level 7, your Black Tentacles is 33-50% of your highest level spells for the day. You can't do it in every fight, let alone do it in every fight *and* also cast wall spells and solid fog and Dragon's Breath and... you get it. At level 11, you still don't get a lot of them, unless you're a Sorcerer or Oracle.

Lessee then. Silent image appears to work just as it did in 3.5. I mentioned grease and stinking cloud among the ones I listed, both of which are below 4th level. Snowball seems pretty good, especially at low levels of play, and maybe with some metamagic if you're into that. Summon monster of various kinds seems relatively unchanged, though I'm not going to run a crazy monster comparison here. There's really a whole bunch of SR: no spells here.

[Jade_Tarem]

Lessee then. Silent image appears to work just as it did in 3.5. I mentioned grease and stinking cloud among the ones I listed, both of which are below 4th level. Snowball seems pretty good, especially at low levels of play, and maybe with some metamagic if you're into that. Summon monster of various kinds seems relatively unchanged, though I'm not going to run a crazy monster comparison here. There's really a whole bunch of SR: no spells here.

Yes, and these are all viable things for you to do in a fight. They will not, however, win you the fight. You use them to support your warrior types. That's the contrast I'm making. In 3.5, the answer is always one of those followed by "I then Orb of Force it to death, because there being a single situation a wizard can't handle in 2 rounds would just be ridiculous." Those options for the finisher are much more scarce in PF, to the point of being basically nonexistent in PFS. Sometimes it's better to not have literally thousands of available spells. Remember the low level one that can one-shot a Great Wyrm Dragon? PFS doesn't.

And either way, you aren't really addressing my argument, which once again was never that the wizard can't do anything, that the wizard isn't a superior class, or that you shouldn't have a wizard in your group. I'm getting tired of repeating it, so I'm just going to state it one more time for the sake of posterity.

1) Full Prepared Casters are significantly more rad on charOp boards than they actually are in game. They are still really rad in game.
2) Fighter/Rogue/etc. is very useful and tons of fun to play if you know what you're doing. A wizard/sorcerer/whatever cannot simply replace them with a fragment of a class feature - not even adequately, and forget doing it well.
3) Things that prevent Full Caster Domination are more prevalent in PF, or at least PFS, than most of PF's caster/warrior gulf critics are willing to admit... though they do seem to be willing to admit that they haven't played much PF.
4) There are a number of features in PF that are, objectively, improvements over 3.5, and my personal opinion on the matter is that these improvements outweigh what was lost.

[Perseus]

When I heard that PF was going to fix 3.5 I was ecstatic.

I don't care if you make one class that is stronger than another class, that is natural like some jobs paying more than others.

What I hoped for is that each class would be balanced/fixes versus the game.

So while compared to the wizard, a fighter may not stand much of a chance past level 6... But a 15th level Fighter should stand a chance against a 15th level CR whatever monster.

Nope the Fighter and other tier 4 and 5 classes are still boned.

I guess what I was hoping for was at least bring the tier 6 5 4 up to tier 3. I wouldn't care if tier 2 and 1 still existed.

But you know what changed? Nothing. If you play certain classes there comes a point where you are the little brother or sister to the party and the only way to contribute is if the others pat you on the head and say "go play".

Non magic users stayed mundane instead of becoming Extraordinary.

So why should I play this new game called pathfinder which is a 3.5 hack of a fix when I get the same outcome with my old game AND there is a new game that let's non magic users be Extraordinary (hint 4e fighters are fantastic and translates over to 3.5 pretty well with some work)? (This was my thought process when I got to chose between 4e and PF)

I can play any edition of D&D, however pathfinder just rubs me the wrong way because the people at Paizo are so frustrating. I've tried on multiple occasions to play a PF character and I can't help but feel that my mundanes get shafted. But the biggest sin of all is the wasted potential that Paizo threw out the window. They really had a chance to do something fantastic but either through incompetence or laziness they didn't capitalize on fixing a problem that has been known for years.

Of course recently I found Heroes Against Darkness which combines multiple editions of D&D... So far I like what I see from it.

[Saph]

1) Full Prepared Casters are significantly more rad on charOp boards than they actually are in game. They are still really rad in game.
2) Fighter/Rogue/etc. is very useful and tons of fun to play if you know what you're doing. A wizard/sorcerer/whatever cannot simply replace them with a fragment of a class feature - not even adequately, and forget doing it well.
3) Things that prevent Full Caster Domination are more prevalent in PF, or at least PFS, than most of PF's caster/warrior gulf critics are willing to admit... though they do seem to be willing to admit that they haven't played much PF.
4) There are a number of features in PF that are, objectively, improvements over 3.5, and my personal opinion on the matter is that these improvements outweigh what was lost.

Just popping in to say . . . please listen to Jade_Tarem. What he's describing in the above spoilered posts is exactly what most challenging PF adventures look like.

I've played most of the way through three long and dangerous Pathfinder campaigns, each time as a full spellcaster. (One wizard, one witch, one oracle, if you're curious.) Yes, my characters were powerful. Know when they were happiest? When they had a good melee PC standing in front of them. Fighters & co are not useless, and in my experience most of the people who claim they are really don't know what they're talking about.

[Snowbluff]

Doesn't everyone know that Orbs are still in PF? It's called snowball.


Know when they were happiest? When they had a good melee PC standing in front of them. Fighters & co are not useless, and in my experience most of the people who claim they are really don't know what they're talking about.
That's what Summoner and Bard are for. EDIT: Forgot Magus. :smalltongue:

The rogue is bad for a good number of reasons:

1) The skill point system mean that none of them have specialized skills. Every class can have a decent level in any check they want, even if it's not a class skill for them.
5) Bards are far better skill users, thanks to versatile performance. They simply get more bang for their buck.
2) IF other classes want the +3 bonus, there's a trait for that.
4) Trapfinding can be handled by more intelligent characters or classes.
5) For magical trapfinding, a ton of classes have at-will access to detect magic, and Bard has an Archetype for Trap Finding.

I've long dismissed fighter. I fail to see any gained utility, save for the stealth nerf to rogue.

[olentu]

Fighters & co are not useless, and in my experience most of the people who claim they are really don't know what they're talking about.

Of course fighters are not useless. Barring certain circumstances any class is worth more then a completely empty slot.

[Perseus]

I've long dismissed fighter. I fail to see any gained utility, save for the stealth nerf to rogue.

Hey now! They get bigger numbers which means that they don't need utility... Cause everyone knows bigger numbahs > utility.


Of course fighters are not useless. Barring certain circumstances any class is worth more then a completely empty slot.

But they are so damn easy to replace with things just as or more useful from other classes.. that it stopped being funny ages ago.

Druid: Summons/Animal Companion
Wizard: Summons
Cleric: Summons
Summoner: Summons/Eidolon

So either play a class that sucks or play a class that is awesome and gives you the ability to have a Fighter only when needed that doesn't take XP and Gold from you.

[Gnaeus]

1) The skill point system mean that none of them have specialized skills. Every class can have a decent level in any check they want, even if it's not a class skill for them.
5) Bards are far better skill users, thanks to versatile performance. They simply get more bang for their buck.

Yes, other classes can be good at individual skills in PF, but the rogue tends to be good at everything (which he could not usually do in 3.5, because 2 skills for stealth and 3 for perception already ate more than half of his skill points, leaving him with only a few points for everything that was not stealth or perception). Bards are not usually better skillmonkies than rogues, at least until high level, because the rogue gets more skill points, and even if the bard can double up with versatile performance, that is only for a couple of skills until high levels. By the time they get their 3rd versatile performance at 10, rogue is getting advanced talents which he could use to continue to beat bards at skillmonkeying if skillmonkeying were actually useful to do after level 10 in either PF or 3.5.

Also, you forgot the big changes to rogue in PF. You can sneak attack almost everything, and talents mean that you are doing more damage. Weapon finesse is no longer a feat tax. You can add bleed or ability damage to sneaks or just make them do more damage. Or you can use talents to get 2 extra feats to give you other options in combat.



4) Trapfinding can be handled by more intelligent characters or classes.
5) For magical trapfinding, a ton of classes have at-will access to detect magic, and Bard has an Archetype for Trap Finding.


Gosh, thats a huge change from 3.5, where trapfinding is often done with monsters summoned by a reserve feat. Or a beguiler, a factotum or an artificer. (Or barbarian with ACF, or Kobold cleric....) Thanks 3.5 for protecting that niche.

And a quick look at rogue archetypes shows that if trapfinding is not something he wants to do because some other party members have it covered, he can trade it for a huge number of other options.

[Snowbluff]

Yes, other classes can be good at individual skills in PF, but the rogue tends to be good at everything (which he could not usually do in 3.5, because 2 skills for stealth and 3 for perception already ate more than half of his skill points, leaving him with only a few points for everything that was not stealth or perception). Bards are not usually better skillmonkies than rogues, at least until high level, because the rogue gets more skill points, and even if the bard can double up with versatile performance, that is only for a couple of skills until high levels. By the time they get their 3rd versatile performance at 10, rogue is getting advanced talents which he could use to continue to beat bards at skillmonkeying if skillmonkeying were actually useful to do after level 10 in either PF or 3.5. At least one rogue talent is a nerf to a skill, and the bard archetype I mentioned, archaeologist gets talents. That's if the party even thinks they need the Trapfinding.

The bonus from Versatile Performance is insurmountable. 2 less skill points per level hurts a lot less when everyone can put points into any skill to allow the class to fade into pointlessness.


Also, you forgot the big changes to rogue in PF. You can sneak attack almost everything, and talents mean that you are doing more damage. Weapon finesse is no longer a feat tax. You can add bleed or ability damage to sneaks or just make them do more damage. Or you can use talents to get 2 extra feats to give you other options in combat. I didn't forget, because it does not matter. The ability to sneak attack has never been rogue's greatest ability, and there were ways around immunities in 3.5 as well.


Gosh, thats a huge change from 3.5, where trapfinding is often done with monsters summoned by a reserve feat. Or a beguiler, a factotum or an artificer. (Or barbarian with ACF, or Kobold cleric....) Thanks 3.5 for protecting that niche. Yeah, I think rogue sucks in 3.5 as well, but the archetype of skillmonkey does not suffer as much in 3.5. Factotum seems like 3.5 admitting this fact, and patching it with a class better prepared to use skills. Well, several classes better designed with the ability to use skills. Not that I think trapfinding is something that should be limited by class feature, which creates an artificial and superficial barrier between classes that really has no effect.

Yeah, sarcasm has no power here. Forming arguments for other people in there stead isn't really a good way to operate, either. :smalltongue:


And a quick look at rogue archetypes shows that if trapfinding is not something he wants to do because some other party members have it covered, he can trade it for a huge number of other options.
Or we can have a bard instead! If I have to construct a 5 man band in PF, rogue wouldn't be present. At least in 3.5 I can dip it.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Summoned monsters do not replace a fighter's ability in Pathfinder. Not even close. They don't do enough damage, don't hit often enough, and don't have enough staying power. Often as levels go up, they're really only useful for the utility of the random powers they have, but not their ability to actually fight the enemy in any way other than "I put 5 guys in that 5-foot wide hallway so that the enemy can't get near us."

[Psyren]

My line of thought involves the benefit of your BAB being what you want it to be for qualification. Divine Power isn't much weaker that it was before, and I've heard it argued that it's stronger.

It's not. You're making the same mistake Big Fau did, operating off hearsay and your own biases against PF instead of reading and comparing the spells for yourself. How hard is it to look up something on your own and form your own analysis and conclusions? PF Wish is not stronger, PF Divine Power is not stronger, etc.



Yes, and definitely yes. I abhor using the more powerful, XP consuming spells. I don't consider things like Gates and Simulacra (which is one of my favorites spells) appropriate in my groups, which tend to be lower OP. I usually end up playing Warlock or something similiar. Online, I actually tend to err on the conservative side compared to my peers.

Is Limited Wish broken too? Greater Restoration? Atonement? Commune/Divination?


Doesn't everyone know that Orbs are still in PF? It's called snowball.

Orbs are in core, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidSplash.htm) why wouldn't any be in PF?

[The Trickster]

I am trying to figure out if I actually saw the argument I think I did - did someone who plays 3.5 just say that they dislike PF because it didn't fix enough 3.5 issues... while still playing 3.5 with all of the same problems?


I play both, because even though PF didn't fix all the problems, 3.5 still has more options available. If I love the 3.5/PF system and am going to accept that there are problems, then yeah, I'll play 3.5 just because there is a ton of material for it. I suppose that is why a person would "play 3.5 with all of the same problems." Might as well play the system with more stuff in it.

[Snowbluff]

It's not. You're making the same mistake Big Fau did, operating off hearsay and your own biases against PF instead of reading and comparing the spells for yourself. How hard is it to look up something on your own and form your own analysis and conclusions? PF Wish is not stronger, PF Divine Power is not stronger, etc.
Oh, he's going to claim I am biased. This is even after me posting researched information concerning bard archetypes, and even replying to you with a note on double standards and unchanged material. I am trying to be objective when it comes to these concerns. My efforts would feel more welcome if you did not question them. :smallsigh:

The thing about Divine Power is that it still grants another attack, and gives bonuses to attack. +6 damage is more divine power used to give, and it stacks with Bear's Strength and other enhancements, which is something Divine Power would not do. If your BAB is already good, you get more off a bonus out of it. As for CMB/CMD, in 3.5 BAB did not factor into all of these things, so I think there is little change there.

Woops, did my research again. :smalltongue:


Is Limited Wish broken too? Greater Restoration? Atonement? Commune/Divination?
I searched the quoted text. "Broken" did not appear. Please stop putting words in my mouth, it does not become you.

I'll clarify. :smallsmile: I simply stated that such spells are usually powerful, and that my groups don't tend to be a place I use them. The levels of my local groups don't even make it up to 13 most of the time, so I am not even in a position to use the less powerful ones.


Orbs are in core, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidSplash.htm) why wouldn't any be in PF?
Fallacious. Acid Splash is considered weak, and I've had it suggested to me that a crossbow is better.

Snowball is good damage, ranged touch, no SR, and Save Or Suck all rolled into one. These are the traits of an Orb, which Acid Splash and Acid Arrow fail to meet the criteria of. It's a lower spell slot, and it with Intensify spell it's more efficient.

[Psyren]

Oh, he's going to claim I am biased. This is even after me posting researched information concerning bard archetypes, and even replying to you with a note on double standards and unchanged material. I am trying to be objective when it comes to these concerns. My efforts would feel more welcome if you did not question them. :smallsigh:

I wouldn't have reason to question them if you didn't rely on "I heard it argued that X" and instead relied on your own analysis and judgment, as is rational.



The thing about Divine Power is that it still grants another attack, and gives bonuses to attack.

- Another attack that doesn't stack with haste (and who doesn't have haste?)
- One of the reasons 3.5 DP was so broken is that it completely negated the drawback to certain choices, like Cloistered Cleric. In PF, a 1/2 BAB class can no longer rely on DP to become a fighting machine.
- +6 damage at level 18 is a drop in the bucket.



I'll clarify. :smallsmile: I simply stated that such spells are usually powerful, and that my groups don't tend to be a place I use them.

Whether your groups use them or not, others do and therefore needed to track XP as a resource. Other groups craft as well. So PF may be less of an upgrade for you if you don't use the things it improved, but that doesn't mean the system itself has no advantages for the rest of us.



Fallacious. Acid Splash is considered weak, and I've had it suggested to me that a crossbow is better.

Indeed it is, but it's still the prototype for orbs.



So while compared to the wizard, a fighter may not stand much of a chance past level 6... But a 15th level Fighter should stand a chance against a 15th level CR whatever monster.

Nope the Fighter and other tier 4 and 5 classes are still boned.


Er... which CR 15 threat can a Fighter 15 with level 15 WBL not defeat?

[Snowbluff]

I wouldn't have reason to question them if you didn't rely on "I heard it argued that X" and instead relied on your own analysis and judgment, as is rational. That implies I do not entirely agree with the assessment, not that I didn't look into it.



- Another attack that doesn't stack with haste (and who doesn't have haste?)
- One of the reasons 3.5 DP was so broken is that it completely negated the drawback to certain choices, like Cloistered Cleric. In PF, a 1/2 BAB class can no longer rely on DP to become a fighting machine.
- +6 damage at level 18 is a drop in the bucket.
-Clerics and Paladins don't have access to haste (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/h/haste), it seems.
- This I agree with. I think it's good for the actually abuse, hence my reference to Tenser's Transformation abuse and labeling it arguable.
- +8 attack/+5 damage max in 3.5 versus +6/+6. The PF cleric can still buy an Str item to cover the attack loss and have more damage, and is able to use the damage bonus to greater effect on ranged/multiple attacks. For Paladins, the PF version is strictly better.


Whether your groups use them or not, others do and therefore needed to track XP as a resource. Other groups craft as well. So PF may be less of an upgrade for you if you don't use the things it improved, but that doesn't mean the system itself has no advantages for the rest of us.

I think the question you asked was whether or not I used them or if I was implying certain spells are "broken." I answered truthfully and to the best of my ability. It shows the little effect this convenience feature would have on my group, and it seems case studies are accepted here considering the other arguments posted here.


Indeed it is, but it's still the prototype for orbs.
It has very little do with them, Psyren.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: The merits and flaws of PF seems like a legitimate topic, but when it's super-polarized and making personal insults in the first three posts, we're not going to entertain that here.

Locked for review.