Pathfinder pros & cons? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Scow2

2014-02-15, 12:06 PM

The optimization floor has been raised, while the optimization ceiling has been cut down. Some people get irrationally pissy about a few changes to core things, such as the loss of the rogue's "Niche Protection" through skill consolidation and removal of cross-class halfranks (But the loss of "enough ranks in a skill for bonus abilities" does hurt rogues a bit.)

Also, it doesn't handle mixed-level parties - if a character falls behind, they STAY behind. D&D had a few fiddly systems that made people vary individual XP and allow people to catch up that pathfinder ditched because they were fiddly.

Overall, I'd consider Pathfinder an improvement on 3.5 because it re-examined the core class capabilities, but it still has a few snags. It works great at low-op and mid-op. People used to 3.5's ridiculously high optimization ceiling tend to hate it, though... I think they missed the memo about several of the changes.

The biggest problem I've had with Pathfinder is the attempt to balance and make the math consistent - it's too easy to fall off expected performance values (Especially trying to tumble or pull off any maneuver without triplefeatinvestment) - AC, HP, CMD, Saves, and Attack bonuses of monsters tend to scale with CR consistently similar to how they do in 4e... but players don't have opportunities to keep up automatically without hunting down math-fixing bonuses (Stupid Cloaks of resistance and stat-boosting items and other blegities and Combat Maneuver Feats!)

Slipperychicken

2014-02-15, 12:53 PM

You can also use your favorite 3.5 material in PF without many problems.

PF makes archery worthwhile and has a serious attempt at firearm rules.

hemming

2014-02-15, 02:58 PM

You can also use your favorite 3.5 material in PF without many problems.

PF makes archery worthwhile and has a serious attempt at firearm rules.

Now that sounds worth looking into - can anyone elaborate on what makes archery more interesting in PF vs. D&D?

BWR

2014-02-15, 04:16 PM

ghanjrho

2014-02-15, 04:28 PM

Now that sounds worth looking into - can anyone elaborate on what makes archery more interesting in PF vs. D&D?

Two feat: Clustered Shots and (more importantly) Deadly Aim.
Deadly Aim is essentially Power Attack for bows/crossbows (following PF's rules for Power Attack). Clustered Shots allows you to count all your missile attacks as one shot for purposes of applying DR

MonochromeTiger

2014-02-15, 04:30 PM

Two feat: Clustered Shots and (more importantly) Deadly Aim.
Deadly Aim is essentially Power Attack for bows/crossbows (following PF's rules for Power Attack). Clustered Shots allows you to count all your missile attacks as one shot for purposes of applying DR

both of which are very useful when dealing with something even your melee are afraid to get close to.

HunterOfJello

2014-02-15, 05:29 PM

Pros:
-There's new material coming out
-There are quite a few very cool new classes that fill up gaps that existed in 3.5
-Settings are easily converted from 3.5 to OF since the only real conversion differences are on a few basic character things. Level 20 wizards are still the equivalent of lesser deities so you don't have to rehash the entire setting like 4e went and did.
-PF finally has enough material in it that it doesn't feel as much like some sort of 3.5-lite game.
-Archery doesn't suck ass

Cons:
-You don't get all the old 3.5 greatness
-Anything converted from 3.5 to PF has to be considered very carefully for balance issues that the PF creators would have originally ignored.
-Most character related conversions require a modicum of effort and understanding of both systems.
-Some people love 3.5 and hate PF while others love PF and hate 3.5. If you try to mix the groups, people get into rather pointless argument matches.
-Archery can kill your PC

zionpopsickle

2014-02-15, 05:44 PM

I think the basic thing with Pathfinder (at least in my opinion) is that while touted as a fix, it is not a fix. It is an alternative. This seems like a very minor distinction but I feel it is an important philosophical one for how one should view the game.

Primarily, PF did not fix the major source of problems within 3.5, that is that certain classes/concepts engage the game in a fundamentally asymmetrical manner while others can only engage in a symmetrical manner. Additionally, most of the asymmetrical options are just as powerful, if not more powerful, than these symmetrical engagement options despite the fact that asymmetrical engagement is usually better by its very nature. Basically, the source of caster imbalance itself was not addressed at all, simply some of the specifics.

That being said, a number of different classes and concepts did receive beneficial changes and thus are far better at being included within a wider variety of campaign types than they previously could be.

In some ways, you can sum it up by saying that 3.5 is Ice Cream and PF is frozen yogurt. Both are a similar type of dessert with some minor differences and both can come in nearly any flavor that you wish but neither is inherently superior to the other.

JusticeZero

2014-02-15, 06:12 PM

I disagree that it is even supposed to be "a fix". I describe it as "tweaked enough to be able to publish and say they aren't just reprinting the OGL verbatim". It's tuned up some, but keeps the experience mostly the same. I have never understood the argument that "3.x was horribly broken and unbalanced. PF didn't make the radical changes needed to completely fix it. Therefore, 3.x is better."
I like the class design better, and the fact that you can access all the rules for free online in an easy to sort fashion makes it a lot easier to handle groups of players without needing mountains of out of print rare books, or to dig through scanned PDFs.
Also, it's getting a lot of reconstruction of the good addons from places like Dreamscarred. The psionics system in it is GREAT. If you liked ToB, that's getting put in WITH SUPPORT now. Incarnam is in the works. there's a well done 3p Binder replacement. It's all online and in the main index.

Perseus

2014-02-16, 11:29 AM

Pro: New stuff is coming out.

Pro: Adventures made by Paizo are well made.

Pro: You can play psionics thanks to a third party group. Psionics are cool.

Pro: Easy to find a game.

Pro: They really went all in on Pathfinder Society.

Pro:Polymorph and Wildshape got changed (not fixed but changed for the better).

Con: Horrible math with the CMD/CMB system. So much potential is wasted. This could easily be fixed but they don't want to either take the time or admit they were wrong... Take your pick on the reason.

Con: Mundanes are still stuck in low fantasy while casters get to frolic in high fantasy.

Con: Whenever a SKR says something on twitter or the forums it is taken as the word of god and considered to be part of the game. Monk's flurry of blows not working with two weapon fighting is the best example.

Con: Using 3.5 is typically frowned upon in a pathfinder game. Sure they are compatible but from what I've seen...

Con: Pathfinder society is organize play that has so many restrictions because things are so broken that you can make a book out of it. It is like the developers are saying they know their game is broken but won't take the time to fix it. Worst yet, they think that mundanes are the broken ones whereas the casters need help.

Con: SKR is still heralded as a king of tabletop rpgs. This is the same guy who thought skill focus and power attack were better feats in 3.5 than item creation feats.

mephnick

2014-02-16, 12:26 PM

Arutema

2014-02-16, 01:18 PM

Thankfully, unless you're playing Pathfinder Society for some reason, you can choose to completely ignore any stupid decisions SKR and Jacobs make.(There are a lot)

On a side note, I'm sort of surprised so many people do organized society play, it's so structured/restricted it's the absolute opposite of what I think TTRPGs are for.

Maybe someone can enlighten me.

Character portability is a big factor. I can use and develop the same characters at local stores, local conventions, and even out-of-state or national conventions.

It it also easy to play with a rotating-GM format to avoid GM burnout.

Malimar

2014-02-16, 01:48 PM

One of the most fundamental differences I've noticed between PF and D&D is a subtle one, so subtle that I'm not sure it's not just my imagination, but I'll mention it anyway:

Pathfinder is geared around allowing you to play archetypical characters from fiction. (You want to be Baba Yaga? There's a witch hex for that. You want to be the Man with No Name? There's a class for that (and, more specifically, a feat for that class). And so on.) It rewards taking inspiration from other sources.

3.5e is more geared around allowing you to either be your own thing, or to be a D&D-specific thing. It rewards creativity and/or working within the setting. You want to play a character from fiction, the answer is "play a factotum" 9 times out of 10.

There are players I know who base all their characters off characters from fiction, and there are players I know who try to make all their characters original. Whether the difference I describe is a con for pathfinder and a pro for 3.5e, or vice versa, depends on which kind of player you are.

mephnick

2014-02-16, 01:52 PM

Character portability is a big factor. I can use and develop the same characters at local stores, local conventions, and even out-of-state or national conventions.

It it also easy to play with a rotating-GM format to avoid GM burnout.

Yeah I suppose it's just more access to games, which is always good.

Perseus

2014-02-16, 09:09 PM

It it also easy to play with a rotating-GM format to avoid GM burnout.

There is no difference between D&D and Pathfinder when it comes to DMing... So although you may think that the system is too similar to really effect rotating GM format.

Now if you said 4e, then yeah switching DMs is easier because it is widely regarded as easier to DM on the fly or as a pick up session (plus overall DMing is easier).

Amphetryon

2014-02-16, 10:17 PM

There is no difference between D&D and Pathfinder when it comes to DMing... So although you may think that the system is too similar to really effect rotating GM format.

Now if you said 4e, then yeah switching DMs is easier because it is widely regarded as easier to DM on the fly or as a pick up session (plus overall DMing is easier).

Pathfinder is arguably easier on a DM than 3.5, inasmuch as all the materials for it except homebrew are linked to the PFSRD, compared to the very slim list of sources that make up the 3.5 SRD.

Perseus

2014-02-16, 10:25 PM

Pathfinder is arguably easier on a DM than 3.5, inasmuch as all the materials for it except homebrew are linked to the PFSRD, compared to the very slim list of sources that make up the 3.5 SRD.

Sorry but as a long time DM and talking to many people over the years... Pathfinder is no easier to DM than 3.5 because they are the same game (one is just homebrewed 3.5).

And since one of the pros that people keep saying is bringing 3.5 material into pathfinder ... Your argument on materials doesn't hold up.

So unless you have some sort of evidence to say otherwise I don't see how the opinion "pathfinder is easier to DM than 3.5" can be valid.

Besides, Paizo is starting to bloat. You will have the 3.5 material + pathfinder material + current bloat coming along.

Gavinfoxx

2014-02-16, 10:25 PM

You shouldn't be comparing Pathfinder vs 3.5e.

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

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

For Example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amphetryon

2014-02-16, 10:31 PM

Sorry but as a long time DM and talking to many people over the years... Pathfinder is no easier to DM than 3.5 because they are the same game (one is just homebrewed 3.5).

And since one of the pros that people keep saying is bringing 3.5 material into pathfinder ... Your argument on materials doesn't hold up.

So unless you have some sort of evidence to say otherwise I don't see how the opinion "pathfinder is easier to DM than 3.5" can be valid.

Besides, Paizo is starting to bloat. You will have the 3.5 material + pathfinder material + current bloat coming along.

Your opinion is duly noted. I, too, am a long time DM who has talked to many people over the years (nice attempt at the Appeal to Authority, though). The argument I expressed was not merely my own but one I've often heard from folks who favor Pathfinder; it's easier for them because they have a single resource to go through when a rules question comes up, as opposed to diving through several different books or (legal) .pdfs.

Slipperychicken

2014-02-16, 10:41 PM

Pathfinder is arguably easier on a DM than 3.5, inasmuch as all the materials for it except homebrew are linked to the PFSRD, compared to the very slim list of sources that make up the 3.5 SRD.

Having played PF for a few years now, I can definitely say it's much easier to find coherent/organized rules material on d20pfsrd.com. I can usually find a spell, rule, or statblock within seconds if I know its name.

I do feel as if they could have improved the design of the "goods and services" section (there are several it's sometimes hard to tell which category an item falls in), but that's the only gripe I have with a website which is otherwise wonderful, complete, and regularly-updated.

Also, it's nice to know that everything you want is in one place. No splat-diving, errata-checking, or cross-referencing required: it's all right there on the website, including developer commentary and FAQ's posted right next to the relevant rules text. It even has 3rd party stuff which is clearly separated from official material. Perhaps more importantly, it's free. If you want to support Paizo, then you can buy one or more of their products, but you don't have to.

Perseus

2014-02-16, 10:55 PM

Your opinion is duly noted. I, too, am a long time DM who has talked to many people over the years (nice attempt at the Appeal to Authority, though). The argument I expressed was not merely my own but one I've often heard from folks who favor Pathfinder; it's easier for them because they have a single resource to go through when a rules question comes up, as opposed to diving through several different books or (legal) .pdfs.

Again the flaw in your argument is that you fail to aknowledge that 3.5 material is used in pathfinder games. It is one of the things that is advertised with pathfinder, that it is backwards compatible with D&D 3.5.

How many people call backwards compatibility a flaw or con? Not to many.

So how can one game be easier to find the rules for when both game's materials are able to be used in the game?

Zrak

2014-02-16, 11:12 PM

I'd say the main advantage of Pathfinder is its accessibility, both in the sense that the rules are all available for free and the rules have been streamlined for ease of understanding.

The main disadvantage I see is a variation on the common complaint that Pathfinder isn't a "fix" for third edition; most Pathfinder's rule changes do not fix the balance problems of 3.5 and many also harm the game in other ways. The changes to the polymorph rules, for example, are essentially a "band aid" that doesn't really fix the overall balance problems of 3.5 but still makes shape-changing less interesting. In other words, wildshape may not be quite as broken as it used to be, but the gap between fighters and druids is not appreciably lessened by that change. On the other hand, wildshape is a lot less fun to use, and so druids are a lot less fun to play. Pathfinder failed to fix a balance problem and succeeded in ruining a class. Other changes actually exacerbated balance problems by increasing feat taxes, crippling combat maneuvers and sneak attacks with the CMB/CMD math, making skill investment more viable for casters, adding great spellcasting feats, &c.

A couple classes really were changed for the better (sorcerers and paladins now have abilities to make them at least seem interesting and unique), archery isn't arbitrarily punished, and everyone can craft magic items. Otherwise, pretty much all of the actual rule changes are changes for the worse.

squiggit

2014-02-16, 11:14 PM

Perseus

2014-02-16, 11:20 PM

Scow2

2014-02-16, 11:47 PM

What's worse is all the cool things that mundanes could do got taken away or pushed to later levels.

Shock Trooper Fighter (level 6 build) is now a level 12 Barbarian build.

Mage Slayer line of feats are now essentially barbarian rage powers... A Fighter can't even use that anymore.

There are plenty of other examples but sadly there are many things that they pushed back. :/

Of course when Paizo started they said they were going to balance the game... Then hushed up and banned people from their forums for bringing it up that balance was an original goal of Pathfinder.Yeah, my biggest gripe along these lines are Improved Buckler Defense being pushed back to level... 15 or 17, I think? And Shield Ward pushed back all the way to level 20!

You want to play a sword+board fighter? **** you, your defense is just as bad as everyone else's.

ShadowsGrnEyes

2014-02-16, 11:52 PM

NotAnAardvark

2014-02-17, 12:23 AM

then they took it one step farther and did a fair, while addmitedly not perfect or complete, job of trying to close the class balance gap

Cept Wizards are basically as good as ever and Monks are somehow even worse than their 3.5 counterparts.

And hell, up until pretty recently they were still hammering nerfs into classes people considered borderline unplayable.

Pex

2014-02-17, 02:07 AM

Pro:

Warrior classes and Rogue get a boost in class abilities. Fighters can swap obsolete feats and eventually move full speed in heavy armor. Barbarians can do interesting things while raging. Rogues choose from various abilities to do stuff instead of waiting until 10th level. Rangers get favored terrain. Paladins get a holy sword, improved Smite Evil, and cast with Charisma. Monks are improved by . . .

Archetypes: While Pathfinder does have prestige classes, the main focus is on archetypes which is a series of alternate class features. In some cases it's just more choices of abilities. In other cases it's a replacement of a class feature for something else. This is where monk gets its love. You can easily get rid of what you don't want for something you find better.

Spellcasters get class features other than casting spells. This is important because it means the character would have give up something significant to go into a prestige class, especially the Sorcerer. Sorcerers get bloodlines which provide various abilities based on the bloodline. Wizard abilities are based on school specialization. Each Cleric Domains gives two abilities. Instead of Turn Undead they Channel Energy which is healing multiple people at a range which is efficient. Clerics are now rely even less on their spells for healing and don't lose a class feature if undead are not prevalent in a campaign. Turn Undead is now feat that works regardless of undead HD a character can take if the campaign warrants. Druid wild shape is now a buff. You get specific abilities and defined ability score boosts. Your starting physical ability scores matter.

Improved Skill System. Some skills are consolidated, such as Spot, Search, and Listen are now just Perception. However, the more important thing is that cross-class is gone. You spend one skill point per rank, max ranks equals your level, for any skill. There are still class skills. You get a +3 bonus if you put a rank in a class skill. However, a 10th level Fighter can have +10 Perception if he wants. which is decent. The Rogue's Stealth (i.e. Hide) will be better due to class skill and DEX, but he's supposed to be better. However, the Fighter is not "blind".

Spell changes. Except for Phantasmal Killer which remained the same, save or die spells are now save or take 10 damage per caster level. They're still deadly but not automatic instant death. A few immunities exist, but most spells that did provide immunity to something instead give a +# to the saving throw against it, usually +4.

Traits: An optional system in character creation to give minor abilities. Each trait is worth half a feat. You can get +1 to one saving throw or +2 initiative. A useful option is to make a skill a class skill with a +1 trait bonus. A fighter could make Perception a class skill. The 10th level Fighter can now have +14 Perception with 10 Wisdom. He'd have +5 at level 1 which is a big deal. The Rogue with 18 Dex would have +8 Stealth. He has the advantage, but the Fighter has a decent chance of finding him.

Con:

Feats: While Pathfinder did improve feats that needed to be improved, such as Dodge, Cleave, and Toughness, it nevertheless changed other feats for the worse. The glaring examples are the maneuver feats such as tripping. What took one feat in 3E you need two or three feats in Pathfinder. Pathfinder created its own feats that are good in their own right, but 3E was not lacking in good feats of its own. I personally like Pathfinder's version of Power Attack, but others don't. It's a matter of personal taste whether one prefers the 3E feat or Pathfinder's version. There is no harm using a 3E feat in a Pathfinder game.

Spellcasting: This is only a problem if you absolutely hate 3E magic. If you are incensed about it, if you bang your head against the wall and cry out Tier 1 in rage cursing about the injustice of it all, then Pathfinder will not make you happy. It is 3E with some different rules. It does not apologize for it. It's the whole point of existing, to continue the 3E system when WOTC abandoned it. Pathfinder is not wrong for it. They didn't fail to "fix" 3E.

Scow2

2014-02-17, 02:28 AM

Amphetryon

2014-02-17, 07:24 AM

Again the flaw in your argument is that you fail to aknowledge that 3.5 material is used in pathfinder games. It is one of the things that is advertised with pathfinder, that it is backwards compatible with D&D 3.5.

How many people call backwards compatibility a flaw or con? Not to many.

So how can one game be easier to find the rules for when both game's materials are able to be used in the game?

What you're saying is that, when you add materials that are outside the Pathfinder game - and factors that are outside my point about materials for a strictly* Pathfinder game - my point is less valid; this is because materials from outside a strictly Pathfinder game are entirely beside the point I was making. Congratulations, you've proven that when you change the statement being made, you can make it say something else.

*You're right; I didn't use the word 'strictly' in my point about the Pathfinder game being available through a single online resource, instead relying on reading comprehension and the ability to understand context.

Delwugor

2014-02-17, 10:30 AM

Pros:
Skills are consolidated, easier to use and more effective. No more "wasted" ranks if using cross-class skills!
Arch-types allow for customized characters without planning out 10 levels.
Unarmed combat can be utilized without 20 minutes of arguments.
Traits's are decent way of adding minor flavour to a character.
d20pfsrd is a great site and resource. Truthfully I've been playing PF for 1.5 years and still don't have any books, woot I'm a cheapskate.
Player transition from D&D 3.x to Pathfinder is very easy, I haven't GM'd Pathfinder so can't comment on that.

Cons:
As mentioned earlier, it still has most of the original flaws as D&D 3.x.
As mentioned in other posts there are some arbitrary decisions based upon other's definition of balance, but that tends to happen with class based systems anyway.
Even though Arch-types allow for customization, it adds to the effort it takes to initially make a character.
Too much allowance for animal companions can throw off the flow of a game.
Depending on the game and players, magic can still trump all other actions.

A neutral observation I've made though can't demonstrate, is I've notice more players optimizing their characters but conversely more in-character play and actions.

I played a few session of Pathfinder Society and found it to be a bad experience. The modules are very rail-roading, well 4 hour adventures have that problem. The ones I played could have been taken directly from TV Tropes, no real originality. Pre-set role-playing opportunities that all ended up taking away "player agency", forget doing anything original.
Most importantly, since anyone can show up, I ran into "one bad apple" that ruined it completely for me. Most players were decent and some great, but one person throwing childish insults at others tells me when it's time to pack up and leave.

hemming

2014-02-17, 05:10 PM

Are there elements of PF that I could/should consider adding to an existing 3.5 game?

Have given the SRD a brief look (and a few other threads on the topic) but am interested if anyone has any XP or recommendations

Skill system conversion on existing characters - allowing new feats or converting feats - traits - etc.

Amphetryon

2014-02-17, 05:12 PM

Are there elements of PF that I could/should consider adding to an existing 3.5 game?

Have given the SRD a brief look (and a few other threads on the topic) but am interested if anyone has any XP or recommendations

YMMV, but some folks find using CMD/CMB a superior option to some of 3.5's special Combat rules. Particularly, I've seen and heard Grappling mentioned as easier to grok in Pathfinder.

Delwugor

2014-02-17, 06:05 PM

YMMV, but some folks find using CMD/CMB a superior option to some of 3.5's special Combat rules. Particularly, I've seen and heard Grappling mentioned as easier to grok in Pathfinder.
Exactly! IMO a much better and easier mechanism that works very well.

I wouldn't go very far in using PF features in 3.5 as it might throw off some of the "touchy" numbers. IMO (again) I would just recommend making a full switch instead. PF still has most of the inherit problems with d20, but I find it slightly better than 3.5.

neonchameleon

2014-02-17, 06:28 PM

I've played D&D for about 20 years ... but I don't really know what the deal with Pathfinder is. In what ways does it differ (for better or worse)?

Pathfinder is basically D&D 3.5 with a few houserules and much more of it being free online. Pros: More adventure support than any game since the 90s. Other pros and cons: Did you like D&D 3.5? If yes you probably will like Pathfinder, if no you almost certainly won't.

Psyren

2014-02-17, 08:47 PM

Pros: Free, ongoing, high production quality.
Cons: If balance was a problem for you in 3.5, Pathfinder ultimately does little to combat it (though there are quality of life improvements for various classes.)

subject42

2014-02-17, 08:56 PM

Pros:

Enhancement bonuses on weapons of +3 or higher can break certain Damage Reduction. This reduces the golf bag effect.
Consolidated skills and flat bonuses for class skills makes cross-class skills less painful.
Mostly normalizing the relationship between HD and BAB makes leveling easier.
All undead gain their Charisma modifier to fort saves and hit points. Ghosts are actually scary now.
Sorcerers are less boring.
Dreamscarred Press and Radiance House are filling in a lot of the gaps Paizo left in the conversion.

Cons:

Fighters are still abysmal.
Sooner or later, any thread marked with [PF] is going to get flooded with people looking for an excuse to rage about their pet peeve.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-17, 09:04 PM

Pro: Paizo is still producing Pathfinder content, and most of the core books the company puts online for free, and there are multiple sites to look it up on.

Con: Absolutely horrid policy on how errata and FAQs are handled. Official errata only comes out when or if a new edition of a book is printed, so it can be very slow to address clear problems. FAQ statements about debated rules interpretations can be stated by one developer, and then change again over the course of a few months.

Gnaeus

2014-02-17, 10:00 PM

Pathfinder is arguably easier on a DM than 3.5, inasmuch as all the materials for it except homebrew are linked to the PFSRD, compared to the very slim list of sources that make up the 3.5 SRD.

This! Very much this! The systems are close enough to not make much of a difference to me. But doing character planning or building an encounter by surfing the PFSRD instead of a huge box of books is SOO much easier.

TuggyNE

2014-02-17, 10:03 PM

Con: Absolutely horrid policy on how errata and FAQs are handled. Official errata only comes out when or if a new edition of a book is printed, so it can be very slow to address clear problems. FAQ statements about debated rules interpretations can be stated by one developer, and then change again over the course of a few months.

And are not, as far as I can tell, readily centralized or verified; a third-party site does gather most (all? some?) of them in the right places, but Paizo itself makes no effort to collect developer statements, so I guess you have to … read all the threads in the forum and all social media that the developers are active in? I don't know.

I actually asked about this recently, hoping there was some better solution. :smallfrown:

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-17, 10:11 PM

I've been able to find Paizo's FAQ responses when I google them, but have tons of trouble trying to find them by navigating their website.

Here (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/compatibility/faq) is what I could find, but they aren't exactly centralized.

Psyren

2014-02-17, 10:13 PM

And are not, as far as I can tell, readily centralized or verified; a third-party site does gather most (all? some?) of them in the right places, but Paizo itself makes no effort to collect developer statements, so I guess you have to … read all the threads in the forum and all social media that the developers are active in? I don't know.

I actually asked about this recently, hoping there was some better solution. :smallfrown:

The PFSRD's errata collection was before they released the FAQ portion of their site (back in 2012 IIRC). Nowadays, most individual dev rulings are centralized there as well. A handful slip through the cracks but the majority are compiled officially.

Use a google site search with http://paizo.com/paizo/faq to find the individual rulings you want.

Kudaku

2014-02-17, 10:26 PM

The FAQs are generally sorted by book, but I find that just using PFSRD or the like is the best option. They usually do a really good job of referencing FAQs or other rulings where appropriate.

On topic...
Pros:
+ Archetypes. No more waiting for a prestige class to build the character I envisioned.

+ Continuous (generally) well-balanced and interesting release of material.

+ Golarion is pretty awesome as long as you can accept the kitchen sink approach to world building.

+ Skill system. Despite a few missteps (Perception) I consider the PF skill system a huge improvement over 3.5.

+ CMB/CMD is a huge step forward compared to the 3.5 system. I do agree that the CMB/CMD scaling is off though.

+ Employees that (seem to) genuinely enjoy interacting with their customer base. James Jacobs, the creative director for Pathfinder, has a thread on the Paizo forums called "Ask James Jacobs Anything" with over 40 000 posts - and as near as I can tell he's staying on top of it. Being able to drop in and ask a quick question when there's something you wonder about and have it get answered, by the creative director, 24-48 hours later is (to me at least) pretty incredible.

Cons:
- Developers have stated that they actively work to maintain the class balance (or imbalance) of the Core Rule Book.

- The Paizo approach to "Errata" is... Well, many times good, occasionally bad, at times absolutely infuriating.

- Their forum use policies. Really just a minor personal issue but I'd prefer if the forum admins worked more like the OoTS-forums.

OldTrees1

2014-02-17, 10:27 PM

Pro: More feats per character
Con: Fewer feats worthy of putting on a character

Theomniadept

2014-02-17, 11:23 PM

Pros:

1. Feats at every odd level - much more options to work with for both DM and Player.
2. Skills system extremely overhauled to allow characters to do basically whatever they want. Additionally classes get more skills that make them do more than just one thing (see: Fighter, Sorcerer)
3. Dead levels are practically nonexistent; players will feel like they gain something every level.
4. Magic Item creation is actually useful and worth taking due to no EXP costs and the ability to create items without the necessary spells by raising the DC by 5 per spell not present. Also, Staves are not just glorified wands; they have 10 charges and you can recharge them, giving some actual flavor to having a staff.
5. Weapon enhancements have a point. Instead of carrying a golf-club bag full of weapons made of different metals, enhancements count as certain types at different levels (+3 = cold iron and silver, +4 = adamantine, +5 = ignore alignments).

Cons:

1. Combat Maneuvers are useless. Improved Trip/Disarm/etc. were nerfed down to a measly +2 and Combat Maneuver Defense operates off of TWO stats, meaning you essentially cannot be a spiked chain tripper (although the nerf to the spiked chain's reach was good IMHO for realism).
2. Multiclassing is heavily sub-optimal and 90% of all prestige classes just plain suck. Archetypes instead fill this role and range from great to suck. A TWF Fighter Archetype can get literally every TWF feat and be decent, but the Two-Handed + Buckler archetype wastes 20 levels to essentially gain the 3.5 'Improved Buckler Defense' feat.
3. Guns are just plain broken. Gunslingers are better tanks, archers, and bruisers than any other class. They can just target Touch AC all day and never miss, and they gain the ability to add DEX to damage, meaning with their good Fortitude and Reflex saves plus their second most important score being WIS essentially means they have all good saves AND power their AC, attack, damage, and initiative off of one score.
4. Spellcasters simultaneously got buffed and boring. Seriously, they nerfed 'some' spells, giving each class less 'win the battle' spells, but that doesn't nerf them, it only makes them have less choices to cast to win the battle. Druids got the nerfbat to the face and were almost immediately replaced with Summoners who do the same thing (tanky bruiser companion, inherent summoning power, access to incredible amounts of monster abilities), making Druid more boring. A Necromancer Wizard can get double the normal amount of controllable undead, but sorcerer bloodlines don't even compare (oooooohh I'm so scared of a sorcerer with claws....that he will never use).
5. 3.5 had a LOT of material, but the entire Magic Item Compendium needed to be ported to PF... and wasn't. No Everlasting Rations, no Replenishing Skins, no Magic Bedrolls, no Field Provisions Boxes. That means that for 20 levels, yes, you will need to keep track of rations if you don't have a cleric casting Create Less Bookkeeping.
6. Bards got nerfed. In the transition of 'uses per day' to 'rounds per day' they made Inspire Competence useless, since you need to use your precious rounds instead of just playing while another character took 20 and a third used Aid Another. Additionally, in 3.5 a bard pretty much had to pick a specialization through PrCs - he had to focus on skillmonkey powers, magic, or combat. In Pathfinder....these options are all lost and you end up just kinda 'meh'.
7. Recent books just keep nerfing non-casters (looking at you Ultimate Equipment). Honestly, the writers have some compulsive itch to change things for the sake of change and then adopting a policy of 'no take-backs'. Recent grapple changes made monk useless.
8. On the combined topic of Monks and Gunslingers - the feat Clustered Shot makes archery 100% more effective than melee weapons, making Zen Archer monk the only viable monk, and Gunslingers are unkillable. Fighters, Paladins, and the like still have to either spend money to overcome DR or deal with less damage.
9. My biggest complaint is that they do not release a single book without adding some dumb item or spell or piece of garbage that ends up on the SRD and needs to be incorporated into the game. Sure 3.5 had a lot of books but Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Tome of Battle - these were in their own books. You could choose to use books or not. In PF, Gunslingers are just 'in' Ultimate Combat. They're pretty much expected to be in the game despite balance issues. One complaint I have is the spell Icy Prison. It's some random, stupid spell added in a dumb adventure module and it is a 5th level spell that is as powerful as any 9th level spell. I don't even want to explain how broken it is. You end up having to allow and ban stuff on a case-by-case basis which is annoying as hell for a DM.

Overall, I would say just adopt the feat progression, skill system, magic item rules, and the rules for staves and weapon enhancements. Also consider adopting the table values for armors (since 3.5 only encourages light armor or heavy armor - medium may as well not exist.

Initially they did things well enough. They made the intelligent ruling that you need to be proficient in an armor type to wear it no matter what material you make it out of (getting rid of things like rogues being proficient with mithral breastplate but not normal breastplate). Then they got too wrapped up in their own ideas and threw the initial idea of balancing 3.5 to the wind. It's just sad, to be honest. I had such high hopes for it but as they released sources while I was DMing my first campaign I had to keep relearning how to play. Still, at least it's not 4.0.

kardar233

2014-02-17, 11:44 PM

Pathfinder is an atavistic throwback to the worst days of 3.5, where any attempt to play a mundane character that was not one-sided and incompetent was fruitless. It professes to help mundane classes but while with one hand it throws them some scraps of competency (such as the Barbarian's Dragon Wings or Spellshatter), with the other it takes away nearly every tool that later 3.5 gave to mundane characters that raised them above the level of minimal competency at a single, restricted task.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that a few of the competent casters' staples have been reduced to slightly more reasonable levels, casters still can do anything they want. In some ways, PF casters are better off than 3.5 ones were, due to infinite cantrips and things like the Human Sorcerer favoured class bonus, or Paragon Surge. While they've lost some of the commonly-referenced 3.5 tricks such as Persistent Spell or Uncanny Forethought, they are still omnicompetent.

Pathfinder's main positives are a fairly even balance at very low optimization levels, a few interesting classes such as the Black Blade Magus, and the total availability of all their material on the PFSRD, meaning that even if I'm in a Pathfinder game I don't have to pay Paizo anything.

Raven777

2014-02-18, 12:16 AM

9. My biggest complaint is that they do not release a single book without adding some dumb item or spell or piece of garbage that ends up on the SRD and needs to be incorporated into the game. Sure 3.5 had a lot of books but Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Tome of Battle - these were in their own books. You could choose to use books or not. In PF, Gunslingers are just 'in' Ultimate Combat. They're pretty much expected to be in the game despite balance issues. One complaint I have is the spell Icy Prison. It's some random, stupid spell added in a dumb adventure module and it is a 5th level spell that is as powerful as any 9th level spell. I don't even want to explain how broken it is. You end up having to allow and ban stuff on a case-by-case basis which is annoying as hell for a DM.

I cogit that the point of making all content available to players is that the game's host is not, by default, supposed to "allow and ban stuff on a case-by-case basis". As with Society, the devs assume we're playing Pathfinder, not Theomniadept's Spin on Pathfinder. This implies access to what the makers envisioned as being part of the game.

Plus, Icy Prison (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/icy-prison) is not "some random, stupid spell added in a dumb adventure module". It is from Ultimate Magic, and therefore quite mainstream as far as sources can be qualified.

Theomniadept

2014-02-18, 12:23 AM

I cogit that the point of making all content available to players is that the game's host is not, by default, supposed to "allow and ban stuff on a case-by-case basis". As with Society, the devs assume we're playing Pathfinder, not Theomniadept's Spin on Pathfinder. This implies access to what the makers envisioned as being part of the game.

Plus, Icy Prison (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/icy-prison) is not "some random, stupid spell added in a dumb adventure module". It is from Ultimate Magic, and therefore quite mainstream as far as sources can be qualified.
That is exactly the problem. Because they just tossed in Gunslingers, you quite literally have to houserule them out or deal with the fact that the entirety of the Weapons section is sub-par to guns. And while I was wrong about Icy Prison's source, that actually ticks me off more. The Ultimate Series is sort of like the Completes in 3.5, which means that Icy Prison shows up amidst a bunch of other stuff that adds variety. And no, there is no debate, Icy Prison is broken.

So yeah, thanks for showing the exact point that you need to houserule on a case-by-case basis to keep the game from being "Wizard and Gunslinger's Epic Adventure".

Kudaku

2014-02-18, 12:30 AM

So yeah, thanks for showing the exact point that you need to houserule on a case-by-case basis to keep the game from being "Wizard and Gunslinger's Epic Adventure".

While I have no particular interest in getting into this argument, I gotta say this is definitely not the experience I've had. If anything I think the gunslinger is a fairly underwhelming class, along the lines of the fighter.

khachaturian

2014-02-18, 12:33 AM

my impression is that 3.5 got bogged down by so many splatbooks that the game was fundamentally different if you had access to spell compendium, magic item compendium, eberron, dungeonscape, etc. and the problem wasn't so much the gulf between wizards and monks, but rather the gulf between players with system mastery and those without.

pathfinder didn't eliminate this problem by any means, but as a previous poster noted, the floor is higher and the ceiling lower, and with almost everything being available for free on d20pfsrd.com, i think it is easier to play in a mixed group in terms of mastery of the rules

Psyren

2014-02-18, 12:38 AM

Icy Prison isn't broken. It's SR: Yes, Reflex partial, and plenty of creatures are outright immune to cold; in addition, another creature can bust them out with a strength check or just by doing 27 points of damage, which is pretty easy to do at 9th-level. And even if the target fails its save and becomes helpless, they can't actually be CdG'ed because the ice blocks line of effect.

Compare to Hold Monster at the same level which, despite being mind-affecting (less of a drawback in PF anyway), does allow you to CdG the target if they fail their save and works on cold immune creatures.

5th-level spells are a reasonable time for Save-or-Loses to start showing up.

Theomniadept

2014-02-18, 12:39 AM

While I have no particular interest in getting into this argument, I gotta say this is definitely not the experience I've had. If anything I think the gunslinger is a fairly underwhelming class, along the lines of the fighter.

This has been proven time and again to be completely false. Wraithstrike in 3.5 was broken due to targeting touch AC and guns just take that the the moon and back. They get all the best stuff; Good Fort and Reflex + Wisdom prioritization for all good saves. A d10 hit die to ensure high HP. Ranged weapon that can benefit from Clustered shot to take in DR once over the course of many attacks. Dexterity to damage, thus making Dexterity power Reflex saves, initiative, AC, attack, and damage. This isn't even counting the BS of their archetypes Musket Master and Pistolero. Seriously, those archetypes trade the ability to use your gun for dumb things like stabilizing bleeding characters for the ability to never misfire. Factor in double-barreled guns and they can get over 10 attacks a round. And again, attack penalties don't really matter when all you target is touch.

Icy Prison isn't broken. It's SR: Yes, Reflex partial, and plenty of creatures are outright immune to cold; in addition, another creature can bust them out with a strength check or just by doing 27 points of damage, which is pretty easy to do at 9th-level. And even if the target fails its save and becomes helpless, they can't actually be CdG'ed because the ice blocks line of effect.

Compare to Hold Monster at the same level which, despite being mind-affecting (less of a drawback in PF anyway), does allow you to CdG the target if they fail their save and works on cold immune creatures.

5th-level spells are a reasonable time for Save-or-Loses to start showing up.

It targets reflex, the lowest save in the game. SR is a hurdle, yes, but that's a hurdle for most magic and thus you can't just say that balances it. It encases you in ice for minutes per level, meaning if an enemy doesn't break the ice they will die from it. Additionally, it entangles and damages you on a successful save. On a failed save you lose a turn and still take damage. Also, because the spell doesn't say you get Total Cover, yes, you can suffer a CdG after failing the save. It outright takes one character out of the fight, save or no. Also, flying creatures immediately hit the dirt. This is not a save-or-die, it's a save-and-die.

Contrast the fact that initially, to bring balance to the game, they nerfed Black Tentacles (another 5th level spell) through the CMD stuff I mentioned. Their goal went form game balance to flashy powerful spells. 3.5 had a lot of extremely powerful, possibly broken spells, but none that functioned as well as Icy Prison, and all those powerful spells were close enough in power to have choices. In Pathfinder, you essentially have one or two 'win the battles' per spell level, and as game theory will state you basically have to use them or you don't fight at full power. This isn't like saying you should play an Ubercharger instead of a tripper, this is quite literally just basic spell choice that in no way would conflict a build idea.

Kudaku

2014-02-18, 12:58 AM

This has been proven time and again to be completely false. Wraithstrike in 3.5 was broken due to targeting touch AC and guns just take that the the moon and back. They get all the best stuff; Good Fort and Reflex + Wisdom prioritization for all good saves. A d10 hit die to ensure high HP. Ranged weapon that can benefit from Clustered shot to take in DR once over the course of many attacks. Dexterity to damage, thus making Dexterity power Reflex saves, initiative, AC, attack, and damage. This isn't even counting the BS of their archetypes Musket Master and Pistolero. Seriously, those archetypes trade the ability to use your gun for dumb things like stabilizing bleeding characters for the ability to never misfire. Factor in double-barreled guns and they can get over 10 attacks a round. And again, attack penalties don't really matter when all you target is touch.

I don't think I said the gunslinger can't do good damage - just that it's an underwhelming class in general, akin to the fighter. Outside of ranged attacks (which can be shut down in a variety of ways) it brings very little to the table. Much like the fighter.

Psyren

2014-02-18, 01:01 AM

It targets reflex, the lowest save in the game. SR is a hurdle, yes, but that's a hurdle for most magic and thus you can't just say that balances it. It encases you in ice for minutes per level, meaning if an enemy doesn't break the ice they will die from it. Additionally, it entangles and damages you on a successful save. On a failed save you lose a turn and still take damage. Also, because the spell doesn't say you get Total Cover, yes, you can suffer a CdG after failing the save. It outright takes one character out of the fight, save or no. Also, flying creatures immediately hit the dirt. This is not a save-or-die, it's a save-and-die.

There's a lot of errors here. Let's start with your CdG mistake. CRB:

Total Cover: If you don’t have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target’s square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.

A failed save renders you helpless, but also explicitly blocks line of effect due to the ice. No attack, no CdG.

Second, no-save entangle is not a big deal - even a tanglefoot bag can do that much. It doesn't even anchor you on a successful save, so you can still move. Third, merely being entangled does not take you out of the fight, so making your save simply means you take some penalties. (In fact, the spell itself specifically says you can continue to act normally if you make the save.) Fourth, I don't see anywhere in the spell that it grounds fliers on a successful save.

So again, it's really no worse than Hold Monster. It affects some creatures HM does not, and HM affects some creatures it does not. Hell, with Threnodic Spell I might prefer HM to this anyway.

Theomniadept

2014-02-18, 01:04 AM

I don't think I said the gunslinger can't do good damage - just that it's an underwhelming class in general, akin to the fighter. Outside of ranged attacks (which can be shut down in a variety of ways) it brings very little to the table. Much like the fighter.

Lies. They get Bluff, Intimidate, and Handle Animal for interactions. They get Knowledge (Engineering) and Knowledge (Local) so they can identify humanoids, Perception based off their second most important score, Acrobatics based off of their best score, and Survival to help feed the party off of nature. More than enough to give them stuff to do outside of shooting things to death.

There's a lot of errors here. Let's start with your CdG mistake. CRB:

A failed save renders you helpless, but also explicitly blocks line of effect due to the ice. No attack, no CdG.

Second, no-save entangle is not a big deal - even a tanglefoot bag can do that much. It doesn't even anchor you on a successful save, so you can still move. Third, merely being entangled does not take you out of the fight, so making your save simply means you take some penalties. (In fact, the spell itself specifically says you can continue to act normally if you make the save.) Fourth, I don't see anywhere in the spell that it grounds fliers on a successful save.

So again, it's really no worse than Hold Monster. It affects some creatures HM does not, and HM affects some creatures it does not. Hell, with Threnodic Spell I might prefer HM to this anyway.
Entangled makes spellcasters need to roll concentration, so there's that one.

"You generally need only make a Fly check when you are attempting a complex maneuver. Without making a check, a flying creature can remain flying at the end of its turn so long as it moves a distance greater than half its speed." Entangled = half speed = fly checks + penalty to dexterity and dexterity checks that stacks = kiss the dirt.

Plus, Fort and WIll saves are highest. Reflex is lowest. The odds of surviving Hold Monster are higher than those of Icy Prison, and even then Icy Prison still cripples you. Can't run or charge = no charging. Cast with Concentration = massive chance to lose spell. Dexterity penalty = no flying and archery penalties. Damage per round offset by a Cold descriptor makes that one aspect somewhat neutral.

In the end, you have to waste turns getting out of the ice. Also, when you do, what happens when the enemy has had ample turns to set up their own tactics? A Tanglefoot bag's DC doesn't increase with a spellcasting stat. Also, 1 inch per CL = 3 HP per CL. Have fun breaking those ice chunks casters.

Kudaku

2014-02-18, 01:10 AM

Lies. They get Bluff, Intimidate, and Handle Animal for interactions.

I don't appreciate being called a liar for stating an opinion. :smallannoyed:

turkishproverb

2014-02-18, 01:12 AM

In my opinion pathfinder made all those changes to 3.5 that people houseruled into 3.5 anyway to make it better. then they took it one step farther and did a fair, while addmitedly not perfect or complete, job of trying to close the class balance gap

They added bonuses to casters and nerfed noncasters. Doing NOTHING would have been a better job of closing the gap.

Cept Wizards are basically as good as ever and Monks are somehow even worse than their 3.5 counterparts.

And hell, up until pretty recently they were still hammering nerfs into classes people considered borderline unplayable.

Paladin's are unplayable now that the codes are more punishing.

Alent

2014-02-18, 01:12 AM

While I have no particular interest in getting into this argument, I gotta say this is definitely not the experience I've had. If anything I think the gunslinger is a fairly underwhelming class, along the lines of the fighter.

Gunslinger is a very strange class, and might as well be a fighter archetype. (If you look close you can see the peel and stick class feature trading the archetypes usually use.) Owing to it's Fighter ancestry and gimmick design, Gunslinger's got one of the widest optimization ranges of any of the pathfinder classes, ranging anywhere from ungodly terrible with a bad build to exceptionally amazing with a good one.

The issue with them is once they're built well, they start to turn into a one trick pony who's one trick is making everything that opposes him die faster than the DM intends.

Theomniadept

2014-02-18, 01:17 AM

They added bonuses to casters and nerfed noncasters. Doing NOTHING would have been a better job of closing the gap. Paladins are unplayable now that the codes are more punishing.
My point exactly. Seriously, periodic atonements?

Also I edited my previous post to explain exactly why Icy Prison is so much more than just 'entangled'.

Kudaku

2014-02-18, 01:17 AM

The issue with them is once they're built well, they start to turn into a one trick pony who's one trick is making everything that opposes him die faster than the DM intends.

While I agree that a gunslinger can be built to make a very high amount of damage, they never really stop being one trick ponies. Low or high level of optimization still results in a class that is all about making ranged attacks and doesn't bring all that much to the table when he's not shooting.

That's the last I'm going to say on the topic though, I don't want to sidetrack this thread. Feel free to make a fresh thread on the Gunslinger though :smallsmile:

Eldest

2014-02-18, 01:21 AM

Your opinion is duly noted. I, too, am a long time DM who has talked to many people over the years (nice attempt at the Appeal to Authority, though). The argument I expressed was not merely my own but one I've often heard from folks who favor Pathfinder; it's easier for them because they have a single resource to go through when a rules question comes up, as opposed to diving through several different books or (legal) .pdfs.

Y'know, that's not an Appeal to Authority. That would be anecdotal evidence, the same thing you are providing.

I find Pathfinder to have more options for the same class, and 3.5 to have more classes for different options. Also, Pathfinder's feat power level is... pretty terrible, honestly.

Psyren

2014-02-18, 01:28 AM

"You generally need only make a Fly check when you are attempting a complex maneuver. Without making a check, a flying creature can remain flying at the end of its turn so long as it moves a distance greater than half its speed." Entangled = half speed = fly checks + penalty to dexterity and dexterity checks that stacks = kiss the dirt.

Come on now, it's only a DC 10 check to stay flying with less than half speed. Everything that can actually fly gets it as a class skill too so they're almost certainly going to make that check. And perfect fliers don't even need to roll.

Plus, Fort and WIll saves are highest. Reflex is lowest. The odds of surviving Hold Monster are higher than those of Icy Prison, and even then Icy Prison still cripples you.

It depends on what you hit. HM is going to be much more useful against a rogue than IP for instance. And if you're immune to cold (or magic) this spell is pointless on you. I'm not saying it's not useful, but broken?

Concentration checks are harder in Pathfinder, I'll give you that, but it's still not impossible. All in all there's plenty of checks and balances built into this thing to make it reasonable.

Sayt

2014-02-18, 01:56 AM

Paladin's are unplayable now that the codes are more punishing.

I don't believe that this is accurate. In fact, I believe the opposite is accurate. 3.5's Paladin has a flat nuh-uh, never, nope, not doing it on associating with evil. "...never knowlingly..."

Pathfinder specifically allows association with evil or those who offend their codes under extraordinary circumstances, which means that if the DM throws the party a Barbed Devil NPC (with class levels or something) to help them fight a balor, the Paladin doesn't have to leave the party. Furthermore, taken allegorically, the pathfinder Paladin can assist in redeeming evildoes, rather than killing or shunning them. (IE, defeating evil by making it's doers into good.)

Theomniadept

2014-02-18, 02:09 AM

Come on now, it's only a DC 10 check to stay flying with less than half speed. Everything that can actually fly gets it as a class skill too so they're almost certainly going to make that check. And perfect fliers don't even need to roll.

It depends on what you hit. HM is going to be much more useful against a rogue than IP for instance. And if you're immune to cold (or magic) this spell is pointless on you. I'm not saying it's not useful, but broken?

Concentration checks are harder in Pathfinder, I'll give you that, but it's still not impossible. All in all there's plenty of checks and balances built into this thing to make it reasonable.
You're forgetting Dragons. One thing Pathfinder did well was Dragons. They make ability score damage much more difficult to use. Shivering Touch in 3.5 said dragons were just piñatas filled with triple treasure. Aside from multiple uses of Calcific Touch (Fort Negates), ten rounds of failed saves from Fleshworm Infestations (Fort negates dex damage), or the same duration of Excruciating Deformation (Fort each round to negate that round of effects), you couldn't bring that 10 Dexterity to zero, so they were actually a threat, event to a party with powerful casters. Not unbeatable, but they were out of the realm of useless.

Now consider a halfway-decent age and clumsy flight. -8 from that, 10 dex, and the -4 from entanglement. Congrats, the dragon is now easily flightless, subject to everything now (unless it's immune to cold, and unless I am mistaken, white dragons are still the runt of the chromatic side of dragons).

Immunity to cold negates the effect. Cool, so this one spell can take care of literally everything NOT immune to cold. It's one of those cases where pointing out the flaw only strengthens it - we could sit all day and point out the flaws of every overpowered wizard spell, but the spell with the least flaws is thus the most powerful. A few Icy Prisons and some stuff to take care of the rest and you're good. It's like Pokemon type coverage, sure some types have flaws/weaknesses but there was a reason Dragon type got nerfed in gen 6.

And when I say Fort and Will saves are the highest, I mean on average, factoring in all the monsters and classes and whatnot. Save-or-die spells targeting Will are particularly powerful, which is why they nerfed Glitterdust to a save every round, but we are talking about a debilitating battlefield control spell targeting reflex. Just ignoring the fact that saving makes you horribly debilitated, failing the save (which most creatures would) makes you 100% useless, like any Fort/Will save-or-die, but without the cost of possibly doing nothing to the opponent.

I don't believe that this is accurate. In fact, I believe the opposite is accurate. 3.5's Paladin has a flat nuh-uh, never, nope, not doing it on associating with evil. "...never knowlingly..."

Pathfinder specifically allows association with evil or those who offend their codes under extraordinary circumstances, which means that if the DM throws the party a Barbed Devil NPC (with class levels or something) to help them fight a balor, the Paladin doesn't have to leave the party. Furthermore, taken allegorically, the pathfinder Paladin can assist in redeeming evildoes, rather than killing or shunning them. (IE, defeating evil by making it's doers into good.)

You're forgetting the caveat that a PF paladin may not associate with anyone who repeatedly offends their code. The code prohibiting theft, poison, and lying. This means that, quite literally, the PF paladin has to be like the irritable Lawful-Anal paladin many novice players would attempt to play. It's thought-policing and in BoVD that was an evil act. In PF, it's required. Paladin = no bluff, poison, or sleight of hand from anyone in the party.

EDIT: Not that a paladin should never break his code; it can be roleplayed quite well. This code however, is so restrictive it almost require Atonements on-call in order to exist.

Sayt

2014-02-18, 02:32 AM

You're forgetting the caveat that a PF paladin may not associate with anyone who repeatedly offends their code. The code prohibiting theft, poison, and lying. This means that, quite literally, the PF paladin has to be like the irritable Lawful-Anal paladin many novice players would attempt to play. It's thought-policing and in BoVD that was an evil act. In PF, it's required. Paladin = no bluff, poison, or sleight of hand from anyone in the party.

And that section of the paladin's code of conduct is verbatim identical to 3.5's Paladins.

Here's the paladin code from the d20srd. (The 3.5 version)

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Paladins in 3.5 had the exact same stick up their but.

And here's the version from the Pathfinder SRD

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Literally, the only textual difference between the Paladin codes is that it is more lenient regarding association in Pathfinder. 3.5 Paladins never knowlingly work with thieves, Pathfinder Paladin's will avoid working with theives where they can help it, but they can if they need to, by implication.

Furthermore, it's not really thought policing so much as action policing, and with a Paladin's charisma focus, it would be better RPed as endearing than irritable.

That said, I'm not fond of, as a GM or a player, making a huge deal of the Paladin's code and letting it get in the way of actually playing the game, unless it's being blatantly and bare-barefacedly contravened, but that is another topic.

Psyren

2014-02-18, 02:36 AM

Theomniadept

2014-02-18, 02:56 AM

Most Dragons don't get to Clumsy until Old age, by which time they are considerably past the level this thing is a problem for them. Furthermore, the maneuverability is already factored into their skill mod. So an Old Red - even if you somehow get past his 28 SR - is looking at a +7 to Fly (9 - 2), i.e. he fails his check on a 2 or lower. He's not crashing to earth anytime soon.

Younger dragons have easier SR, but they also have better flight. A Juvenile Red at CR 11 has a +15 check, meaning he's not crashing at all. (+13 after entangled, so even if he rolls a 1 he's staying in the air.)

Cold immunity is the second most common after fire, so it does matter. Once again, I'm not saying the spell isn't strong - there's a lot out there it can be used on - just that it's not broken. Again, compared to Hold Monster it really isn't that much better. HM works on fewer things overall, but it also lets you CdG (or just plain get in some free hits) right away if you land it.

And finally, you can free yourself by damaging the ice if you make the save. A monster in melee range can just full attack, targeting the ice with one hit to end the spell, and aiming the rest of its attacks at you normally, and now you're the one who's wasted a turn for nothing. Or its ally can drop an area attack and simply include its friend, and neither of them lose any turns at all. You can't get out of HM that way.

You're still talking about taking damage and being required to make a check in order to not lose 10 feet of altitude, of which the spell itself fuels once per round. The fact that it forces the check to be made hurts enough to make those constant checks force a landing, bringing dragons back down to 3.5 levels where they die in order for the adventurers to fuel their goldlust.

As far as breaking the ice goes, you still take the damage and caster-types and rogue-types would be hard pressed to do enough damage in a full attack. A wizard hit by that spell at level 9 would have two attacks of 1d4 + dump stat to do 27 points of damage. A TWF rogue would have to have a decent enough strength score on good rolls to get out. And, as I said, this targets reflex, not will. Hold Monster would stop a fighter, but not a caster. This spell stops both, even the rogue who would make the save. I mean sure, fire could melt the ice easily, if you were willing to spend a spell to counterspell it after it has already done damage.

Broken in D&D might be a term that applies only things like Pun Pun and Ruby Knight Vindicator and Metamind, but we're talking about a spell that's so superior in strength compared to others of its level (and a little above) that the other 5th level spells are just supplemental to the things it doesn't cover. Plus, Elemental spell takes care of that tiresome cold immunity.

Also, I may have forgotten about the code in 3.5 limiting the same way, but there is something undeniable - Pathfinder only has paladin and a port of the stupid CE Paladin of Slaughter, with only a slightly better code of conduct. The alignments of CG and LE are notably missing here, and if I may point out Chaotic Good paladins had a less restrictive code that IMHO met other players more than halfway on the alignment axes.

Drachasor

2014-02-18, 03:04 AM

Hmm, my thoughts:

Skill Consolidation

Pros: 3.5 either had too many skills or classes had too few skill points. Paizo went with the former and merged a lot of skills. This makes it easier for people to do more things. Also, some skills like Tumble-Balance-Jump which were very specific got merged into something more worthwhile.

Con: Some skill merges are too powerful. Perception is Listen/Spot/Search which is insanely good. And they didn't merge Climb/Swim into Athletics (personally I'd have an Athletics and Acrobatics skill where you could use either for jump).

Skill Changes:

Pros: Diplomacy isn't crazy powerful anymore.

Con: They dropped a lot of text here and there. If you make a balance check on a slippery surface, are you flat-footed? I don't know. PF doesn't talk about that. You can't use diplomacy on creatures with an int of 3 or less, which is odd if you can talk to animals or the like and don't have Wild Empathy. Probably most significantly, tumbling got nerfed to heck. This is a huge nerf to combat mobility and the rogue.

Class Changes

Pro: Classes in general got some more choices and class features. This helps avoid dead levels. Some classes got versatility boosts, which is nice.

Con: The rogue can sneak attack more creatures, but can't tumble reliably without spending a couple feats or more. The Paladin's code is much stricter. Casters get more stuff and don't lose much. The overall vast power gulf between casters and non-casters is fully intact. There are per-round resources to keep track of as well as uses per day on minor abilities (like 1d6+.5*Level damage).

PFSRD

Pro: Nice to have all the rules in one place, including updates.

Con: It includes changes from FAQs, Errata, Blog Post comments, Forum comments, etc, etc. It generally doesn't distinguish based on source and you can't see the original rule -- it doesn't always mention when there has been a change. So if you find some of the changes questionable, then the PFSRD isn't so great a source. (I 100% agree with the comments on how Paizo handles errata and such extremely unprofessionally).

Missing Rules:

There is only a Con. They dropped a lot of rules in the transfer from 3.5. Do mounts need to be at least a size larger than the rider? That rule doesn't appear in PF since they dropped that section of the DMG. There are LOTS of little things like this, which means "just use the PFSRD" isn't so great if it happens they forgot something. Another Example: If you move over a greased area, are you flat-footed? Grease implies this happens, but the PF rules don't actually say it if you look up Acrobatics.

Poor Idea of Balance

The Devs don't seem to have a great idea on what abilities are balanced or not. They'll nerf Crane Wing (and while I don't like absolutes, D&D has lots of them and this one wasn't a rule problem). Dazing spell? That's apparently fine despite being one of the most broken metamagics ever made. Similarly, Cold Ice Strike (Cone of Cold with a shorter range as a swift action as a 7th level spell) gets nerfed when direct damage like that is NEVER a problem. They miss actually balancing a number of bigger issues like Simulacrum (which they buffed). And a lot of their nerfs are far too heavy-handed, such as Solid Fog (which is now worthless) and Animal Growth (only affects one animal, same level as before). Then they do stuff like buff Summon Monster so it is better than 3.5 SNA, and nerf SNA so it is worse than 3.5 Summon Monster.

And of course, they are either worried the monk is too strong or perhaps thing monks just shouldn't be good (SKR seems to think this). Lovely.

A lot of worthless content

Don't get me wrong, 3.5 has a lot of feats and PRCs that are bad. But it also had a lot of feats, PRCs, and the like that are ok to great. Pretty much any 3.5 Book has a lot of nice spells, feats, PrCs, or whatever. I never felt like I got a book and only a few things in it were any good.

For me at least, PF is not like that. It has a TON of crap content. IMHO, over 90% of new material is just not worth even thinking about because it is just awful. They have also gone on the record saying they'll make content that is bad on purpose (like their version of Vow of Poverty* and the like).

Given their poor idea of balance, I get the feeling at times that the worthwhile stuff just happen to be things that slip through the cracks, rather than being made on purpose to be good.

Conclusion:

PF has some nice ideas, but overall I don't care for it. I think it is more useful to take some stuff and backport it into 3.5. Especially since I like a lot of 3.5 classes more than PF ones (Beguiler, ToB classes, Dread Necromancer, etc, etc). Core PF classes might be better, but 3.5 has better available outside of core. A lot of non-core PF classes get saddled with really odd stuff (like the Magus being pigeon-holed into using a weapon in one hand).

And I didn't even get into some of the incoherent rules changes they make. If you polymorph an undead into a human in PF, can you heal it? How does PAO work? Etc, etc. I feel the editing is notably worse in PF than in 3.5 (and I am not saying 3.5 was perfect).

I agree with a lot of the other criticisms that have been posted as well. PF isn't wholly bad, but since it is a mess of imbalance anyway, I don't see it as an improvement over 3.5.

*And the only defense I've ever heard is that it lets you have one magical item. So just load it up with all the effects you want, since that's in keeping with the spirit of VoP, right? (To say nothing of the fact that even if you do this, it is still crap).

Drachasor

2014-02-18, 03:07 AM

[Paladin Code stuff]

You are looking in the wrong place. Look at ex-Paladins...

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

PF Paladins become ex-Paladins if they violate their CoC AT ALL. 3.5 Paladins need a gross violation.

And association with evil creatures isn't part of the CoC or Ex-Pally status so that's not really relevant here.

Theomniadept

2014-02-18, 03:12 AM

Everything

That's pretty much a nat 20 called shot on the head of the nail.

Paladins

I did not notice that PF Paladins are not even allowed to violate their code in the least. That line right there smacks down any player attempting to defend an action he takes.

Sayt

2014-02-18, 03:30 AM

A lack of sacred warriors classes for CG and LE is a thing, although IIRC, in 3.5 they were Unearthed arcana which was a little... off to the side, by some perspectives?

That said, there is the Hellknight and Hellknight Signifer in pathfinder, which can fill in as the 'lawful any' Paladin (Getting smite/dected chaos, aura of law, etc.), and are, imho, pretty cool.

Psyren

2014-02-18, 03:54 AM

You're still talking about taking damage and being required to make a check in order to not lose 10 feet of altitude, of which the spell itself fuels once per round.

No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm quoting from the first line on the "Maneuvers" chart, specifically "Move less than half speed and remain flying" which is a flat DC 10. This in response to your mistaken belief that "entangled = fall like a rock" because they move at half speed.

As far as breaking the ice goes, you still take the damage and caster-types and rogue-types would be hard pressed to do enough damage in a full attack. A wizard hit by that spell at level 9 would have two attacks of 1d4 + dump stat to do 27 points of damage.

You're waffling - we were talking about dragons, remember? They do quite a bit more than 1d4 damage. But okay, let's go to wizards - who won't be affected by this thing at all thanks to the Freedom of Movement Emergency Force Sphere they got 2 levels prior. Clerics and Druids have Freedom of Movement, so they just ignore it. Rogues simply make the save and attack you anyway, because a -2 penalty to attack isn't going to break their bank and they probably don't care about the half-speed either. Monks evade. Fighters are in trouble, but they're in trouble from a Hold Monster too. So as I said, not broken.

Also, a level 9 encounter at level 9 is not supposed to be difficult. Equal-CR encounters are intended to only use up 25% of your resources, remember?

Plus, Elemental spell takes care of that tiresome cold immunity.

Elemental Spell is useless here because it doesn't change the descriptor, only the damage. So you have a [cold] spell that does sonic or whatever and a bunch of monsters are still immune to it. The damage is the least noteworthy part of this thing anyway.

It's a good spell, don't get me wrong, but it's definitely not broken.

Zrak

2014-02-18, 04:21 AM

Pathfinder actually does manage to fix some of the worst abuses of magic - there's no more Divine Metamagic: Persist, and only a few highly-restricted metamagic reducers, and several spells (Such as the polymorph line) were re-worked to keep base character ability relevant.

Strange as it may sound, I don't actually think the worst abuses are the ones that needed fixing; the worst abuses are the ones that virtually no DM would let you get away with, anyway. Using polymorph to take some reasonable shape was far less encounter-shattering than a lot of the spells they left untouched. So, basically, the polymorph changes turned fun, exciting spells into boring "pluses" without really improving balance whatsoever.

Are there elements of PF that I could/should consider adding to an existing 3.5 game?

I'd consider converting Pathfinder's paladin (ignoring the code changes) over to 3.5, since the Pathfinder paladin is a more interesting class that can contribute a lot more to a game. I'd definitely recommend adding at least deadly aim and maybe even a couple other Pathfinder archery feats. You could consider converting a few of the new classes if a player had interest, but otherwise I don't really think I'd bother.

Contrary to others' advice, I wouldn't recommend using CMB/CMD, since the way they scale is disadvantageous to characters trying to use maneuvers, and those characters tend to have it hard enough as it is. I really never understood the complaint that maneuvers in 3.5 were difficult to understand, so I guess I really don't see the advantage of making them simpler than they already were. Since that simplification comes at the cost of some effectiveness for classes that can already have trouble contributing, I see this as another change with a significant downside and an essentially nonexistent upside.

khachaturian

2014-02-18, 04:25 AM

...umm, can we move the icy prison argument to another thread? it really has no relation to the original post

Theomniadept

2014-02-18, 04:55 AM

Sayt

2014-02-18, 06:40 AM

But it does - the pros and cons of Pathfinder is inclusive to everything, including magic and its effects on balance, especially since we used it to give a good vantage point to see all the buffs and nerfs to magic that ended up making PF casters have a more limited number of effective spell options.

What I think khachaturian is getting at is that the technical argument as to the power level of one particular spell is overshadowing the rest of the conversation re: the pros and cons of Pathfinder as a whole.

Katana1515

2014-02-18, 07:23 AM

Yeah If you want to make an argument about Icy Prison it probably deserves its own thread as its moving this one off topic (In my opinion its just one of many powerful 5th level options for an arcane spellcaster, and its a nice mid level reward for the wizard who did not ban evocation!).

One note about Pathfinder I wanted to make is that Mundanes still perform okay to pretty well in low to mid op games. In my current group we have 2 wizards, a druid, a imported dread necromancer, and my girlfriends Ranger, whos sole purpose in life is to ride her Wolf animal companion into battle and hit things with a greatsword. She saves our ass in 9 out of 10 encounters.

I play both games on a regular basis and am finding myself leaning more and more towards pathfinder. I prefer the new skill system and the way it makes cross class skills more viable. Many Core classes have been improved to the point where i would actually like to play them now, (Paladin,Barbarian and Sorcerer personally). Others have not, the fighter sucks more or less as much as it always has, maybe more. Monks are a little better but are still meh (at least without archetypes, I hear they are much better with them??). Many of the new classes are actually really cool, the magus in particular is really cool, as is the summoner. not quite sure what the problem with the Gunslinger is? its a T5-4 class that deals good reliable damage, nothing more nothing less, maybe its because i regularly DM games that feature Uberchargers and other High DPS builds but large stacks of HP damage just dont scare me very much anymore.

Honestly I think 3.p is the best option. take what you like from either system and make it work for you. Both games are amazing fun. after playing the pathfinder version of a class though i always feel slightly cheated going back to its 3.5 version ("you want me to play a sorcerer without Bloodlines?/ Smite Evil only works on 1 attack and i cant use lay on hands as a swift action?/I cant buy a rod of Dazing?). I like having the excitement of incoming new material that Pathfinder offers but I respect some of the issues people have such as the flawed maths behind CMB/CMD.

Theomniadept

2014-02-18, 07:36 AM

I play both games on a regular basis and am finding myself leaning more and more towards pathfinder. I prefer the new skill system and the way it makes cross class skills more viable. Many Core classes have been improved to the point where i would actually like to play them now, (Paladin,Barbarian and Sorcerer personally). Others have not, the fighter sucks more or less as much as it always has, maybe more. Monks are a little better but are still meh (at least without archetypes, I hear they are much better with them??). Many of the new classes are actually really cool, the magus in particular is really cool, as is the summoner. not quite sure what the problem with the Gunslinger is? its a T5-4 class that deals good reliable damage, nothing more nothing less, maybe its because i regularly DM games that feature Uberchargers and other High DPS builds but large stacks of HP damage just dont scare me very much anymore.

Honestly I think 3.p is the best option. take what you like from either system and make it work for you. Both games are amazing fun. after playing the pathfinder version of a class though i always feel slightly cheated going back to its 3.5 version ("you want me to play a sorcerer without Bloodlines?/ Smite Evil only works on 1 attack and i cant use lay on hands as a swift action?/I cant buy a rod of Dazing?). I like having the excitement of incoming new material that Pathfinder offers but I respect some of the issues people have such as the flawed maths behind CMB/CMD.

Keep in mind that in 3.5 you don't play just 'fighter'. Those classes were basically dip classes to augment builds, whereas 3.P discouraged anything other than 20 levels of one class. The best melee classes were in Tome of Battle but to be honest they were just spellcasters replacing terms like 'casting spells' with 'performing maneuvers', so there's not a whole lot of originality.

And yes, archetypes are 100% better than the base class and any prestige class. Zen Archer monk uses flurry of blows from 100 feet away and ignored DR. Musket Master and Pistolero are Gunslingers who automatically gain the ability to never misfire. Caster archetypes, maybe not as much, but the archetypes just generally tend to trade useless or extremely situational abilities for flat bonuses to doing something you're always going to do (such as the TWF archetype essentially getting additional TWF bonuses for free).

Firechanter

2014-02-18, 08:23 AM

PF has a couple of good things, but I have to say that the more I get involved in it (what with playing in two different PF groups nowadays) the more things I find that grind my gears.

Also, the same thing that is a "Pro" for one player is a "Con" for another. For example, quite a few players love the Archetype concept that allows for EZ-Bake characters. No need to fiddle with umpteen splatbooks, just make your class and archetype choice once and then just go through with it.
And _exactly this same thing_ annoys the kind of players that _enjoy_ fiddling with their character builds. Like yours truly, for instance.

The crippling and nerfing of feats goes hand in hand with that. Sure, PF has mildly upgraded some feats that were utterly useless before, like Dodge. But all the decent/good 3.5 stuff has been nerfed and torn in half (or worse), and all the _great_ 3.5 stuff simply wasn't ported at all.
[Note that this only applies to mundane feats. Some metamagic feats have, in fact, been upgraded further. Because Quicken Spell wasn't quite powerful enough.]

Just compare various handbooks for 3.5 and PF to get an idea: most of these guides use some kind of "stars" rating for options, i.e. * to ***** or so. Any 3.5 guide will rate stuff like Weapon Focus at maybe * to **. In PF guides, the _exact same feat_ [WF was not modified] will often be rated ****. Not because getting +1 to something you can do anyway has suddenly become so much more useful, but because _nothing more useful exists_. And Paizo-proprietary feats are usually rated at *-***. So go figure what kind of rating these would get in a 3.5 guide. (With some rare pearls like the aforementioned Deadly Aim.)

The point here seems to be to make system mastery irrelevant for character building. All that matters is automatically included in your class package; all the stuff you can choose yourself has such low caloric value that you probably burn more energy selecting it than you gain from taking it.

Again, do note that "crippled and nerfed feats" only applies to Mundanes. Spellcasters remain largely untouched. Additionally, even Wizards get more sugar blown into their rears, because apparently they sorely needed an upgrade.

The usual objection is "but you get more feats!". That's true and the increased feat pace is a good thing, but keep in mind that the extra slots are rearloaded, and over the first _twelve_ levels of the game you only get _one_ extra feat.

Alright I better stop here, lest the post that I am trying to keep distanced and objective devolves into a foaming rant against the ignorance and ineptitude of mainly one particular Paizo dev, I'm sure you all know who I mean.

Raven777

2014-02-18, 12:06 PM

Paladin's are unplayable now that the codes are more punishing.

Oath of Vengeance (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo---paladin-archetypes/oathbound-paladin/oath-of-vengeance) wants a word with you.

Big Fau

2014-02-18, 12:24 PM

Oath of Vengeance (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo---paladin-archetypes/oathbound-paladin/oath-of-vengeance) wants a word with you.

It changes one thing (and actually adds that to the code instead of altering an existing portion), and does not do a thing about how lenient the code is. Specifically it does nothing about the Ex-Paladins clause that makes any violation cause the Paladin to fall, not just major ones.

Raven777

2014-02-18, 02:19 PM

It changes one thing (and actually adds that to the code instead of altering an existing portion), and does not do a thing about how lenient the code is. Specifically it does nothing about the Ex-Paladins clause that makes any violation cause the Paladin to fall, not just major ones.

How does writing you a blank check to "never let lesser evils distract you from your pursuit of just vengeance" not make the code more lenient? "Lesser evil" being as subjective a statement as it is, it is as lenient as it needs to be. It basically lets you get away with tolerating anything your code would usually forbid as long as you remain steady in pursuit of that warlord who razed your village or that demon who wants to eat the world. Heck, it lets you act like a cross between Batman and Jack Bauer.

As long as you keep chasing the bandits you took an Oath against, the Necromancer in your wake can raise all the zombies he wishes. After all, he's being a helper!

Big Fau

2014-02-18, 02:44 PM

How does writing you a blank check to "never let lesser evils distract you from your pursuit of just vengeance" not make the code more lenient? "Lesser evil" being as subjective a statement as it is, it is as lenient as it needs to be. It basically lets you get away with tolerating anything your code would usually forbid as long as you remain steady in pursuit of that warlord who razed your village or that demon who wants to eat the world. Heck, it lets you act like a cross between Batman and Jack Bauer.

As long as you keep chasing the bandits you took an Oath against, the Necromancer in your wake can raise all the zombies he wishes. After all, he's being a helper!

How is Necromancy a lesser evil? Explain that to me, because most of D&D treats it as a high degree of blaspheme.

Drachasor

2014-02-18, 02:56 PM

How is Necromancy a lesser evil? Explain that to me, because most of D&D treats it as a high degree of blaspheme.

Let's go with a more clear-cut example.

You are looking for a cultist and a killer (not a chase, but merely digging up clues), and you happen to see a man beating his son (or perhaps beating a stranger). You know the cultist is going to summon a demon in a couple weeks. Well, you CAN'T interfere, because clearly the killer and demon summoner is the greater evil. Though really you can drop the demon summoning thing, since plans to do future evil isn't part of "just vengeance".

I mean, if they haven't done the evil yet, then it's not a problem, right? So I suppose we should compare preventing the demon summoning, which begins in an hour (and no evil has been done yet), with chasing after a violent thief you just saw. Best go get that robber!

HylianKnight

2014-02-18, 03:07 PM

Take 3.5, patch it, you get Pathfinder.

If compute analogies are being used, 3.5 was the first software patch for 3.0, Pathfinder is the expansion pack that effects the main game (think playing vanilla Civilization 5 vs Civ 5 after you've installed the first expansion).

All the core classes are redone with something reassembling actual thoughtful game design. (Every class gets to make choices while leveling up, no class has a dead level, all have cool 20th level capstones to reward players who don't multi class)

The mechanics of d20 are understood much better, so that feats come at every even level so players don't have to wait to "come online." The core feat list is greatly expanded and individual feats improved to actually be relevant to everyone over the course of a campaign.

The obtrusiveness of the skill system is significantly cut down, the list consolidated (spot and search, hide and move silently become one thing), and the rules cleared up (no x4 to start, no cross-class penalties, class skills are a bonus +3, the end).

Continues to publish new material and innovate (the Archetype system, where the concept of alternate class features is combined and balanced into resonate character building is one of my favorite things in any dnd system).

If you stuck to mostly core 3.5, or want to see what a well-designed D20 system looks like I highly recommend it.

Gnaeus

2014-02-18, 03:58 PM

Also, the same thing that is a "Pro" for one player is a "Con" for another. For example, quite a few players love the Archetype concept that allows for EZ-Bake characters. No need to fiddle with umpteen splatbooks, just make your class and archetype choice once and then just go through with it.
And _exactly this same thing_ annoys the kind of players that _enjoy_ fiddling with their character builds. Like yours truly, for instance.

I love some character build fiddling. I really do. But I don't see what the problem is here. PF appears to me to have more class variants (now called archetypes) than 3.5 did. Also, there appears to be more customizability of racial options. Yes, you are probably making your choice of archetype at character selection, but retraining is a thing. You can change archetypes after the fact with a little time and money. What goes away is not the character options. It is the 18 splatbooks. I don't see anything wrong with having all the class x variants on the same web page, with a nice convenient chart that tells me which options I can take at the same time, listing all the racial class variants separately. Then I can spend my time doing math to calculate odds, or trying to figure out what is most thematically or mechanically appropriate, rather than searching blindly through 16 different books because "I just know there is a paladin ACF in one of these that isn't junk".

Scow2

2014-02-18, 04:22 PM

I love some character build fiddling. I really do. But I don't see what the problem is here. PF appears to me to have more class variants (now called archetypes) than 3.5 did. Also, there appears to be more customizability of racial options. Yes, you are probably making your choice of archetype at character selection, but retraining is a thing. You can change archetypes after the fact with a little time and money. What goes away is not the character options. It is the 18 splatbooks. I don't see anything wrong with having all the class x variants on the same web page, with a nice convenient chart that tells me which options I can take at the same time, listing all the racial class variants separately. Then I can spend my time doing math to calculate odds, or trying to figure out what is most thematically or mechanically appropriate, rather than searching blindly through 16 different books because "I just know there is a paladin ACF in one of these that isn't junk".

The problem is with how swingy the archetypes are... Some are good, others are absolute crap (As in, worse at what they're trying to do than the baseline version of that class), with no way to opt out of the traits that absolutely kill the archetype, or trade out bits that don't match your character concept.

Gnaeus

2014-02-18, 04:43 PM

The problem is with how swingy the archetypes are... Some are good, others are absolute crap (As in, worse at what they're trying to do than the baseline version of that class), with no way to opt out of the traits that absolutely kill the archetype, or trade out bits that don't match your character concept.

Gosh. I can't think of a better description of the ACF system in 3.5. If I don't like wildshape, can I make a shapeshift druid but without the pointless loss of the animal companion? No, i can't. Every comprehensive guide I look at has ACFs that are worse than the baseline version of the class (And some 3.5 ACFs just give something for nothing, and are just flat out better than the baseline of the class). Some 3.5 ACFs are easy, they just trade out 1 or 2 class features, and are easy to combine with others. Some PF archetypes are just the same.

Drachasor

2014-02-18, 06:01 PM

Gosh. I can't think of a better description of the ACF system in 3.5. If I don't like wildshape, can I make a shapeshift druid but without the pointless loss of the animal companion? No, i can't. Every comprehensive guide I look at has ACFs that are worse than the baseline version of the class (And some 3.5 ACFs just give something for nothing, and are just flat out better than the baseline of the class). Some 3.5 ACFs are easy, they just trade out 1 or 2 class features, and are easy to combine with others. Some PF archetypes are just the same.

PF uses Archetypes to customize characters more than PrCs or Feats or whatever. So it has more ACF-like stuff, but the ACF-like stuff is less customizable since you can pick and mix. 3.5 actually gives you more variety in builds since there are a lot more PrCs and a lot more useful feats that do a wider variety of things.

This reminds me of the recurring theme in PF I touched on earlier. They love to take a nice idea, and stick it with something crappy. Such as the Magus being all about using magic in melee, yet even when they channel a touch spell they have to make a concentration check not to provoke (compare to the Duskblade). The density of annoying things in PF is greater than 3.5. It's the "if you want something nice, you have to punch yourself in the face" theory of game design.

Though I'm not saying 3.5 is remotely perfect, mind you.

Psyren

2014-02-18, 06:03 PM

Drachasor

2014-02-18, 06:06 PM

The archetypes are just a baseline. If you truly feel they're too restrictive, make the case to your DM that X ability shouldn't be lost or that you should gain Z ability in addition to Y provided by the archetype. The men in suits won't show up at your door for playing PF wrong.

You've never done this then.

Pathfinder is made by a team with a particular set of skills. If you don't follow the rules as compiled on the PFSRD, they will look for you. They will find you. And they will kill you.

Also, a lot of DMs don't like houseruling at all.

CombatOwl

2014-02-18, 06:14 PM

You've never done this then.

Pathfinder is made by a team with a particular set of skills. If you don't follow the rules as compiled on the PFSRD, they will look for you. They will find you. And they will kill you.

Also, a lot of DMs don't like houseruling at all.

Well, they're GMing a d20 game. Can you really blame them for not wanting to add additional complexity and headaches? It's already pretty bad.

Gnaeus

2014-02-18, 06:15 PM

PF uses Archetypes to customize characters more than PrCs or Feats or whatever. So it has more ACF-like stuff, but the ACF-like stuff is less customizable since you can pick and mix. 3.5 actually gives you more variety in builds since there are a lot more PrCs and a lot more useful feats that do a wider variety of things.

PF is STILL coming out with supplements, and many of those contain PRCs. Also, very few 3.5 PRCs would not be usable in PF, which was one of PF's design goals. So if PF doesn't have enough PrCs, rather than blaming the Paizo design team, you can 1. wait for more PrCs in the next supplement or 2. Use any 3.5 PrC.

Drachasor

2014-02-18, 06:15 PM

Well, they're GMing a d20 game. Can you really blame them for not wanting to add additional complexity and headaches? It's already pretty bad.

DMs also aren't game design, and many aren't comfortable messing with game balance. Which can be a big problem in 3.5 or PF.

PF is STILL coming out with supplements, and many of those contain PRCs. Also, very few 3.5 PRCs would not be usable in PF, which was one of PF's design goals. So if PF doesn't have enough PrCs, rather than blaming the Paizo design team, you can 1. wait for more PrCs in the next supplement or 2. Use any 3.5 PrC.

The problem with PF PrCs is...most of them are crap. They also just make fewer PrCs period -- because PF does customization mostly with archetypes.

I think you really missed my point.

charcoalninja

2014-02-18, 07:00 PM

Casters are stronger than ever, especially non high optimization casters. Non-casters are probably slightly weaker than before.

The game is textually more inclusive of minorities than any edition of D&D.

No casters aren't stronger than ever because Divine Metamagic, Arcane Thesis, Incantrix, Chaos Feat Shuffle, Mindrape, and Shadesteel Golems do not exist.

Gnaeus

2014-02-18, 07:11 PM

The problem with 3.5 PrCs is...most of them are crap.

Fixed that for you.

They also just make fewer PrCs period -- because PF does customization mostly with archetypes.

I think you really missed my point.

I don't think so. I just think your point is wrong. Archetypes are just as erratic (some good, some bad) as 3.5 ACFs, but there are lots more of them, and they are way more accessible to casual players, or even experienced players who don't want to spend a long time dumpster diving. There are less PrCs, but more come out all the time, because PF is still producing new content AND we always have the option of importing 3.5 ones. Many of the old ones have been revised to make them better (mystic theurge is still a dog with fleas, but they at least threw some flea powder on it). End result, PF has more options for character customization than 3.5 did.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-18, 07:22 PM

No casters aren't stronger than ever because Divine Metamagic, Arcane Thesis, Incantrix, Chaos Feat Shuffle, Mindrape, and Shadesteel Golems do not exist. In their place are metamagic reducer traits, dazing spell, thanatopic (or however you spell it) spell, spell mastery, paragon surge, synthesist summoners, and samsaran ancestry, buffs in terms of class features (an addition I appreciate, but a buff nonetheless).

Concentration became a spellcaster level check instead of a skill, but that change came with higher DCS, so it's probably a wash.

Optimator

2014-02-18, 07:47 PM

Firechanter

2014-02-18, 08:33 PM

Also, very few 3.5 PRCs would not be usable in PF, which was one of PF's design goals.

Of course, almost all the 3.5 material would technically be usable in PF. The problem here being, I haven't yet met a PF DM who would allow 3.5 material, with a few situational exceptions (one group I know uses the 3.5 version of Cleave). But if I asked to build a Crusader or Warblade? They'd just either laugh at me or flip me off.

[Yes I'm aware of the DSP Martial Adepts... but again, since it's #1: 3PP content and #2: closed content and not in the PFSRD, no chance that I might be allowed to play a Warlord.]

No casters aren't stronger than ever because Divine Metamagic, Arcane Thesis, Incantrix, Chaos Feat Shuffle, Mindrape, and Shadesteel Golems do not exist.

Yeah it's true, these don't exist -- but casters never needed any of these to smoke the game anyway even with Core Only. And then PF Wizards are even more powerful than 3.5 Core Wizards (what with not having to actually _ban_ any schools to be a Specialist; in addition to getting almost twice the HP; never having to pay XP spell components or crafting costs... you get the idea).

On the other hand, as said, mundane feats are worthless now, especially for a Str Melee build. So in the end, in a non-biased by-the-book game, the Mundane/Magic-Differential has increased, not decreased.
However, I really have to commend Paizo on being able to pull the wool so thoroughly over about 90% of the players' eyes that they are actually buying those nerfs as buffs. "We thank the Big Brother for increasing the chocolate ration to 20 grams."

But to be fair, where some balance (supposedly) happens is in certain Adventure Paths. Some seem to be indeed laid out so that Casters run out of spells where Mundanes can keep going - apparently achieved by spamming so many "small" encounters where Casters can't really afford to cast, while Mundanes do well just by hitting things with a stick and healing up with consumables, because there's apparently time pressure so you can't just rest.

Bigmchuge

2014-02-18, 08:43 PM

The 0 xp cost to craft magical items is the biggest pro I can think of for Pathfinder.

Gnaeus

2014-02-18, 09:14 PM

Of course, almost all the 3.5 material would technically be usable in PF. The problem here being, I haven't yet met a PF DM who would allow 3.5 material, with a few situational exceptions (one group I know uses the 3.5 version of Cleave). But if I asked to build a Crusader or Warblade? They'd just either laugh at me or flip me off..

Obviously, there is no good way to tell what the average PF DM will do. I know I allow 3.5 material in my PF game, if I think it fills a gap and I do allow ToB (although only one player bothers to use it, otherwise we mostly find PF ways to do the same thing). My friday game in which I play allows some 3.5 material. My last game was all PF, because the DM was testing rules, but I think he will allow 3.5 next time since he is a bit more confident with the system (he didn't even allow PF non-core until level 4). The only PF game that I am participating in where you would be laughed at for asking to play a warblade comes from a group where you would have been shot down just as hard in the 3.5 game that preceeded it.

watchwood

2014-02-18, 10:02 PM

But to be fair, where some balance (supposedly) happens is in certain Adventure Paths. Some seem to be indeed laid out so that Casters run out of spells where Mundanes can keep going - apparently achieved by spamming so many "small" encounters where Casters can't really afford to cast, while Mundanes do well just by hitting things with a stick and healing up with consumables, because there's apparently time pressure so you can't just rest.

A lot of that's up to the DM. If you only have 1 or 2 combat encounters per day, then the casters have no reason not to blow their loads at every opportunity.

Silva Stormrage

2014-02-18, 10:13 PM

Fixed that for you.

I don't think so. I just think your point is wrong. Archetypes are just as erratic (some good, some bad) as 3.5 ACFs, but there are lots more of them, and they are way more accessible to casual players, or even experienced players who don't want to spend a long time dumpster diving. There are less PrCs, but more come out all the time, because PF is still producing new content AND we always have the option of importing 3.5 ones. Many of the old ones have been revised to make them better (mystic theurge is still a dog with fleas, but they at least threw some flea powder on it). End result, PF has more options for character customization than 3.5 did.

Look, no one is saying that Archetypes in Pathfinder are worse than 3.5 alternate class features (I will debate wether or not most 3.5 PRC's are crap though. Especially near the end of 3.5's life cycle.)

What is true however, is that pathfinder relies on Archtypes to customize characters more than 3.5 uses acf's to customize characters. Pathfinder has less usable feats, prc's, and just general options than 3.5. In 3.5 prc's were MUCH more useful in differentiating characters than prc's are in pathfinder. Frankly I can't think of really ANY prc's that are useful in pathfinder, its like druid's in 3.5 all over again. In pathfinder most people (90%) take base classes straight to 20. There is some variation between the archetypes sure. But their is more variation between say a bone knight cleric and a master of shrouds cleric in 3.5 then any two clerics with different archetypes in pathfinder.

Also the whole "You can use 3.5 material in pathfinder" falls apart when a lot of dm's don't allow that. Mine haven't certainly. And if you rely on dm's to house rule stuff you have to account for the fact that most dm's are really bad at balancing things (as are most players).

The 0 xp cost to craft magical items is the biggest pro I can think of for Pathfinder.

Sure its nice for casters but come on. Its absurd. It essentially doubles your wealth by level. Its ludicrously overpowered or your DM compensates by giving you less treasure and then you are being punished for taking the feat. Its not a good situation.

Pex

2014-02-18, 10:53 PM

They nerfed melee by nerfing power attack and trip and the like but casters are still gods. :smallconfused: Balance may appear better to the uninitiated but ALL the same problems are there. Archery did get a boost but the power attack nerf scuttles it a bit.

I like the way they consolidated skills. I like the Ranger buffs. I think the Barbarian changes were dumb. Archetypes are cool but PrCs are awesome too. I don't like the bias toward single-class playing--PrCs or no, it's all the same metadata. If someone, perhaps someone with a gigantic ego on the Paizo development team prone to banning people on their forums for providing constructive criticism, doesn't like the aesthetics of multiclassing than that's a personal problem.

I do like a lot of the new base classes though.

The most unforgivable thing they did though was nerf Bards.

PF to me is just a series of house rules like UA. Take what you like and play 3.P.

Trip I grant you, but Power Attack was not nerfed. A 3E 10th level fighter is not going to take -10 to hit for Power Attack. He won't hit his foe. He might take -4 to hit for +8 damage. The Pathfinder 10th level fighter is taking -3 to hit for +9 damage. But Shock Trooper! Only works on a charge and you lose AC. Pathfinder has Furious Focus. You don't need to charge and you don't lose AC, has one less feat prerequisite, and can be taken at 1st level.

The 3E Fighter needs to take another feat, Leap Attack, for uber damage. Which leads to another problem. In 3E, because of Power Attack, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, the theory goes, that's the only thing that makes a warrior effective. The other option is Lockdown. Now while it is true adding in Leap Attack piles on the damage more than in Pathfinder, the fact that there is no Pathfinder Leap Attack is a feature for Pathfinder. Two-handed weapon style still does a lot of damage, but it is precisely because it is not uber alles that other fighting styles with their own feat support become decent options. Barbarian rage powers, Paladin Smite Evil, Fighter weapon bonuses, Pathfinder warriors are not lacking in damage potential despite choosing a combat style that does not use a two-handed weapon.

3E beats Pathfinder in Lockdown. I've already mentioned and agreed Pathfinder takes two or three feats what 3E did in one. It was flawed thinking on their part. Their change in Power Attack could very well be part of that flawed thinking, but it works out alright in spite of it.

The warrior classes were not nerfed.

Look, no one is saying that Archetypes in Pathfinder are worse than 3.5 alternate class features (I will debate wether or not most 3.5 PRC's are crap though. Especially near the end of 3.5's life cycle.)

What is true however, is that pathfinder relies on Archtypes to customize characters more than 3.5 uses acf's to customize characters. Pathfinder has less usable feats, prc's, and just general options than 3.5. In 3.5 prc's were MUCH more useful in differentiating characters than prc's are in pathfinder. Frankly I can't think of really ANY prc's that are useful in pathfinder, its like druid's in 3.5 all over again. In pathfinder most people (90%) take base classes straight to 20. There is some variation between the archetypes sure. But their is more variation between say a bone knight cleric and a master of shrouds cleric in 3.5 then any two clerics with different archetypes in pathfinder.

Also the whole "You can use 3.5 material in pathfinder" falls apart when a lot of dm's don't allow that. Mine haven't certainly. And if you rely on dm's to house rule stuff you have to account for the fact that most dm's are really bad at balancing things (as are most players).

That's a matter of personal taste. One complaint of 3E has been characters multi-classing prestige classes taking a few levels here and there to cherry-pick abilities. Others have said that some prestige classes would have been better utilized precisely as alternative class features or a particular build of feats. That's the path Paizo chose - focusing on archetypes more than prestige classes.

Another 3E complaint has been classes not worth sticking to level 20. Paizo tried to remedy that as well. There was no reason for a 3E sorcerer not to go into a prestige class. Ditto wizards. The class features Paizo gave them that some people yell about are precisely why it's no longer a no brainer for a wizard or sorcerer to go into a prestige class. Now players have to really, really want a prestige class. Archetypes devaluing the need/desire for going into a prestige class or multiclassing is the whole point. It's on purpose encouragement to stay single class to level 20, but if you really really want to multiclass and/or go into a prestige class, enjoy.

Zrak

2014-02-19, 12:49 AM

Sure its nice for casters but come on.

Actually, you don't need to be a caster to craft magic items. So it's nice for everyone.

Hytheter

2014-02-19, 01:05 AM

Actually, you don't need to be a caster to craft magic items. So it's nice for everyone.

...How else can you do it?

Drachasor

2014-02-19, 01:15 AM

I don't think so. I just think your point is wrong. Archetypes are just as erratic (some good, some bad) as 3.5 ACFs, but there are lots more of them, and they are way more accessible to casual players, or even experienced players who don't want to spend a long time dumpster diving. There are less PrCs, but more come out all the time, because PF is still producing new content AND we always have the option of importing 3.5 ones. Many of the old ones have been revised to make them better (mystic theurge is still a dog with fleas, but they at least threw some flea powder on it). End result, PF has more options for character customization than 3.5 did.

Compare a PF book to a 3.5 equivalent. You'll find far, far fewer PrCs, because PF makes far, far fewer PrCs. And while many 3.5 PrCs sucked, you'll find far, far more good PrCs in a 3.5 book than the PF equivalent, because 90%+ of new PF material is crap (this is at least partially intentional*). Again, the customization focus in PF isn't on PrCs, but Archetypes, so of course it has more archetypes. But when you compare the broad scope of customization options in 3.5 with PF, then PF comes up short.

I find the Mystic Theurge a hilarious example of something to point out. Anyone ever want to see how ADDING class features can make you feel worse about a class? Take a look. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/core-rulebook/mystic-theurge) The Pathfinder Chronicler (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/core-rulebook/pathfinder-chronicler) is a new PrC and really represents the Paizo design skills too.

Heck, just consider making a Fire Elementalist in 3.5 vs. PF. The former has more options and more powerful ways to implement the concept. PF has far, far fewer, despite having a ton of content. This is true of many, many, many things.

Most DMs in PF simply do not allow 3.5 material from what I've seen. Certainly PF material isn't balanced with respect to 3.5 imports. In any case, this is hardly an argument for PF being better, since you can do the same thing in reverse. Take the handful of good changes in PF and pull them into 3.5.

*If you point out that the Crossbow archetype for Fighters is terrible or their Vow of Poverty and the like are terrible, what you get is SKR talking about how he was involved in their design and THEY SHOULD SUCK AND YOU SHOULD BE BAD IF YOU TAKE THEM. He'll do things like compare making them good to making a an effective fighter around throwing water balloons. Huzzah! That's the sort of BS is a big part of PF design.

...How else can you do it?

I will say one of PFs few improvements is crafting and getting rid of XP costs in general. Being able to sidestep prerequisites is also nice.

Non-casters can craft if they take the Master Crafstman Feat AND then take Craft Arms and Armor or Wondrous Item. Those are the only things they can craft though and they need a skill that matches whatever they make.

Of course, if you pick the right trait that gives you a spell-like ability (one that doesn't specify a caster level of 1st), then you don't need Master Craftsman at all.

Zrak

2014-02-19, 01:46 AM

...How else can you do it?

By taking a feat (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final). (Given the other options, it's not like this has a steep opportunity cost.) You'll still be at a disadvantage, since the DC goes up by 5 for every required spell you don't know, but it's better than nothing; given that basic competence at any one combat maneuver to which a huge number of your enemies are essentially immune requires, like, four feats, doubling your wbl with two or three really isn't so bad.

Take the handful of good changes in PF and pull them into 3.5.

I would honestly say this is the best solution. It's a lot easier to convert the few Pathfinder fixes that actually fixed something than convert every cool 3.5 PrC or feat that got left behind.

Alent

2014-02-19, 02:27 AM

By taking a feat (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final). (Given the other options, it's not like this has a steep opportunity cost.) You'll still be at a disadvantage, since the DC goes up by 5 for every required spell you don't know, but it's better than nothing; given that basic competence at any one combat maneuver to which a huge number of your enemies are essentially immune requires, like, four feats, doubling your wbl with two or three really isn't so bad.

Read it closer. It only works for the skill you used to qualify for the feat. You're taking that feat three times + the regular crafting feat to get Weapons, Armor, and Bows. (Because bows aren't weapons!) :smallsigh:

Classic pathfinder trap feat.

You really have to take Trapfinding just to read the feat list.

(Edit: You can't even use it to qualify for Craft Construct... Which STILL keeps alchemists from creating golems.)

I would honestly say this is the best solution. It's a lot easier to convert the few Pathfinder fixes that actually fixed something than convert every cool 3.5 PrC or feat that got left behind.

This is my personal preference. It also protects you from the Pathfinder developer and community opinion on multiclassing and optimization, which can be a bigger turnoff than the flaws in their system. Not much sucks like being told you're having badwrongfun because you want to dip a level in another class, port a 3.5 class, or take a PrC because no archetype does what you want.

Also, I'll second everything anyone in this thread has said about the Errata/FAQ in Pathfinder being terrible to players, and inhumane to melee.

Firechanter

2014-02-19, 03:38 AM

Zrak

2014-02-19, 03:50 AM

Read it closer. It only works for the skill you used to qualify for the feat. You're taking that feat three times + the regular crafting feat to get Weapons, Armor, and Bows. (Because bows aren't weapons!) :smallsigh:

Classic pathfinder trap feat.

Oh, yeah, you can't use it for weapons. Not only do you need three feats and three maxed out craft skills, the DC of the check goes through the roof if you want anything but raw enhancement bonus. +1 keen is like +10 to the DC, every other effect is at least +5 more on top of that. If your DM lets you add effects individually, that's not so bad, but then you still need three feats and three maxed out craft skills, so it's still terrible.

It's really only viable for wondrous items, since something like Craft: Apparel should cover most of the wondrous item slots and most wondrous items only have one prerequisite spell. Since anyone who can't cast will need an assload of wondrous items, going for that is probably the biggest bang for your buck, anyhow.

Psyren

2014-02-19, 05:48 AM

DMs also aren't game design, and many aren't comfortable messing with game balance. Which can be a big problem in 3.5 or PF.

And that's understandable, but presumably you're playing with friends - friends will (or at least should) put their trust in each other over some words on a page. Make your case, promise not to break the game, and if the DM still refuses to see your side of things/doesn't have a good reason why not then you have bigger problems.

Drachasor

2014-02-19, 05:53 AM

And that's understandable, but presumably you're playing with friends - friends will (or at least should) put their trust in each other over some words on a page. Make your case, promise not to break the game, and if the DM still refuses to see your side of things/doesn't have a good reason why not then you have bigger problems.

That requires people are comfortable house ruling and that the DM has at least a decent grasp on game balance and feels the player does too. This isn't that common in my experience. Seems to be a common enough problem given how people talk on forums and the fact that WotC itself stated they found groups only rarely used house rules.

And promising not to "break the game" doesn't really mean much if the DM doesn't think you have a good grasp of game balance or doesn't feel comfortable enough in his judgement on the matter. Or are you saying a DM should just blindly allow something that whose power he can't gauge? I don't think getting upset at the DM and deciding there is "a bigger problem" helps matters here.

Divayth Fyr

2014-02-19, 05:58 AM

The archetypes are just a baseline. If you truly feel they're too restrictive, make the case to your DM that X ability shouldn't be lost or that you should gain Z ability in addition to Y provided by the archetype. The men in suits won't show up at your door for playing PF wrong.
Other than showing that homebrewing is a good idea, how does this tell us anything about Pathfinder or the quality of archetypes as they are presented? :smallconfused:

Psyren

2014-02-19, 06:30 AM

That requires people are comfortable house ruling and that the DM has at least a decent grasp on game balance and feels the player does too. This isn't that common in my experience. Seems to be a common enough problem given how people talk on forums and the fact that WotC itself stated they found groups only rarely used house rules.

On the contrary, houserules are probably the most common aspect of this game. Almost every single group plays something differently from what is on the page, even without realizing it.

Other than showing that homebrewing is a good idea, how does this tell us anything about Pathfinder or the quality of archetypes as they are presented? :smallconfused:

You mean besides the fact that the Core Rulebook itself tells you that you have the freedom to tweak things as needed for maximum fun? CRB pg. 9:

The Most Important Rule

The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played.

Drachasor

2014-02-19, 06:38 AM

On the contrary, houserules are probably the most common aspect of this game. Almost every single group plays something differently from what is on the page, even without realizing it.

There's a world of difference between not understanding a rule and consciously making a house rule. You shouldn't act like one implies the other. As I said, WotC's studies on the matter showed most groups did not do the latter. So your thought that you can just ask the DM to change the rules for you is something that won't work in most groups.

Psyren

2014-02-19, 06:47 AM

There's a world of difference between not understanding a rule and consciously making a house rule. You shouldn't act like one implies the other. As I said, WotC's studies on the matter showed most groups did not do the latter. So your thought that you can just ask the DM to change the rules for you is something that won't work in most groups.

What does not understanding a rule have to do with anything? We were talking about tweaking an archetype so it's more fun to play. Fun is the ultimate goal of this game and nothing, especially not words on a page, should get in the way of that.

Drachasor

2014-02-19, 06:51 AM

What does not understanding a rule have to do with anything? We were talking about tweaking an archetype so it's more fun to play. Fun is the ultimate goal of this game and nothing, especially not words on a page, should get in the way of that.

Not understanding a rule is how you have house rules without knowing it.

*sigh* At least pay attention to the points you bring up.

Divayth Fyr

2014-02-19, 06:58 AM

You mean besides the fact that the Core Rulebook itself tells you that you have the freedom to tweak things as needed for maximum fun? CRB pg. 9:
The fact is irrelevant here, since going with that we can't judge anything "because it can be houseruled to be better". The devs released the archetypes (and spells and everything else) in a form they decided to be good - and if there are issues with that, those should be pointed out and not commented "houserule and it is fine".

olentu

2014-02-19, 07:00 AM

You mean besides the fact that the Core Rulebook itself tells you that you have the freedom to tweak things as needed for maximum fun? CRB pg. 9:

Wow these house rule things sound great, it is a good thing they were invented by the people who wrote pathfinder. I mean, they are so good that I am surprised I don't hear more people listing Houserules™ as a major pro of the system.

Psyren

2014-02-19, 07:21 AM

Not understanding a rule is how you have house rules without knowing it.

*sigh* At least pay attention to the points you bring up.

You're misunderstanding why I mentioned it. You're trying to claim houserules aren't common when they actually are. Ergo, intentional houseruling/tweaking is not some grand crime against nature. Get it now?

The fact is irrelevant here, since going with that we can't judge anything "because it can be houseruled to be better". The devs released the archetypes (and spells and everything else) in a form they decided to be good - and if there are issues with that, those should be pointed out and not commented "houserule and it is fine".

The archetypes are fine as written for lots of people. I'm simply pointing out the obvious alternative for the few who don't like them.

Wow these house rule things sound great, it is a good thing they were invented by the people who wrote pathfinder. I mean, they are so good that I am surprised I don't hear more people listing Houserules™ as a major pro of the system.

Houserules are not a pro of the system - the fact that they are sanctioned by the system is.

Drachasor

2014-02-19, 07:26 AM

You're misunderstanding why I mentioned it. You're trying to claim houserules aren't common when they actually are. Ergo, intentional houseruling/tweaking is not some grand crime against nature. Get it now?

Yes. Just like breaking the law isn't uncommon because of jay walking and tons of minor stuff people aren't aware of (or care about), therefore murder is ok and normal. MAKES SENSE!

Again, you are equating two things that aren't the same.

And I never said house-ruling was a crime against nature. I said intentional house ruling doesn't happen in most groups. So your advice to just ask your DM to change the rules is useless. You respond to this by turning a false equivalence into a strawman.

olentu

2014-02-19, 07:35 AM

You're misunderstanding why I mentioned it. You're trying to claim houserules aren't common when they actually are. Ergo, intentional houseruling/tweaking is not some grand crime against nature. Get it now?

The archetypes are fine as written for lots of people. I'm simply pointing out the obvious alternative for the few who don't like them.

Houserules are not a pro of the system - the fact that they are sanctioned by the system is.

Psyren man, what are you talking about. Houesrules are fine but any system can be houseruled. When people choose a system they generally do it for the rules that make the system unique, not the fact that the system can be houseruled (as just about any system can). So, you know, the fact that system X can be houseruled is not really so relevant to a discussion of the pros and cons of a system.

Drachasor

2014-02-19, 07:38 AM

Psyren man, what are you talking about. Houesrules are fine but any system can be houseruled. When people choose a system they generally do it for the rules that make the system unique, not the fact that the system can be houseruled (as just about any system can). So, you know, the fact that system X can be houseruled is not really so relevant to a discussion of the pros and cons of a system.

This is just how he gets about Pathfinder. One must simply accept and endure it.

Firechanter

2014-02-19, 07:44 AM

Houserules are not a pro of the system - the fact that they are sanctioned by the system is.

Sorry, that's a moot point. Pretty much every system out there has some clause along the lines of "if you don't like it, change it". And even if it didn't, who's going to stop you to change it anyway? The RPG Police?

Also, there's the school of thought that this "golden rule" is actually a bad thing because it releases the designers from responsibility for the stuff they come up with. A good game should work fine without houseruling things.

As a side note, I've had my fair share of DMs who imposed ill-conceived houserules because they didn't understand the logic of the original rule. "Critical Failure" rules come to mind.

Psyren

2014-02-19, 07:46 AM

I said intentional house ruling doesn't happen in most groups.

1) You're now shifting the goal-posts, as you never specified intent. Just houseruling.

2) Even restricting it to intentional houserules, I think you'll find that the majority of groups have those too. And even for the unintentional ones, when you bring to their attention that X rule they've been playing with for months is actually a houserule, unless it is actively harming the game they will be unlikely to change it.

Psyren man, what are you talking about. Houesrules are fine but any system can be houseruled. When people choose a system they generally do it for the rules that make the system unique, not the fact that the system can be houseruled (as just about any system can). So, you know, the fact that system X can be houseruled is not really so relevant to a discussion of the pros and cons of a system.

A system that is mostly good, and then empowers the DM to alter what is necessary to make it even better (for that group), is the best of both worlds. No system will or even can be perfect as-written, because all of us want different things.

This is just how he gets about Pathfinder. One must simply accept and endure it.

The irony is that if anyone's a martyr here it's me. There are bunch of posters who simply stopped talking about Pathfinder here because the loud minority here jumps down their throats every time.

Drachasor

2014-02-19, 07:50 AM

1) You're now shifting the goal-posts, as you never specified intent. Just houseruling.

2) Even restricting it to intentional houserules, I think you'll find that the majority of groups have those too. And even when you bring to their attention that X rule they've been playing with for months is actually a houserule, unless it is actively harming the game they will be unlikely to change it.

1) I'm clarifying what I meant. That's not shifting goalposts. When most people talk about houserules they do mean just the explicit ones.

2) Like I said, WotC actually did studies on it and found the vast majority of groups didn't make house rules. If you have some studies that dispute it, then that's one thing. Your anecdotal experience doesn't not a statistical sample make.

The irony is that if anyone's a martyr here it's me. There are bunch of posters who simply stopped talking about Pathfinder here because the loud minority here jumps down their throats every time.

I don't mean to offend, but given that you are at times obstinate on PF to the point of absurdity, I have to wonder what other people did to get "everyone to jump down their throats." Assuming that's an accurate description.

Also, no one said anyone was a martyr. You need to do more than endure something to be a martyr. Maybe I should have said "Psyren can be a bit difficult when it comes to PF, deal with it ****er". But that seemed a bit uncouth.

hemming

2014-02-19, 07:58 AM

More information:

I play in a small group - house rules are extremely common. The most important thing in the group is that the players have fun and get to play the type of character they want.

We almost always relax rules on multi-classing to enable this. I need to spend some time with the archetypes and PrCs from PF to really comment - but it seems like this would help overcome the fix that the archetypes are seeking to provide

Don't really like the idea of creating skill parity among classes (i.e. doing away with CC skills) - I've always thought of a good party as being specialists in unique areas (both in and out of combat). Obviously just a matter of personal preference in play style

To an observer, it looks like PF did not really attempt to bring classes closer to combat parity - but attempted to level the playing field in terms of non-combat parity (i.e. skills).

Probably going to bring in in select feats from PF (and maybe some classes) - would be great to get a list/more suggestions on this front if anyone feels so ambitious. Definitely allowing a few of the archery feats

Also - I've played other systems. If you don't like D20, D&D or PF then this probably isn't the best thread for your comments

deuterio12

2014-02-19, 07:59 AM

2) Like I said, WotC actually did studies on it and found the vast majority of groups didn't make house rules. If you have some studies that dispute it, then that's one thing. Your anecdotal experience doesn't not a statistical sample make.

Thing is, most groups have unconscious houserules. Little details that they skim over or misread, which is only natural because humans are not computers and there's hundreds if not thousands of pages of rules to consider.

For example, going by pure RAW, 3.5 monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes. But when did you ever see a group enforce that in-game? As a class that is assumed to fight unarmed, most people will assume the monk is proficient with unarmed strikes by default, altough that isn't present on the class writeup itself.

Drachasor

2014-02-19, 08:00 AM

Alent

2014-02-19, 08:16 AM

More information:

I play in a small group - house rules are extremely common. The most important thing in the group is that the players have fun and get to play the type of character they want.

We almost always relax rules on multi-classing to enable this. I need to spend some time with the archetypes and PrCs from PF to really comment - but it seems like this would help overcome the fix that the archetypes are seeking to provide

It's good that you do houserules and relax multiclassing rules. If you want to mix PF Archetypes and PrCs, keep a close eye on the PrC's intent and be prepared to houserule it. A number of archetypes trade away/transform class features used as common entry requirements, or slow the advancement of said class feature.

Probably going to bring in in select feats from PF (and maybe some classes) - would be great to get a list/more suggestions on this front if anyone feels so ambitious. Definitely allowing a few of the archery feats

There's another thread for this actually drifting in and out of the front page. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=331340)

Gnaeus

2014-02-19, 08:17 AM

Compare a PF book to a 3.5 equivalent. You'll find far, far fewer PrCs, because PF makes far, far fewer PrCs. And while many 3.5 PrCs sucked, you'll find far, far more good PrCs in a 3.5 book than the PF equivalent, because 90%+ of new PF material is crap (this is at least partially intentional*). Again, the customization focus in PF isn't on PrCs, but Archetypes, so of course it has more archetypes. But when you compare the broad scope of customization options in 3.5 with PF, then PF comes up short.

I find the Mystic Theurge a hilarious example of something to point out. Anyone ever want to see how ADDING class features can make you feel worse about a class?
Yep, and you still haven't shown it to me. It clearly makes the class better. Not good, but better. I am building a paladin/sorcerer/dragon disciple for a core PF game right now, and boy am I glad I'm not playing him in 3.5. No, he still isn't as good as sorcerer 20, but he looks appropriate for the group and lots of fun to play.

More than that, I doubt your numbers. 1. I dispute that 90% of new PF material is crap. I like pretty much all the new base classes. I have used a number of PF PRCs in tournament play and found them to be quite usable. A number of others are usable in the correct campaign niche, which is quite acceptable for a PRC. 2. I dispute that PF has any worse a track record here than 3.5. If you throw out all the PRCs that are worse than their base classes (which you shouldn't, because there are some games where playing a mystic theurge is very viable as a character choice, not just despite but because of what it does to the character power level), AND THEN YOU ALSO throw out all the clearly overpowered PRCs, from incantrix and red wizard up to junk like beholder mage, tainted scholar and planar shepherd, I can't say that the % of balanced PRCs in 3.5 is that great either.

*If you point out that the Crossbow archetype for Fighters is terrible or their Vow of Poverty and the like are terrible, what you get is SKR talking about how he was involved in their design and THEY SHOULD SUCK AND YOU SHOULD BE BAD IF YOU TAKE THEM. He'll do things like compare making them good to making a an effective fighter around throwing water balloons. Huzzah! That's the sort of BS is a big part of PF design.

Yeppers. SKR says some really dumb stuff. So did the late great Gary Gygax. All my friends in Texas who worked for Steve Jackson hated his guts. I have heard some ludicrous things about White Wolf staff. Fortunately, inviting the game developer over to your house, or even listening to him, is not necessary to enjoy his game.

Also the whole "You can use 3.5 material in pathfinder" falls apart when a lot of dm's don't allow that. Mine haven't certainly. And if you rely on dm's to house rule stuff you have to account for the fact that most dm's are really bad at balancing things (as are most players).

You are right. And obviously, all those people who point out how good ToB is in 3.5 are lying, because my DM wouldn't let me use it, and a lot of other DMs don't either. I guess it isn't a part of 3.5.

Or maybe it is, and a lot of DMs are rationally or irrationally restrictive about what they put into their game. PF was designed for use of 3.5 material. While I don't think 3.5 material is in any way necessary to have an enjoyable PF experience, it is there, and intended from the start to be usable by people who just want more options.

TuggyNE

2014-02-19, 08:20 AM

Thing is, most groups have unconscious houserules. Little details that they skim over or misread, which is only natural because humans are not computers and there's hundreds if not thousands of pages of rules to consider.

For example, going by pure RAW, 3.5 monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes. But when did you ever see a group enforce that in-game? As a class that is assumed to fight unarmed, most people will assume the monk is proficient with unarmed strikes by default, altough that isn't present on the class writeup itself.

Generally speaking, unconscious houserules have a highly unpredictable effect on balance, and cannot be assumed to improve it; indeed, sometimes they produce hilariously bad results like giving spellcasters X spells/level … ever, instead of per day, or adding BAB at each level so that a Fighter 5 has BAB +15. Certain specific instances, such as monkish proficiency with unarmed strikes, may indeed improve balance, but since the monk is still far too weak even with three more such houserules in its favor, that counts for little.

Psyren

2014-02-19, 08:45 AM

Like I said, WotC actually did studies on it and found the vast majority of groups didn't make house rules. If you have some studies that dispute it, then that's one thing. Your anecdotal experience doesn't not a statistical sample make.

And what studies would those be? I'd be impressed at any study that says "100% by-the-book RAW is the majority." Do you have a link?

And even if most do that, the rulebook itself is telling you not to if you have problems, so choosing to ignore that and then grumbling about it strikes me as counterproductive.

I don't mean to offend, but given that you are at times obstinate on PF to the point of absurdity, I have to wonder what other people did to get "everyone to jump down their throats." Assuming that's an accurate description.

When you've found an absurdity in any of my posts please share it with me.

olentu

2014-02-19, 08:46 AM

This is just how he gets about Pathfinder. One must simply accept and endure it.

Yeah, I know. But I suppose hope springs eternal.

1) You're now shifting the goal-posts, as you never specified intent. Just houseruling.

2) Even restricting it to intentional houserules, I think you'll find that the majority of groups have those too. And even when you bring to their attention that X rule they've been playing with for months is actually a houserule, unless it is actively harming the game they will be unlikely to change it.

A system that is mostly good, and then empowers the DM to alter what is necessary to make it even better, is the best of both worlds. No system will be perfect as-written, because all of us want different things.

The irony is that if anyone's a martyr here it's me. There are bunch of posters who simply stopped talking about Pathfinder here because the loud minority here jumps down their throats every time.

And is just as quickly dashed.

Man, houserules are a feature of just about every system. Why are you bringing them up. It's a discussion about pros and cons so bringing up something that exists in all systems is at best pointless.

I mean, even if you are trying to defend the system, bringing up the fact that it can be houseruled as a counterargument is not a good idea. If you have something relevant to use why wouldn't you just use that. Houserules™ just makes it look like there isn't actually actually anything in favor of the system and so you have to resort to diversionary tactics.

Psyren

2014-02-19, 08:48 AM

Man, houserules are a feature of just about every system. Why are you bringing them up. It's a discussion about pros and cons so bringing up something that exists in all systems is at best pointless.

Because your particular "con" is easily addressed and the manner of doing so is itself part of the system.

Houserules™ just makes it look like there isn't actually actually anything in favor of the system and so you have to resort to diversionary tactics.

Except what you're pointing out isn't actually an objective flaw. It's subjective preference. Almost every archetype has its fans; the fact that you personally don't like X archetype is something that you need to deal with, not the game.

ZamielVanWeber

2014-02-19, 08:54 AM

Long story short: Pathfinder is free. Try it. You may HATE it (as I do) or ylu may love it. It left alone things that needed to be changed and made changes to things that I liked, so I do not like it. You may ultimately have the opposite experience, I cannot be sure, so just try it. The worse case.involves you trading time for knowledge.

olentu

2014-02-19, 09:16 AM

Because your particular "con" is easily addressed and the manner of doing so is itself part of the system.

Except what you're pointing out isn't actually an objective flaw. It's subjective preference. Almost every archetype has its fans; the fact that you personally don't like X archetype is something that you need to deal with, not the game.

That applies to every con of every system. Bringing up the fact that houserules exist just sidetracks the discussion.

Man what. I came into this with the position that Houserules™ is a terrible argument. Look, I know you really don't like people criticizing your favored game system but I'm not actually doing that. I'm just criticizing what I consider a really poor defense of that system,

Psyren

2014-02-19, 09:22 AM

That applies to every con of every system.

No it doesn't. For example, a legitimate criticism would be "despite their attempts to repair polymorph relative to 3.5, they still managed to leave Polymorph Any Object virtually untouched, and it's just as problematic as it was before."

That is a legitimate criticism. "There are archetypes I don't like and I don't feel like doing anything about them" is not.

hemming

2014-02-19, 09:43 AM

By the Gods!!!

If I may summarize: many groups in both systems use unintentional house rules through misunderstanding RAW - many groups use intentional house rules as well, which is okay too.

The debate here is that PF source material is more encouraging of developing house rules than D&D source materials (as a fan of house rules, seems like a pro to me)

The problem people have with this statement is that, in practice, D&D groups often develop house rules - so it is at best a very slight pro

As a D&D DM who uses house rules, its not a pro for me personally but I can see the argument that it is a pro for the system as a whol

Silva Stormrage

2014-02-19, 11:57 AM

No it doesn't. For example, a legitimate criticism would be "despite their attempts to repair polymorph relative to 3.5, they still managed to leave Polymorph Any Object virtually untouched, and it's just as problematic as it was before."

That is a legitimate criticism. "There are archetypes I don't like and I don't feel like doing anything about them" is not.

Isn't there an actual fallacy being mentioned a lot around here that if you have to fix something to maintain balance its not balance? The Oberani Fallacy I think? Ya http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy, as much as THAT site is official in anything.

Mainly Psyren I am not sure what you are arguing for in the big picture.

Are you saying Pathfinder isn't any more unbalanced than 3.5? I would agree. I think they are about the same in unbalance though in slightly different ways.

Are you saying that pathfinder has the same customization as 3.5? I disagree with this point heavily but I am not sure you are arguing this.

Are you saying that Pathfinder has no flaws in it compared to 3.5? I highly doubt this is what you are saying but I added it for thoroughness. XD

Also in the whole house rule debate. I would say a lot of groups do use house rules. I just say a lot of them are horrible horrible house rules. For example, my current DM has nerfed every single one of my abilities that I have used excepting 2, magic missile and the claws I get as an abyssal bloodline sorcerer. This includes thing like flaming sphere… Most of his house rules are fairly silly and unrealistic or harm game balance. I don't think that DMing house rules can be taken into account just because of how wildly it varies from dm to dm.

Psyren

2014-02-19, 12:01 PM

georgie_leech

2014-02-19, 12:13 PM

What I'm saying is that if a problem is subjective ("I don't like this/these archetypes") then a subjective solution is not fallacious.

When you're talking about reasons to switch though, it doesn't seem like much of a strength, given that you can do the same with 3.5. I agree that encouraging GM's to houserule will probably help at least some groups avoid some issues (albeit possibly causing others), but it's not something unique to Pathfinder, which is normally what is considered when debating pros and cons of any given system. After all, it would silly to trumpet "using d20's interjects a degree of randomness and spontaneity into the game" when discussing different d20 systems.

Silva Stormrage

2014-02-19, 12:16 PM

What I'm saying is that if a problem is subjective ("I don't like this/these archetypes") then a subjective solution is not fallacious.

I wasn't even talking about the system as a whole here, just responding to Scow2's specific complaint... which it looks like I don't have to do anymore...

Hm, I see what you are saying but in weighing the pros and cons with pathfinder I still don't see the archetypes matching up with the customization of 3.5.

If you want to compare 3.5 to pathfinder customization is not a fight pathfinder will win.

Gnaeus

2014-02-19, 12:31 PM

Hm, I see what you are saying but in weighing the pros and cons with pathfinder I still don't see the archetypes matching up with the customization of 3.5.

If you want to compare 3.5 to pathfinder customization is not a fight pathfinder will win.

Being entirely subjective, it isn't a fight pathfinder will lose either.

What I can say, clearly, unequivocably, is that the ability to customize based on a single web page (the PFSRD, page on the class you are playing) saves a ton of time, and brings customization tools into the hands of casual players who don't have 20 books to sort through or the time or desire to wade through that much unrelated literature just to find the tool their build needs. Then you can search for your feats or PRCs in the same place!

Psyren

2014-02-19, 12:42 PM

When you're talking about reasons to switch though, it doesn't seem like much of a strength, given that you can do the same with 3.5. I agree that encouraging GM's to houserule will probably help at least some groups avoid some issues (albeit possibly causing others), but it's not something unique to Pathfinder, which is normally what is considered when debating pros and cons of any given system. After all, it would silly to trumpet "using d20's interjects a degree of randomness and spontaneity into the game" when discussing different d20 systems.

This is valid, but my main point is that you need to consider the system as a starting point rather than a 100% complete, self-contained system. That's what you're paying for (or not paying for, in the case of SRD enthusiasts.) I think PF offers a better starting point for that kind of tweaking than 3.5 does - by powering up the races, classes and feat acquisition it sets those expectations by the DM and players higher in terms of how powerful things should be and what kinds of changes can be made. For instance, 3.5's baseline for a LA 0 race is no stat bonuses, and things like flight should be unavailable until level 5. With PF however, most races have an overall stat bonus of +2 and there are even races that can fly at first level.

In effect it is creating more design space for the ultimate designer - your DM - play in.

Then there is the OGL nature of the system - certain aspects of PF are freely available that are shuttered away in 3.5, such as the XP and wealth progressions of various campaign types, and therefore it's easier for a DM who doesn't know what he's doing to find discussion on them and how reasonable they are in practice. Likewise with every feat, item and spell they've ever created.

Silva Stormrage

2014-02-19, 12:50 PM

Being entirely subjective, it isn't a fight pathfinder will lose either.

What I can say, clearly, unequivocably, is that the ability to customize based on a single web page (the PFSRD, page on the class you are playing) saves a ton of time, and brings customization tools into the hands of casual players who don't have 20 books to sort through or the time or desire to wade through that much unrelated literature just to find the tool their build needs. Then you can search for your feats or PRCs in the same place!

Agreed, the pfsrd is incredibly useful for casual players and is an amazing decision by piazo. I am not saying that everything they do is wrong, I am just saying they did good and bad things, and for me I think they made more poor decisions than good ones.

But still for sheer number of viable options 3.5 easily has more. Yes they are spread out amongst several books and it takes more skill mastery to understand and actually utilize those options compared to pathfinder. But it still has more once you get into it.

hemming

2014-02-19, 01:05 PM

This is valid, but my main point is that you need to consider the system as a starting point rather than a 100% complete, self-contained system. That's what you're paying for (or not paying for, in the case of SRD enthusiasts.) I think PF offers a better starting point for that kind of tweaking than 3.5 does - by powering up the races, classes and feat acquisition it sets those expectations by the DM and players higher in terms of how powerful things should be and what kinds of changes can be made. For instance, 3.5's baseline for a LA 0 race is no stat bonuses, and things like flight should be unavailable until level 5. With PF however, most races have an overall stat bonus of +2 and there are even races that can fly at first level.

In effect it is creating more design space for the ultimate designer - your DM - play in.

More than any other reasoning I've seen, this makes me want to give it a try to see for myself. I was actually planning on not giving it much more thought, but now I think I'll take a closer look.

Perseus

2014-02-19, 03:34 PM

Pro: SKR no longer works for Paizo.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=332202

Drachasor

2014-02-19, 03:36 PM

Perseus

2014-02-19, 03:50 PM

I don't see the difference between saying a spell is poorly balanced and an archetype is poorly balanced.

You could respond to any criticism of PF with "the DM can house rule a fix, so that complaint isn't legitimate."

It isn't that the spell is poorly balanced. It is that they knew those spells were unbalanced, fixed some of them, and yet left one of them to stay unbalanced (on purpose or accident).

Objectively they didn't finish their work on the grouping of spells if their goal was to fix the polymorph spells.

Psyren

2014-02-19, 03:51 PM

I don't see the difference between saying a spell is poorly balanced and an archetype is poorly balanced.

You could respond to any criticism of PF with "the DM can house rule a fix, so that complaint isn't legitimate."

The difference is he was talking about archetypes from two subjective angles:

1) "character concept" i.e. flavor (and is thus subjective);
2) "traits that make it crap" which begs the question "crap compared to what?" (and is thus subjective.)

So to quote myself from earlier: "If a problem is subjective ("I don't like this/these archetypes") then a subjective solution is not fallacious."

Also, what Perseus said.

Silva Stormrage

2014-02-19, 03:55 PM

The difference is he was talking about archetypes from two subjective angles:

1) "character concept" i.e. flavor (and is thus subjective);
2) "traits that make it crap" which begs the question "crap compared to what?" (and is thus subjective.)

So to quote myself from earlier: "If a problem is subjective ("I don't like this/these archetypes") then a subjective solution is not fallacious."

Also, what Perseus said.

Eh while I agree that flavor is subjective. Power is not. While its true having an 18 int fighter with 10 str and 10 dex could fit in some groups. If an archetype forced fighters to only have a 10 in dex str and con it would be a legitimate criticism to say that that archetype is completely useless in most situations.

And yes that is a hyperbole, I don't know of any archetypes THAT bad in pathfinder. But power isn't a subjective complaint for most situations.

Firechanter

2014-02-19, 03:56 PM

Pro: SKR no longer works for Paizo.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=332202

Haha yes, however those wounds are gonna take months or even years to heal.

--

Regarding the PRD: if we're comparing to 3.5 here, dndtools are also a thing. Doesn't have ~all~ the material yet, but the most important stuff is all there: classes, PrCs, feats, spells.

Drachasor

2014-02-19, 04:01 PM

It isn't that the spell is poorly balanced. It is that they knew those spells were unbalanced, fixed some of them, and yet left one of them to stay unbalanced (on purpose or accident).

Objectively they didn't finish their work on the grouping of spells if their goal was to fix the polymorph spells.

Their polymorph "fixes" in general are ill-thought out. I wouldn't say they fixed anything in a decent way. What such spells actually mean for non-humanoids is unclear -- can an undead be healed if it is polymorphed into a human? And flat bonuses just based on size is going to lead to oddities.

The difference is he was talking about archetypes from two subjective angles:

1) "character concept" i.e. flavor (and is thus subjective);
2) "traits that make it crap" which begs the question "crap compared to what?" (and is thus subjective.)

So to quote myself from earlier: "If a problem is subjective ("I don't like this/these archetypes") then a subjective solution is not fallacious."

Except it isn't subjective. The Crossbowman is just plain BAD. There are a lot of archetypes that are awful. Bad as in they aren't worth taking and either give you mechanically inferior options and/or are worse for a concept than not taking them and using the standard class abilities.

If you are calling stuff that's blatantly mechanically inferior "subjective" then you might as well say stuff like PAO's problems are "subjective" and easily fixed by the DM.

georgie_leech

2014-02-19, 04:09 PM

So to quote myself from earlier: "If a problem is subjective ("I don't like this/these archetypes") then a subjective solution is not fallacious."

Is there a particular reason that means we can apply this reasoning to Pathfinder and not to 3.5 (replace Archetypes with ACF's)?

Alent

2014-02-19, 04:13 PM

If you are calling stuff that's blatantly mechanically inferior "subjective" then you might as well say stuff like PAO's problems are "subjective" and easily fixed by the DM.

I forget. Are PFS DMs restricted to a no-homebrew/houserule clause?

Because I seem to remember that being a thing.

Drachasor

2014-02-19, 04:17 PM

I forget. Are PFS DMs restricted to a no-homebrew/houserule clause?

Because I seem to remember that being a thing.

They have a list of PFS rules modifications that they can't deviate from (or at least are not supposed to).

Psyren

2014-02-19, 04:23 PM

Is there a particular reason that means we can apply this reasoning to Pathfinder and not to 3.5 (replace Archetypes with ACF's)?

None at all. But archetypes were being called a disadvantage of PF, not an advantage of 3.5.

Except it isn't subjective. The Crossbowman is just plain BAD.

Sure it is. As a DM, I could use Crossbowman on a number of NPCs to annoy players.

georgie_leech

2014-02-19, 04:26 PM

None at all. But archetypes were being called a disadvantage of PF, not an advantage of 3.5.

Might it not be more advantageous to point out the strengths then? Say, "The existence of Archetypes encourages and eases homebrew by establishing a framework for changing class abilities," rather than pointing out something true of both games?

Psyren

2014-02-19, 04:28 PM

Might it not be more advantageous to point out the strengths then? Say, "The existence of Archetypes encourages and eases homebrew by establishing a framework for changing class abilities," rather than pointing out something true of both games?

Already did that. See also: every post in which I used the phrase "starting point."

olentu

2014-02-19, 04:48 PM

Psyren

2014-02-19, 04:49 PM

Bah, you can houserule spells just as easily as anything else. You can just houserule it applies to every con of every system.

Remember, "There are [spells] I don't like and I don't feel like doing anything about them" is not a legitimate criticism.

I can only assume you didn't read anything after the quoted post.

olentu

2014-02-19, 05:02 PM

I can only assume you didn't read anything after the quoted post.

Oh I did, but none of it really addressed the subject to my satisfaction. If anything it made me much less satisfied.

So anyway:

Bah, you can houserule spells just as easily as anything else. You can just houserule it applies to every con of every system.

Remember, "There are [spells] I don't like and I don't feel like doing anything about them" is not a legitimate criticism.

Psyren

2014-02-19, 05:04 PM

Oh I did, but none of it really addressed the subject to my satisfaction.

Then nothing else I say will either *shrug*

olentu

2014-02-19, 05:09 PM

Then nothing else I say will either *shrug*

Well yeah, that is not surprising in the least. Since it looks like the only thing that you will say is problems can be just be houseruled then of course it won't.

NightbringerGGZ

2014-02-19, 08:13 PM

So a major Pro of the system is how open it is. The simple fact that you can find all the rules online for free has resulted in new players trying to table top. I've actually had people ask me how I deal with D&D books being so expensive and I can respond, "I play Pathfinder, the game is posted online for free."

Personally, I like how the game retains most of the 3.5 mechanics and then iterates on them. Sure this means you have to deal with all the problems 3.5 had, and sure Paizo introduces new problems, but on the whole the system is fun and works for the type of table top gaming I enjoy.

That does lead into one of my major problems with the system, which is that all to often bad ideas get repeated and interesting ideas aren't properly finished. "Fixing" problem spells for instance. The Word Casting system is another. Or more recently, bad mechanics from the Gunslinger class creeping into a new class (Swashbuckler).

I'd like to address the issue of class customization if I may. I have to say that in practical terms Pathfinder provides me with MORE options that 3.5 ever did simply because I can access all of the information online. Back in the 3.5 era I couldn't afford all of those extra books and I also had a GM who didn't want to have to read all of them. Sure 3.5 had more options if you consider the entirety of all printed materials, but in practical terms players didn't have complete access to those materials.

Zrak

2014-02-19, 08:54 PM

No it doesn't. For example, a legitimate criticism would be "despite their attempts to repair polymorph relative to 3.5, they still managed to leave Polymorph Any Object virtually untouched, and it's just as problematic as it was before."

That is a legitimate criticism. "There are archetypes I don't like and I don't feel like doing anything about them" is not.

So, "There are spells I don't like and I don't feel like doing anything about them" is valid, but "There are archetypes I don't like and I don't feel like doing anything about them" is not?

I don't really have a horse in this race, I just honestly don't understand why you're drawing the line where you are. I saw that you were referring to criticisms based on "flavor," but I can't tell if you were referring solely to those criticisms when you referred to criticism of archetypes more generally.
In other words, would criticizing the Synthesist archetype for allowing the summoner to replace his physical stats with those of his eidolon be a valid criticism or not, in your view?

For instance, 3.5's baseline for a LA 0 race is no stat bonuses, and things like flight should be unavailable until level 5. With PF however, most races have an overall stat bonus of +2 and there are even races that can fly at first level.
I hadn't ever really thought about this, but that is a good point. In general, I've always been opposed to the unilateral increase in power Pathfinder gives players on account of the obstacles not receiving a commensurate increase in difficulty, but I actually like this point about races. This changes my mind slightly, though I am still displeased at the effort required to effectively challenge even a fairly low-op party.

Silva Stormrage

2014-02-19, 09:09 PM

I'd like to address the issue of class customization if I may. I have to say that in practical terms Pathfinder provides me with MORE options that 3.5 ever did simply because I can access all of the information online. Back in the 3.5 era I couldn't afford all of those extra books and I also had a GM who didn't want to have to read all of them. Sure 3.5 had more options if you consider the entirety of all printed materials, but in practical terms players didn't have complete access to those materials.

The fact that all of pathfinder is online is a massive plus for it in terms of customization. But frankly I haven't played a game where everyone didn't have at least one of the books and most of the time you can just download them online if need be. If lack of books is an issue for your group then yes Pathfinder helps that. Otherwise 3.5 is still the better system for customization.

Pex

2014-02-20, 01:12 AM

As Furious Focus has been mentioned: even that is a trap, or rather, it' by far not as good as people think. It's typically PF as it makes you a bit better at things you are good at already, and doesn't help you where it might count.
Cuz it's much easier to collect attack bonuses in PF, and if you honestly say you have trouble hitting with your ~primary~ attack at -3 at level 10, I feel bad for you son. I got 99 problems but hittin' ain't one.
It would be much more useful if it helped you with your iteratives. Which it doesn't. Which is why it's bad.

Full BAB classes don't really need Furious Focus, but it doesn't hurt. I only mentioned it in comparison to Shock Trooper which everyone raves about taking for 3E for the equivalent effect. If you don't like Furious Focus then you don't like Shock Trooper since that's the only reason people take the feat despite its other minor effects.

Furious Focus is better for 3/4 BAB classes who choose to utilize Power Attack, usually clerics, oracles, and inquisitors. 3/4 BAB plus Power Attack penalty does mean not hitting a lot. Furious Focus puts them back on track to hit to get the uber damage. They'd have to take Power Attack at level 3 then Furious Focus at level 5, but it's a feature dedicated warriors are more efficient. The option is there for those who want it. It's a particular tactic, not a must have and neither a never have.

Sayt

2014-02-20, 02:10 AM

Full BAB classes don't really need Furious Focus, but it doesn't hurt. I only mentioned it in comparison to Shock Trooper which everyone raves about taking for 3E for the equivalent effect. If you don't like Furious Focus then you don't like Shock Trooper since that's the only reason people take the feat despite its other minor effects.

Furious Focus is better for 3/4 BAB classes who choose to utilize Power Attack, usually clerics, oracles, and inquisitors. 3/4 BAB plus Power Attack penalty does mean not hitting a lot. Furious Focus puts them back on track to hit to get the uber damage. They'd have to take Power Attack at level 3 then Furious Focus at level 5, but it's a feature dedicated warriors are more efficient. The option is there for those who want it. It's a particular tactic, not a must have and neither a never have.

It's also seems decent for chargers such as Cavaliers who aren't dependent on iteratives to the same extent.

Drachasor

2014-02-20, 02:19 AM

Sure it is. As a DM, I could use Crossbowman on a number of NPCs to annoy players.

Sure, as a DM you could use the Crossbowman. Granted, there are a dozen ways to do the same concept better than the crossbowman. Heck, the crossbowman doesn't even do his schtick (one attack per round with a crossbow) better than other implementations. To say nothing of the fact it is flat-out worse than the bow-based archetypes.

And this archetype is worse overall than just a straight fighter who uses crossbows as well as other weapons.

All in all, it's terrible. Not as terrible as PF's Vow of Poverty, but it is still bad.

Of course, SKR, one of the designers for PF, is on record as saying these options should be bad even when they design archetypes and the like for them.

So yeah...deliberately bad options are part of PF's design philosophy. This is why it has such a high percentage of drek compared to 3.5. (Again, 3.5 does have drek, just less of it by weight).

Knight.Anon

2014-02-20, 02:23 AM

I like it a lot better than 3.5, I play casters mostly. Casters can do more you can customize your character more without becoming a min/maxing muchkin.

Consolidating the skills helps, and is done well. The turning rules are better than the ones in 3.5 as well. The monsters are more interesting, and some are too interesting and become annoying though.

Its a refined version 3.5 and about 25% better than 3.5. I don't really care for 4e, I like hard and gritty systems that are well thought out, and 4e is more like a video game.

Drachasor

2014-02-20, 02:31 AM

I like it a lot better than 3.5, I play casters mostly. Casters can do more you can customize your character more without becoming a min/maxing muchkin.

You'll have to explain what you mean by this to me. I think 3.5 has a lot more options you can tweak, especially given stuff like reserve feats and PrCs and so forth. The vast majority of 3.5 stuff isn't OP at all. So there's a lot more room for customization.

I'll grant casters get more stuff as default classes in PF, but there's still a lot of min-max stuff there. In a real way, min-maxing is easier and more common when there are fewer options, because the better choices are easier to find.

Personally, if I was going to redesign caster classes, I'd incorporate something like 3.5 Reserve feats and some random "neat stuff" feats (like PF's Feral Speech for Wizards and Witches) as bonus options as you level. Then I'd tone down spells a lot. But PF didn't really do this at all, and I don't care for the increased paperwork on minor abilities -- if you get a ranged touch attack that does 1d6 + 1 per 2 levels or something, then that should just be unlimited.* And a lot of the 8th level Wizard school stuff are based on rounds per day which is a pain too. There are better ways.

Frankly, what I find most bizarre about PF and 4E is that ToB had a pretty nice system for limited use stuff that was ignored in favor of generally inferior systems. Sure, ToB isn't perfect for everything, but variations of it are good for a lot of stuff.

*Edit: Heck, the Warlock shows that 1d6 per 2 levels as an unlimited touch attack is WEAK.

Silva Stormrage

2014-02-20, 02:53 AM

Stux

2014-02-20, 03:29 AM

I use both systems, and for what it is worth for me Pathfinder seems easier to DM, largely thanks to the d20pfsrd.

As a player, I like to optimise a lot and don't mind digging for PDFs of splat books and trawling google for obscure ACFs and such, and so the incredible quantity of material available for 3.5 has some appeal. At the same time I am also a big fan of PF's archetypes. For most of the rest of the group who are lower op Pathfinder is a LOT more accessible on this front.

The faster feat progression and the removal of dead levels are big pluses for me too - even where this doesn't actually 'balance' a class in any real way, just psychologically getting shiny things every level seems to make it more enjoyable.

I think overall I prefer PF. Ultimately it will depend on you and your group's attitude and play style.

Firechanter

2014-02-20, 06:14 AM

Full BAB classes don't really need Furious Focus, but it doesn't hurt. I only mentioned it in comparison to Shock Trooper which everyone raves about taking for 3E for the equivalent effect. If you don't like Furious Focus then you don't like Shock Trooper since that's the only reason people take the feat despite its other minor effects.

Now that's a very uninformed statement to say the least. In 3.5, a Shock Trooper power charge will not negate just onesies twosies, but a penalty equal to your BAB, so -10 for instance where PF only allows -3.
Also, Chargers usually try to get Pounce, and then Shock Trooper also extends to the iteratives.

Furious Focus is better for 3/4 BAB classes who choose to utilize Power Attack, usually clerics, oracles, and inquisitors.

Agreed here.

Gnaeus

2014-02-20, 08:20 AM

Regarding the PRD: if we're comparing to 3.5 here, dndtools are also a thing. Doesn't have ~all~ the material yet, but the most important stuff is all there: classes, PrCs, feats, spells.

It is A thing, but not remotely as good a thing.

If I am playing a paladin, and I want a certain set of abilities, and I know it is called underdark knight.....well, no, it doesn't seem to be in D&D tools. But imagine it was. I could then find it there and use the rules. Of course, I couldn't compare it on a chart to see which other ACFs it is compatible with, but if i am lucky I can access it.

But if I am playing a paladin, and I DON'T know I am looking for underdark knight, D&D tools does nothing for me.

Firechanter

2014-02-20, 09:03 AM

To name some Pros of PF that I appreciate:

- the completeness of the PRD
- the revamped races, particularly getting rid of LA
- increased feat progression (ignoring the feat nerfs)
- Paladin improvements
- Ranger improvements (not perfect but better than nothing)
- _some_ useful and overdue feats, such as Deadly Aim
- Traits are a nice touch
- Sneak Attack works against most creatures.

In previous posts I have talked quite a bit about the Cons so no need to reiterate them here. Long story short, I find it much easier to port this handful of nice points back to 3.5, rather than trying to haul all the good stuff from 3.5 and fix everything that stinks.

hemming

2014-02-20, 09:05 AM

It is A thing, but not remotely as good a thing.

If I am playing a paladin, and I want a certain set of abilities, and I know it is called underdark knight.....well, no, it doesn't seem to be in D&D tools. But imagine it was. I could then find it there and use the rules. Of course, I couldn't compare it on a chart to see which other ACFs it is compatible with, but if i am lucky I can access it.

But if I am playing a paladin, and I DON'T know I am looking for underdark knight, D&D tools does nothing for me.

Well - you could use the filters to get much closer (still imagining it is there)

Filter for - prestige class; supplementals 3.5; class feature paladin

The class feature filter isn't perfect, but it works pretty good for browsing prestige classes

Mess around with the filters - it really makes the site much more useable

But it is still by no means a complete resource and can't really be compared to the PF materials...just a nice extra tool

Stux

2014-02-20, 09:09 AM

Regarding the PRD: if we're comparing to 3.5 here, dndtools are also a thing. Doesn't have ~all~ the material yet, but the most important stuff is all there: classes, PrCs, feats, spells.

Aside from it being not entirely legal, and so not something anyone here would advocate actually using, dndtools is also pretty tricky to use sometimes. For instance many entries make reference to tables/sidebars that are not included in the entry, and so you end up having to hunt down the relevant splat to be able to actually use it. Additionally it doesn't contain actual rules of the game, whereas the d20pfsrd will provide a handy link to the rules whenever a class feature/feat/whatever references them. Finally it is actually not possible to play 3.5 with JUST the d20srd and dndtools, as there are aspects of the rules that are not included in either, such as experience tables, WBL tables, bonus spells per day, and I'm sure loads more important stuff.

Overall d20pfsrd is just a lot easier to use. Especially for new players. You can just say: this website contains everything you need to know.

Perseus

2014-02-20, 01:01 PM

Aside from it being not entirely legal, and so not something anyone here would advocate actually using, dndtools is also pretty tricky to use sometimes. For instance many entries make reference to tables/sidebars that are not included in the entry, and so you end up having to hunt down the relevant splat to be able to actually use it. Additionally it doesn't contain actual rules of the game, whereas the d20pfsrd will provide a handy link to the rules whenever a class feature/feat/whatever references them. Finally it is actually not possible to play 3.5 with JUST the d20srd and dndtools, as there are aspects of the rules that are not included in either, such as experience tables, WBL tables, bonus spells per day, and I'm sure loads more important stuff.

Overall d20pfsrd is just a lot easier to use. Especially for new players. You can just say: this website contains everything you need to know.

Of course calling d20pfard a pro for Pathfinder ... Really doesn't stack up since that is a fan made site.

Last time I went on paizo's srd... It was a mess.

That being said dndtools also is a fanmade site. I would call both a push now that I think about it more.

But allowing more things to be accessible via a fan site is a HUGE pro on pathfinders side though I don't think they had a choice.

charcoalninja

2014-02-20, 06:43 PM

In their place are metamagic reducer traits, dazing spell, thanatopic (or however you spell it) spell, spell mastery, paragon surge, synthesist summoners, and samsaran ancestry, buffs in terms of class features (an addition I appreciate, but a buff nonetheless).

Concentration became a spellcaster level check instead of a skill, but that change came with higher DCS, so it's probably a wash.

The metamagic reducer trait applies to one (1) spell ever, Spell perfection only comes online at 15 and again applies to one spell. The concentration checks to cast defensively or in grapples are significantly harder as you cant just max the skill and forget. Casting in a grapple is against a DC of the attacker's CMB (so their to grapple mods) which is vadtly higher than 3.5s DC nothing.

I see your dazing spell and raise you fell drain, twin spell, Persistant Spell and Invisible spell.
Synethist is markedly weaker than default summoner and has nothing on say Shadowcraft mage, Versitile Spellcaster early entry shenanigens or the million other ridiculous feats and combos only Tippy knows.

Or How about Craft Contingent Spell, or Ur-Priest, or Arcane Heirophant, or Celerity, Wings of Cover, Nerveskitter, Genesis and more.

I can't believe that people in the playground actually hold the view that there's anything in pathfinder remotely on par with what 3.5 did to casters let alone that they are somehow stronger.

On the topic of d20pfsrd, Paizo actually has an agreement with them where the site doesn't post new material for 2 weeks after its release, whereas wotc would have sent a cease and desist.

And as for paizo.com/prd their prd, use it on a mobile device, it's sooo glorious.

Augmental

2014-02-20, 06:47 PM

I see your dazing spell and raise you fell drain, twin spell, Persistant Spell and Invisible spell.
Synethist is markedly weaker than default summoner and has nothing on say Shadowcraft mage, Versitile Spellcaster early entry shenanigens or the million other ridiculous feats and combos only Tippy knows.

Or How about Craft Contingent Spell, or Ur-Priest, or Arcane Heirophant, or Celerity, Wings of Cover, Nerveskitter, Genesis and more.

All of those things are non-core.

Silva Stormrage

2014-02-20, 06:56 PM

The metamagic reducer trait applies to one (1) spell ever, Spell perfection only comes online at 15 and again applies to one spell. The concentration checks to cast defensively or in grapples are significantly harder as you cant just max the skill and forget. Casting in a grapple is against a DC of the attacker's CMB (so their to grapple mods) which is vadtly higher than 3.5s DC nothing.

I see your dazing spell and raise you fell drain, twin spell, Persistant Spell and Invisible spell.
Synethist is markedly weaker than default summoner and has nothing on say Shadowcraft mage, Versitile Spellcaster early entry shenanigens or the million other ridiculous feats and combos only Tippy knows.

Or How about Craft Contingent Spell, or Ur-Priest, or Arcane Heirophant, or Celerity, Wings of Cover, Nerveskitter, Genesis and more.

I can't believe that people in the playground actually hold the view that there's anything in pathfinder remotely on par with what 3.5 did to casters let alone that they are somehow stronger.

On the topic of d20pfsrd, Paizo actually has an agreement with them where the site doesn't post new material for 2 weeks after its release, whereas wotc would have sent a cease and desist.

And as for paizo.com/prd their prd, use it on a mobile device, it's sooo glorious.

I think you are actually missing what a lot of people are saying. Pathfinder DID in fact nerf the ceiling that casters could reach. They however, raised the floor on casters much higher than before. In a low op game it is more likely in Pathfinder for the caster/mundane gap to be showing than in 3.5 simply because the casters are "stronger" (They have more base abilities and don't have to splat book dive to find the really powerful options).

Casters in pathfinder are still gods. They happen to be weaker gods than in 3.5 but in 3.5 they were playing with mundanes that could kinda somewhat keep up if they optimized for it. In pathfinder mundanes have a much much harder time keeping up due to damage output, tripping/lockdown, intimidate locking, etc being nerfed into the ground.

Also for one thing that pathfinder broke entirely was necromancy. Holy crap blood money + bloody skeletons (How fitting just noticed that…) is such a ludicrous combo that it shatters all semblance of weakness for minionmancy necromancy based clerics or sorcerers. Experimental caster also lets clerics animate dead as early as 3rd level… Get them command undead (The spell) on their list and they become ludicrous.

TuggyNE

2014-02-20, 07:01 PM

But allowing more things to be accessible via a fan site is a HUGE pro on pathfinders side though I don't think they had a choice.

The term you're looking for is "making a virtue of a necessity".

Gnaeus

2014-02-20, 07:03 PM

Of course calling d20pfard a pro for Pathfinder ... Really doesn't stack up since that is a fan made site..

No, that means it isn't a pro for Paizo. I couldn't care less about Paizo. It is awesome for the games of Pathfinder I am in, regardless of who makes it. If you ask me if people who start playing should play PF or 3.5, I would say PF, if for no reason other than the PFSRD. I regard it as the biggest improvement in tabletop gaming in the last 10 years, followed closely by on line tabletop simulations like D20 Pro (which also supports PF, btw)

Eldest

2014-02-20, 07:10 PM

Gnaeus

2014-02-20, 07:19 PM

You are aware of the D20SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/), right? Curious.

Yes, and it does none of the things I like about the PFSRD. It does not help me find materials from supplements by looking in 1 searchable and cross referenced place with handy charts. Nor does it allow me to travel around games at cons or even at a friends house without a huge crate of books. It is like comparing a candle to the Sun because they both make light and heat.

If all I played was core & UA, the SRD would suffice. The earlier suggestion of D&Dtools, was closer, but still far lesser for reasons described up thread.

A couple of months ago I built an all tier 4 gestalt. It took hours and hours and was a royal pain, just trying to find ACFs to trade out unwanted class features, and run at a decent optimization level. Doing the same thing in PF was really simple. It took less time, no random frustrating searching, and my final product was better (in the sense that it was much closer to its optimization cealing because I could actually find and compare options easily, the 3.5 one was much stronger because 3.5 has tier 4&5 full 9 casters).

Silva Stormrage

2014-02-20, 08:08 PM

You are aware of the D20SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/), right? Curious.

Ya as much as pfd20srd doesn't really help me much (D&D tools is all I need as I usually just need to look up a particular spell or feat or what not) it is a vastly superior tool than d20srd simply because of the amount of content on it.

I still don't think it alone makes pathfinder worth playing but it is certainly a plus in their favor.

Eldest

2014-02-20, 08:16 PM

Ya as much as pfd20srd doesn't really help me much (D&D tools is all I need as I usually just need to look up a particular spell or feat or what not) it is a vastly superior tool than d20srd simply because of the amount of content on it.

I still don't think it alone makes pathfinder worth playing but it is certainly a plus in their favor.

(quoting this one cuz it's shorter)

I know the difference, I'm just pointing out that the PFSRD idea came from elsewhere.

And really, candle to the sun? Hyperbole much? I know the difference, again, the idea came from 3.5. They just added to it.

georgie_leech

2014-02-20, 08:25 PM

(quoting this one cuz it's shorter)

I know the difference, I'm just pointing out that the PFSRD idea came from elsewhere.

And really, candle to the sun? Hyperbole much? I know the difference, again, the idea came from 3.5. They just added to it.

Most of 3.5 is 3rd Edition but altered/added to; 3.0 was fundamentally based on AD&D (the math scaling backwards isn't exactly a paradigm shift) with a skill system added in place of non-weapon proficiencies. When discussing pros and cons, which system executes the idea better (and it's worth reiterating that the site most use for the SRD, d20srd, is also fan made) is of considerably more importance than which one had the idea first. Otherwise the best game ever would be Chainmail.

Eldest

2014-02-20, 08:51 PM

Most of 3.5 is 3rd Edition but altered/added to; 3.0 was fundamentally based on AD&D (the math scaling backwards isn't exactly a paradigm shift) with a skill system added in place of non-weapon proficiencies. When discussing pros and cons, which system executes the idea better (and it's worth reiterating that the site most use for the SRD, d20srd, is also fan made) is of considerably more importance than which one had the idea first. Otherwise the best game ever would be Chainmail.

Speaking specifically of the SRD here and the OGL. I will say that the addition of everything to the PFSRD is pretty much equal in awesomeness with the creation of the SRD/OGL in my opinion..

Edit: Pair of nitpicks: feats were also introduced in 3.0, and the SRD for pathfinder that in my experience is the most used is, IIRC, also fan made.

Gnaeus

2014-02-20, 09:00 PM

And really, candle to the sun? Hyperbole much? I know the difference, again, the idea came from 3.5. They just added to it.

I don't care whose idea it is. One is near useless, the other is awesome. Would you prefer if I compare them to the c64 we had in the 80s and my wife's media server in a laptop? Yeah one led to the other. But I'm not going back to the c64.

Stux

2014-02-20, 09:21 PM

the SRD for pathfinder that in my experience is the most used is, IIRC, also fan made.

It is fan made, but the point is that for Pathfinder a fan made side can legally host all the game information. The reasons this came about are largely irrelevant, the point is the d20pfsrd exists and it is a much better resource than any single thing that exists for 3.5.

Pex

2014-02-20, 09:31 PM

Now that's a very uninformed statement to say the least. In 3.5, a Shock Trooper power charge will not negate just onesies twosies, but a penalty equal to your BAB, so -10 for instance where PF only allows -3.
Also, Chargers usually try to get Pounce, and then Shock Trooper also extends to the iteratives.

And lose your AC in the process where as with Furious Focus you don't. And you can only use it when charging where as with Furious Focus you can use it any time you want. Granted it's easier to get pounce in 3E than Pathfinder, but it harkens back to a point I made earlier. You have to get Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, and a way to pounce. It's a great build, but it's either that or Lockdown. In Pathfinder other combat options are more viable.

Pathfinder Power Attack is even good for those who use one-handed weapons, doing the same damage 3E two-handed weapon users are doing by the feat alone. Meanwhile their non-two-handed style gets other feat support and class abilities such that they aren't lacking for damage potential. Two-handed fighting does do more damage. That is its feature and shtick. I'm just saying the other styles are no longer worthless.

Furious Focus is not a must have, but it's also not a never have. Fighters have it easier because they can take it as a bonus feat, reap its benefits when only getting one attack anyway below 6th level where minuses to hit matter more, then swap it out if they find they really don't need it anymore.

Silva Stormrage

2014-02-20, 09:32 PM

I don't care whose idea it is. One is near useless, the other is awesome. Would you prefer if I compare them to the c64 we had in the 80s and my wife's media server in a laptop? Yeah one led to the other. But I'm not going back to the c64.

Near useless is too strong. Often times I use the srd not for looking up feats/spells as I know most of the core ones but on reminding myself bull rush rules, size modifiers, skill synergies and what bonus spell slots are granted by ability scores (I can never seem to memorize this no matter how hard I try).

Its worse than the PFsrd but saying near useless is waaaay too extreme. A more fit comparison would be like comparing a bike to a car. Bikes are useful and in some situations pretty useful but a car is more valuable in many more situations.

Pex

2014-02-20, 09:33 PM

All of those things are non-core.

Neither is Pathfinder's Dazing Spell.

Eldest

2014-02-20, 09:41 PM

It is fan made, but the point is that for Pathfinder a fan made side can legally host all the game information. The reasons this came about are largely irrelevant, the point is the d20pfsrd exists and it is a much better resource than any single thing that exists for 3.5.

My objection was this sentence.

I regard it as the biggest improvement in tabletop gaming in the last 10 years, followed closely by on line tabletop simulations like D20 Pro (which also supports PF, btw)

I think that the biggest improvement was the creation of the SRD. The Pathfinder SRD is more complete. That is better. It is a step up in quality.

Now, to be fair, I do not know if the SRD was created in the last ten years. So if that is the case, I am sorry for the derailment.

Augmental

2014-02-20, 09:47 PM

And lose your AC in the process where as with Furious Focus you don't.

Armor Class isn't much of a defense in the first place.

Perseus

2014-02-21, 09:55 AM

No, that means it isn't a pro for Paizo. I couldn't care less about Paizo. It is awesome for the games of Pathfinder I am in, regardless of who makes it. If you ask me if people who start playing should play PF or 3.5, I would say PF, if for no reason other than the PFSRD. I regard it as the biggest improvement in tabletop gaming in the last 10 years, followed closely by on line tabletop simulations like D20 Pro (which also supports PF, btw)

The fan made site isn't a pro for the game. The pro in itself is the fact the items are allowed to be put on a fan made site.

Why? Because the game/paizo didn't make such a good reference point. That would be like giving wotc credit for dndtools or giving wotc direct credit for Pathfinder.

The site, while helpful, isn't directly linked to the game or the company's. What is linked to the game or company is the way that the information is allowed to be on a fan site.

And as TuggyNE said, "making a virture of a necessity". If they would have used the same or simular license as 4e (which is the whole reason paizo didn't follow wotc to 4e, the license sucked) then people would have bailed on them.

Gnaeus

2014-02-21, 10:07 AM

The fan made site isn't a pro for the game. The pro in itself is the fact the items are allowed to be put on a fan made site.

Why? Because the game/paizo didn't make such a good reference point. That would be like giving wotc credit for dndtools or giving wotc direct credit for Pathfinder.
.

I'm not giving Paizo credit for anything. I'll say again, I don't care who is responsible for it. If you ask "Which one is easier to play/optimize in? PF or 3.5?" The answer is PF, because of the PFSRD. If it was made by Paizo, or a fan, or WOTC because it is an outgrowth of the SRD, or by our sinister grey overlords in a nefarious attempt to apply subliminal influences to my brain, it does not matter. Pathfinder has one. 3.5 does not. That is a HUGE pro for pathfinder.

I do not have to like Paizo to play their game. Giving them credit is meaningless. If I give all the credit to WOTC to say thank you for making 3.5 or the 3.5 SRD, thats nice and all, but completely irrelevant to its actual benefit to playing Pathfinder.

I can really see why the discussion of people who have kneejerk reactions to Paizo came up earlier in the thread. I don't see why I have to say this more than once.

Pathfinder is a Game. Paizo is a Game Development Company. I like Pathfinder, and am Paizo-neutral. Whether Paizo is good, bad, or indifferent ONLY matters with regards to the pros and cons of Pathfinder in so far as it impacts the playability of the game. Pathfinder has the PFSRD, and 3.5 does not. That DOES impact the playability of the game, regardless of who is responsible.

Near useless is too strong. Often times I use the srd not for looking up feats/spells as I know most of the core ones but on reminding myself bull rush rules, size modifiers, skill synergies and what bonus spell slots are granted by ability scores (I can never seem to memorize this no matter how hard I try).

I own 3.5 core, and my PF books. If I want to look up bull rush rules, I can find it faster in the PHB than in the SRD. If I am gaming, I probably want to have my core books anyway. SRD is only helpful to me when arguing with people on this forum, since I am away from books. Near useless.

If I am gaming, I do not want to carry my PF core book + all the supplements with me. I especially do not want, sitting at the table, to be dumpster diving to figure out what some NPC's feat does, or to look through multiple books when I want to find an appropriate CR 6 monster, or to look at my options for leveling up. Incredibly useful.

I think that the biggest improvement was the creation of the SRD. The Pathfinder SRD is more complete. That is better. It is a step up in quality..

A step up in quality from pointless to the best thing in gaming in 10 years, yes.

Stux

2014-02-21, 10:26 AM

The fan made site isn't a pro for the game. The pro in itself is the fact the items are allowed to be put on a fan made site.

For all practical purposes it is a pro for the game though. Paizo didn't create it, and they had no choice about whether to allow it due to the terms of the OGL as put down by WotC. So in a roundabout way you could thank WotC for the d20pfsrd existing.

The only relevant point here is that it existing makes the game easier to play and run, so it is a point in Pathfinder's favour.

A step up in quality from pointless to the best thing in gaming in 10 years, yes.

To be fair I wouldn't go this far either. If you rarely ever use it then fair enough, but most of the time I find it faster to look stuff like that up from the d20srd than the PHB. Maybe if I knew the layout of the PHB better it would be faster, but the point remains a lot of people do find it a useful resource, even if it is nowhere near as useful and comprehensive as the d20pfsrd.

Big Fau

2014-02-21, 11:14 AM

Yes, and it does none of the things I like about the PFSRD. It does not help me find materials from supplements by looking in 1 searchable and cross referenced place with handy charts. Nor does it allow me to travel around games at cons or even at a friends house without a huge crate of books. It is like comparing a candle to the Sun because they both make light and heat.

If all I played was core & UA, the SRD would suffice. The earlier suggestion of D&Dtools, was closer, but still far lesser for reasons described up thread.

A couple of months ago I built an all tier 4 gestalt. It took hours and hours and was a royal pain, just trying to find ACFs to trade out unwanted class features, and run at a decent optimization level. Doing the same thing in PF was really simple. It took less time, no random frustrating searching, and my final product was better (in the sense that it was much closer to its optimization cealing because I could actually find and compare options easily, the 3.5 one was much stronger because 3.5 has tier 4&5 full 9 casters).

Ya as much as pfd20srd doesn't really help me much (D&D tools is all I need as I usually just need to look up a particular spell or feat or what not) it is a vastly superior tool than d20srd simply because of the amount of content on it.

I still don't think it alone makes pathfinder worth playing but it is certainly a plus in their favor.

The only reason d20SRD has less material is because 80% of Pathfinder is OGC. The d20SRD site can't legally have more material because WotC never released anything else as OGC. Using the websites as a plus in PF's favor is faulty logic.

Seerow

2014-02-21, 11:15 AM

The only reason d20SRD has less material is because 80% of Pathfinder is OGC. The d20SRD site can't legally have more material because WotC never released anything else as OGC. Using the websites as a plus in PF's favor is faulty logic.

Not sure how Pathfinder releasing more of their material under OGC isn't a point in their favor.

Big Fau

2014-02-21, 11:27 AM

Not sure how Pathfinder releasing more of their material under OGC isn't a point in their favor.

It is, but saying the website is a point in their favor isn't.

What I'm trying to say is the s a of OGC material PF has is a plus, but the fact that a website other than Paizo's own has that material sorted and searchable isn't. Technically, I could build a website that does the same for 4E material; the website would be pulled if WotC noticed it, but I could do it.

Seerow

2014-02-21, 11:33 AM

It is, but saying the website is a point in their favor isn't.

What I'm trying to say is the s a of OGC material PF has is a plus, but the fact that a website other than Paizo's own has that material sorted and searchable isn't. Technically, I could build a website that does the same for 4E material; the website would be pulled if WotC noticed it, but I could do it.

But that website is why all of their material is OGC. They are willing to put their material out there for free knowing that it will encourage more people to play their game. Saying that they get points for OGC but not for the website that is the reason OGC exists is.... well it's something.

Perseus

2014-02-21, 11:49 AM

It is, but saying the website is a point in their favor isn't.

What I'm trying to say is the s a of OGC material PF has is a plus, but the fact that a website other than Paizo's own has that material sorted and searchable isn't. Technically, I could build a website that does the same for 4E material; the website would be pulled if WotC noticed it, but I could do it.

Exactly

Or else you can give D&D 3.5 a pro for this website hosting homebrew and handbooks.

That makes no sense.

Silva Stormrage

2014-02-21, 11:56 AM

Exactly

Or else you can give D&D 3.5 a pro for this website hosting homebrew and handbooks.

That makes no sense.

I would say that IS a plus in 3.5's favor. It has a large community with a lot of speculation and fan development on its mechanics already in place.

Artillery

2014-02-21, 11:58 AM

Pro for pathfinder. Dreamscarred Press is making content for it and they did an excellent job on the Psionics adaptation.

Looking forward to Path of War and Incarna adaptations.

I like 3.5, but I definitely think its a mess to actually find things most of the time.

Perseus

2014-02-21, 12:02 PM

I would say that IS a plus in 3.5's favor. It has a large community with a lot of speculation and fan development on its mechanics already in place.

Ugh.. 3.5 didn't... You know what, never mind.

*sigh*

Amphetryon

2014-02-21, 12:13 PM

It is, but saying the website is a point in their favor isn't.

What I'm trying to say is the s a of OGC material PF has is a plus, but the fact that a website other than Paizo's own has that material sorted and searchable isn't. Technically, I could build a website that does the same for 4E material; the website would be pulled if WotC noticed it, but I could do it.

The website is proof of concept that the amount of OGC material has is a plus, coupled with the benefit of a single centralized location for that amount of OGC material.

I'm just clarifying, here: Folks know that the hypertext SRD that is most often cited as the 3.5 SRD model is a fan-created site, right?

Silva Stormrage

2014-02-21, 12:18 PM

Ugh.. 3.5 didn't... You know what, never mind.

*sigh*

I am not saying WoTC gets the benefit for the fan base. Nor am I really saying that Piazo gets credit for the pfsrd. But we are gauging the pros and benefits of playing a system. You can take into account the fan base.

For example, I prefer Legend's mechanics to either pathfinder or 3.5. But Legend has no where near the fan base that either 3.5 or pathfinder has. That is a mark against legend and makes it "Worse" to play. Lack of people playing it is a con. (Not going to debate legend pros/cons as it will derail thread just using it as an example here)

Big Fau

2014-02-21, 12:32 PM

The website is proof of concept that the amount of OGC material has is a plus, coupled with the benefit of a single centralized location for that amount of OGC material.

I'm just clarifying, here: Folks know that the hypertext SRD that is most often cited as the 3.5 SRD model is a fan-created site, right?

Fan-made material shouldn't be counted towards a system's pros, lest we count the plethora of homebrew, 3rd party material, and random websites around the net. Neither d20SRD.org or d20PFSRD.com should be considered pros for either system. The SRD presented on Paizo.com and the one from WotC are official, and neither of them is particularly efficient.

d20PFSRD also has 3rd party material hosted on it, which can allow less scrupulous players to trick their DMs into thinking the material is official.

Drachasor

2014-02-21, 12:42 PM

Fan-made material shouldn't be counted towards a system's pros, lest we count the plethora of homebrew, 3rd party material, and random websites around the net. Neither d20SRD.org or d20PFSRD.com should be considered pros for either system. The SRD presented on Paizo.com and the one from WotC are official, and neither of them is particularly efficient.

d20PFSRD also has 3rd party material hosted on it, which can allow less scrupulous players to trick their DMs into thinking the material is official.

I dislike Paizo and don't care much for Pathfinder. I think there's some stuff worth stealing from PF and putting in 3.5 and that's about it.

That said, I think that ignoring the gaming environment when judging ease of play and similar factors doesn't make a lot of sense. Yes, Paizo gets zero credit for the d20PFSRD, but it does make the game easier to play (when it isn't suffering a slowdown). Since it makes the official PF game better, then it should be counted. That's very different from considering homebrew content.

3rd Part content is a potential detriment on PFSRD, but this content is clearly indicated. So it is very easy to spot.

I think a bigger detriment, imho, is that the PFSRD includes "errata" from forum posts, blogs, and the like. It often treats this as official and it doesn't indicate what the original wording on an ability is. Considering how Paizo handles their errata and some of the really poor decision making in their errata, I consider that a pretty big drawback to the PFSRD.

OldTrees1

2014-02-21, 12:43 PM

Fan-made material shouldn't be counted towards a system's pros, lest we count the plethora of homebrew, 3rd party material, and random websites around the net. Neither d20SRD.org or d20PFSRD.com should be considered pros for either system. The SRD presented on Paizo.com and the one from WotC are official, and neither of them is particularly efficient.

d20PFSRD also has 3rd party material hosted on it, which can allow less scrupulous players to trick their DMs into thinking the material is official.

I disagree.
We should judge the companies by how and what the companies do.
We should judge the authors by how and what they write.
We should judge the game-in-practice by how it is in practice. This includes fan-made infrastructure (like Handbooks, DandDTools and SRDs). I think it is fair to exclude fan-made content (homebrew)* while considering fan-made infrastructure.

Thus we should have 3 opinions about each system.
One opinion about how the authors succeed and failed at game design.
One opinion about how the company facilitated or obstructed the game.
One opinion about how the ups and downs of how the game plays in practice.

So
OGL is a mark in favor of Pazio over WotC
Content availability infrastructure (DandDTools, Crystalkeep, SRDs) is a slight mark in favor of Pathfinder but it is a Pro for both Pathfinder and 3.5.

*I would still consider homebrew but the existance of homebrew does not erase bad marks against authors that failed at game design. (Ex: Fighter fixes including Warblade do not erase the Con of a poorly designed Fighter class)

Silva Stormrage

2014-02-21, 12:44 PM

Perseus

2014-02-21, 12:47 PM

I am not saying WoTC gets the benefit for the fan base. Nor am I really saying that Piazo gets credit for the pfsrd. But we are gauging the pros and benefits of playing a system. You can take into account the fan base.

For example, I prefer Legend's mechanics to either pathfinder or 3.5. But Legend has no where near the fan base that either 3.5 or pathfinder has. That is a mark against legend and makes it "Worse" to play. Lack of people playing it is a con. (Not going to debate legend pros/cons as it will derail thread just using it as an example here)

I wouldn't count that as a penalty to Legend, that is more of a testament that people who tend to play D&D and Pathfinder don't like to go outside their preferred system, even across editions.

It is kinda a problem really. I still can't find a group willing to play legends.

If Legends or Heroes Against Darkness was picked up by Paizo and called Pathfinder 2e... It would get a lot more publicity and fans. Do remember that Paizo used to work for WotC so when pathfinder was made they already had a base following.

Funny enough the people who play Pathfinder in some groups I know hate it when I bring a Dragon Mag character to the 3.P games. ;P. One went as far ad saying he hoped whoever made the material never worked in the industry again... Haha

Amphetryon

2014-02-21, 12:49 PM

d20PFSRD also has 3rd party material hosted on it, which can allow less scrupulous players to trick their DMs into thinking the material is official.And the DM will have to go diving through how many sources to determine whether this is true, or not? Just one, right?

How many sources will a DM have to find and look up when a Player asks for some particular 3rd party material that the Player doesn't have in physical copy? Would you consider the odds better, worse, or equal that a given 3rd party source is available to a given DM vs available in the PFSRD?

Silva Stormrage

2014-02-21, 01:38 PM

I wouldn't count that as a penalty to Legend, that is more of a testament that people who tend to play D&D and Pathfinder don't like to go outside their preferred system, even across editions.

It is kinda a problem really. I still can't find a group willing to play legends.

If Legends or Heroes Against Darkness was picked up by Paizo and called Pathfinder 2e... It would get a lot more publicity and fans. Do remember that Paizo used to work for WotC so when pathfinder was made they already had a base following.

Funny enough the people who play Pathfinder in some groups I know hate it when I bring a Dragon Mag character to the 3.P games. ;P. One went as far ad saying he hoped whoever made the material never worked in the industry again... Haha

Okay than I think we just have different opinions on what counts as a pro vs con of a system. You seem to think only the mechanical rules should be gauged while I am some others feel the community can be taken as a pro or con.

Think it might be best to just agree to disagree here.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-21, 02:22 PM

I think a bigger detriment, imho, is that the PFSRD includes "errata" from forum posts, blogs, and the like. It often treats this as official and it doesn't indicate what the original wording on an ability is. Considering how Paizo handles their errata and some of the really poor decision making in their errata, I consider that a pretty big drawback to the PFSRD.The irony being that only the fan run reference site actually tries to properly organize FAQ and Errata rulings, or place them next to the relevant rules. Paizo's position on errata and FAQs is probably the most legitimate criticism against them as a publisher. What's so strange about it is that they have a very antiquated notion of how to do errata, compared to the rest of their business model.

They only do errata for a book when a new edition of that book is published, but they have all of their core/main material on their own reference site, and almost all of their books are available to purchase as a .pdf. I understand not wanting to do all errata piece-meal as it would make it hard for fans to keep up with it, but to tie errata purely to when people can purchase the newest hard copy of the book is strange to me.

Drachasor

2014-02-21, 02:39 PM

The irony being that only the fan run reference site actually tries to properly organize FAQ and Errata rulings, or place them next to the relevant rules. Paizo's position on errata and FAQs really probably the most legitimate criticism against them as a publisher. What's so strange about it is that they have a very antiquated notion of how to do errata, compared to the rest of their business model.

They only do errata for a book when a new edition of that book is published, but they have all of their core/main material on their own reference site, and almost all of their books are available to purchase as a .pdf. I understand not wanting to do all errata piece-meal as it would make it hard for fans to keep up with it, but to tie errata purely to when people can purchase the newest hard copy of the book is strange to me.

Yeah, how Paizo handles errata demonstrates a certain lack of understanding on how errata is supposed to work. Their whole operation on corrections and so forth is insane. In a way it is a plus of the PFSRD they they grab all of it, but it's also a minus that they inflict it on us -- an extra minus to me since Paizo tends to nerf and buff all the wrong things.

Perseus

2014-02-21, 04:31 PM

Okay than I think we just have different opinions on what counts as a pro vs con of a system. You seem to think only the mechanical rules should be gauged while I am some others feel the community can be taken as a pro or con.

Think it might be best to just agree to disagree here.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I just don't think credit goes to the undeserved. Pathfinder/Paizo didn't do anything to deserve the fan site to be its pro. They can't even be credited for the license in which it is under, even their newer stuff since it is a virture by necessity type of deal.

hemming

2014-02-21, 04:38 PM

It does seem really hard to argue that one has an objectively better community than the other...

It would seem to me that the Pro would go to PF for available, free, easy to sort material online

I've used the available D&D info online but I still need my sourcebooks...

Silva Stormrage

2014-02-21, 04:59 PM

Don't put words in my mouth.

I just don't think credit goes to the undeserved. Pathfinder/Paizo didn't do anything to deserve the fan site to be its pro. They can't even be credited for the license in which it is under, even their newer stuff since it is a virture by necessity type of deal.

Okay sorry, then would the correct phrasing would be you only think pathfinder should be credited for is the things that Piazo the company created on their own? Not trying to strawman you just trying to actually get what you are arguing.

Stux

2014-02-21, 10:42 PM

How does credit have any relevance as to which system is better to play with? The d20pfsrd makes Pathfinder easier to play with, and is therefore a pro for using the system. End of.

turkishproverb

2014-02-22, 02:07 AM

I don't believe that this is accurate. In fact, I believe the opposite is accurate. 3.5's Paladin has a flat nuh-uh, never, nope, not doing it on associating with evil. "...never knowlingly..."

Pathfinder specifically allows association with evil or those who offend their codes under extraordinary circumstances, which means that if the DM throws the party a Barbed Devil NPC (with class levels or something) to help them fight a balor, the Paladin doesn't have to leave the party. Furthermore, taken allegorically, the pathfinder Paladin can assist in redeeming evildoes, rather than killing or shunning them. (IE, defeating evil by making it's doers into good.)

Nope, but now a paladin falls instantly for any minor violation otherwise, as opposed to major ones.

and with a Paladin's charisma focus, it would be better RPed as endearing than irritable[/color].

That said, I'm not fond of, as a GM or a player, making a huge deal of the Paladin's code and letting it get in the way of actually playing the game, unless it's being blatantly and bare-barefacedly contravened, but that is another topic.

There is a much more important difference.

"Grossly" was removed. It's now all or nothing, and RAW that means anything remotely like not liking or "respecting" an authority figure, including complaining about a toll, causes you to fall. Be optimistic sounding in the face of impossible or even remotely unsure odds? Close enough to lying that it counts to some degree, you fall. Give a guy a bad burrito? Poisoned. Fail to give money to a beggar? Fall (RAW even if you didn't see them you fall, actually, since it's a code issue and not a good/evil issue, so "willingly" doesn't matter.) Give it and the guy uses it to get drunk? RAW YOU FALL. Indisputable. Chaotic ends, and no line about "having to know they would."

A legitimate authority threatens to harm innocents? You fall if you defend the innocents, and also if you don't.

Pathfinder RAW makes paladins unplayable.

You are looking in the wrong place. Look at ex-Paladins...

PF Paladins become ex-Paladins if they violate their CoC AT ALL. 3.5 Paladins need a gross violation.

And association with evil creatures isn't part of the CoC or Ex-Pally status so that's not really relevant here.
Ninja'd.

That's pretty much a nat 20 called shot on the head of the nail.

I did not notice that PF Paladins are not even allowed to violate their code in the least. That line right there smacks down any player attempting to defend an action he takes.

That word is more a problem removed than any restriction on companions.

Oath of Vengeance (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo---paladin-archetypes/oathbound-paladin/oath-of-vengeance) wants a word with you.

Well...

It changes one thing (and actually adds that to the code instead of altering an existing portion), and does not do a thing about how lenient the code is. Specifically it does nothing about the Ex-Paladins clause that makes any violation cause the Paladin to fall, not just major ones.

This.

How does writing you a blank check to "never let lesser evils distract you from your pursuit of just vengeance" not make the code more lenient? "Lesser evil" being as subjective a statement as it is, it is as lenient as it needs to be. It basically lets you get away with tolerating anything your code would usually forbid as long as you remain steady in pursuit of that warlord who razed your village or that demon who wants to eat the world. Heck, it lets you act like a cross between Batman and Jack Bauer.

As long as you keep chasing the bandits you took an Oath against, the Necromancer in your wake can raise all the zombies he wishes. After all, he's being a helper!

This:

How is Necromancy a lesser evil? Explain that to me, because most of D&D treats it as a high degree of blaspheme.

Let's go with a more clear-cut example.

You are looking for a cultist and a killer (not a chase, but merely digging up clues), and you happen to see a man beating his son (or perhaps beating a stranger). You know the cultist is going to summon a demon in a couple weeks. Well, you CAN'T interfere, because clearly the killer and demon summoner is the greater evil. Though really you can drop the demon summoning thing, since plans to do future evil isn't part of "just vengeance".

I mean, if they haven't done the evil yet, then it's not a problem, right? So I suppose we should compare preventing the demon summoning, which begins in an hour (and no evil has been done yet), with chasing after a violent thief you just saw. Best go get that robber!

It still doesn't effect that passage, otherwise it would explicitly say it allowed such. There is no mention of it alleviating the code and the ex-paladin part in any way.

Effectively, it does nothing by RAW except motivate your character to fall.

Even assuming your interpretation were matched to RAW, (it's not) You effectively have a 1 purpose character, anything not leading directly to that goal? He falls. Acheive it? He falls. Say something not related to the mission? Falls.

Actually, that oath combined with having to obey any other code of conduct is utterly impossible, as everything else would be deemed a contextual lesser evil, and thus doing anything at all but pursuing it causes you to fall, even your deities info, which "oathbound" requires you deal with.