Finally moving over to pathfinder (3.P)

[Mountain]

I've been playing 3.5 D&D for quite a while, and know the system very well. Now, however, a member of my gaming group wants to run a campaign using the Pathfinder rules. I think 3.5 feats will be backwards compatible, but not classes/races/PRCs. After looking over the core books and Ultimate Combat, Magic, and Psionics, it seems like 3.5, but with more specialized classes and less reason to dip.

TL;DR New to PF, want advice from people who have played it in actual games.

So my questions are:
1) Are there any traps new players tend to fall into? (like the 3.5 monk) <---Most important question
2) Are casters still completely broken?
3) Are non-casters more useful in comparison? (It seems so)
4) Is there a tier list for the PF classes or archetypes? (and is it accurate?)

[Dr.Gara]

1: Yes, monk, still, and now Rogue as well.
2: Yes.
3: No.
4: Yes and no, in order.

[Psyren]

1) Yes, though there are benefits to newer players as well (e.g. fewer dead levels.)
2) Define "broken." People determined to break the game can do so regardless of system, unless you're playing something like checkers.
3) Define "useful." Also, define "non-caster."
4) Yes to the first. For the second, there are a LOT of archetypes, so it's probably easier just to ask about the ones you're interested in.

[AMFV]

I've been making the same hop recently so I've done quite a bit of research (mind you this is theoretical and I've not seen it in play), but I have a pretty good idea, and I had played one Pathfinder game previously.

Yes, there are still bad class choices, however usually most classes have at least one passable Archetype. Not enough to make melee compete with casters, but enough to make somebody feel useful and that's what really matters.

Yep, 9th level spells and spells in general still break reality while mundanes are stuck there.


It depends, the optimization floor for a lot of mundane classes is a lot higher than it is, so the classes are often better out of the box. Mostly because Pathfinder tries to encourage single class characters, which means that one often needs less tricks to make a character viable. Ergo they seem more useful, but really aren't, it's just easier to make them useful/

I've seen at least three tier systems, and they were all fairly questionable. I'm beginning to question the usefulness of the tier system in general, it is certainly accurate, but I question if the "ability to do something" is as important a factor as playing in a way that doesn't overshadow everybody.

[kardar233]

Pathfinder Tiers are the subject of a lot of discussions, but here's my attempt, using blue for classes that are high in that tier and red for classes that are low in that tier:

Tier 1: Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer (with Human FCB), Wizard, Witch
Tier 2: Sorcerer, Oracle, Summoner
Tier 3: Bard, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus, Monk (with Qinggong and Hungry Ghost), Ninja
Tier 4: Barbarian, Paladin, Rogue, Gunslinger
Tier 5: Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Cavalier

[atemu1234]

Monks still suck (though not as much, surprisingly), casters still smash face, Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards is still in full force and tiers aren't "officially" there.

Also, I like alchemists from PF. Very interesting.

[Mountain]

What makes rogues suddenly bad? They seem almost identical to 3.5 rogues. Also, how are ninjas "better?" The ninja in UC is basically just an archetype of rogue (granted, it's a cool one.)

As a side note, is there a decent guide to PF ninjas? I've never played a sneak-attacker, and was thinking about doing so.

[AMFV]

What makes rogues suddenly bad? They seem almost identical to 3.5 rogues. Also, how are ninjas "better?" The ninja in UC is basically just an archetype of rogue (granted, it's a cool one.)

As a side note, is there a decent guide to PF ninjas? I've never played a sneak-attacker, and was thinking about doing so.

Skills aren't as valuable because they start off at 1 rather than at 4. Meaning that class skills and skills in general aren't as valuable. They're devalued in the same way that bonus feats have been devalued.

[Squirrel_Dude]

1. Yes. Rogues are widely considered to be the worst class in the game now. Monks are still messy. The Paladin code is actually harsher than before as any violation of the code, regardless of severity, causes them to fall.

2. Wizards are still top of the power pyramid. Tier-0 Oracles only recently got removed via FAQrata. Druid and Clerics are powerful, but CoDzilla isn't a really thing anymore. There is also a ton of full-casters in Pathfinder currently, and two more are on the way.

3. Monks are bad. Fighters are still boring. Rogues are the worst. Port over Tome of Battle, or pick up Path of War for best results.

4. Pathfinder tiers are much harder to really tackle than in 3.5 because of how much archetypes can interact with the base classes (See: Quiggong Monk, Lorewarden Fighter, False Priest Sorcerer, and Master Summoner), and also because of a certain really powerful feat that only just got the nerfbat taken to it. I'm honestly not sure there is much of a true tier 5 anymore.

[atemu1234]

What makes rogues suddenly bad? They seem almost identical to 3.5 rogues. Also, how are ninjas "better?" The ninja in UC is basically just an archetype of rogue (granted, it's a cool one.)

As a side note, is there a decent guide to PF ninjas? I've never played a sneak-attacker, and was thinking about doing so.

I like the wisdom bonus to AC, myself. I once saw something with AC in the mid thirties at level five because of racial bonuses to dexterity and wisdom.

[kardar233]

Ninjas get a built-in ki pool which allows them to get great effects like Greater Invisibility. This is even more important because many of the good ways to get sneak attack in 3.5 were nerfed; for example, it's much harder to flank because Tumble rolls against CMD which scales very quickly.

[Mountain]

Ninjas get a built-in ki pool which allows them to get great effects like Greater Invisibility. This is even more important because many of the good ways to get sneak attack in 3.5 were nerfed; for example, it's much harder to flank because Tumble rolls against CMD which scales very quickly.

The swift-action-invisibility at very low levels was what attracted me to the ninja originally. I thought "Hey look! I can do something cool without being a wizard!" The PF ninja seemed to do what the 3.5 ninja was trying to do.

From the responses I'm getting, it sounds like the gap between full casters and everyone else actually widened, rather than closing.

[grarrrg]

Pathfinder Tiers are the subject of a lot of discussions, but here's my attempt, using blue for classes that are high in that tier and red for classes that are low in that tier:

Tier 1: Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer (with Human FCB), Wizard, Witch
Tier 2: Sorcerer, Oracle, Summoner
Tier 3: Bard, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus, Monk (with Qinggong and Hungry Ghost), Ninja
Tier 4: Barbarian, Paladin, Rogue, Gunslinger
Tier 5: Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Cavalier

Summoner is closer to Tier 2.5, there's a lot of debate both ways.
Gunslinger is generally the same Tier as Fighter. Whether that is Tier 4 or 5 is up for debate.
"base" Monk is Tier 5, but there are a few archetypes that bump it up a notch, although most lists I've seen don't bump it all the way to Tier 3.
Sacred Servant Paladin is Tier 3, getting a Domain and Planar Ally as a spell-like being responsible.
For the sake of completeness, Antipaladin is same as Paladin (slightly weaker due to lack of Archetypes), and Samurai is same as Cavalier. Ninja is the only 'Super-Archetype' to be notably different than the base.


What makes rogues suddenly bad? They seem almost identical to 3.5 rogues. Also, how are ninjas "better?" The ninja in UC is basically just an archetype of rogue (granted, it's a cool one.)

Rogues got better, but the game changed to make them worse.
Cross-Class skills now only require 1 point and Max Ranks = Level.
Skill list got condensed, so you need (slightly) fewer skills to be a decent Skill Monkey.
Sneak Attack 'can' work on more things, but it's harder to enable.
And hardcore Trapfinding isn't all that "unique to Rogues" anymore.

[kardar233]

I put Gunslinger above Fighter because it seems to have much more reliable damage, what with the touch attacks and range and all.

I consider Antipaladin to be noticeably worse than Paladin because the action economy of Lay on Hands is much better, and often there's not much point using their Touch of Decay rather than just hitting someone.

[deuxhero]

Also the Anti-Paladin's spell list is weaker.

AP does however benefit a LOT from Crusader's Fist (which lets you add a ToC after ANY successful unarmed attack, and the effects that flat out stop them from acting are included) though. More importantly, some of the things Fiendish Servant can do (succubus for giving everyone, and then some, in the party a +2 to their highest stats, an infinite vamparic touch SLA to fuel spell storing stuff. Babau has the SLA thing and replaces the rogue) shoot it way above Paladin (bar Sacred Servant) and into tier 3 (if not higher), and it may get even better when Paizo inevitably prints Summon Evil Monster (to accompany good and neutral variants) and expands the list (or you play in the default setting and use the bonus god-specific summons).


What makes rogues suddenly bad?

Rogue has been whacked in the nads by the mechanics. It's harder to qualify for SA for one.

Rogues are a lot worse because PF has been nowhere near as stingy as 3.5 was in alternatives (most of the 3.5 classes with disable device/open lock were obviously variant rogues, though Psionic Rogue was a very good one) and that you don't even "need" one

[Zanos]

Rogue is bad because Paizo created Vivisectionist Alchemists. Finding something a rogue can do that nearly any other class in the game isn't better at is very hard.

[Squirrel_Dude]

From the responses I'm getting, it sounds like the gap between full casters and everyone else actually widened, rather than closing.It's a debated point. In general, if the distance started out in the CRB as shorter than 3.5's core books or where 3.5 ended up, the gap has since expanded quite dramatically. The general sentiment appears to be that:

- Martials/Mundanes got an increase to raw numbers rather than an increase in options. In my opinion this can cover up some of their problems in lower level and lower optimization games.
- Polymorph, Black Tentacles, and a couple of other famous problem spells got hit with the nerf bat.
- Not enough spells were weakened. Again, this is an issue where the gap has widened since core. More spells = more options = more power.
- There are some really nasty feats and traits for spellcasters. Dazing spell is a common feat brought up as overpowered (you can basically daze-lock groups of enemies with it), and there are metamagic cost reduction traits.


It's one of those things that is hard to really parse down because spells provide so many ways to find holes in a game system with clever use and tactics.

[NightbringerGGZ]

1) I wouldn't call any of the classes a "trap". You can play any of the lowest tier classes and still have fun. They'll even shine in combat oriented games. The issue is that the Fighter, Cavalier, Rogue and Monk can usually be replaced by another class with the same or similar features, plus additional other features. Gunslinger is a bit of an oddball too in my opinion. It has a couple of very specific builds which will allow the class to deal very impressive damage, and that's about all the class can do.

2) Casters are still more powerful than non-casters. That hasn't changed from 3.5. Spells and Su abilities are generally the resource you'll use for "breaking" aspects of a game. Whether this is a problem or not is a matter of debate.

3) Some non-casters and partial casters have become stronger. At higher levels your Wizard is still going to be able to pull of more impressive shenanigans than your Alchemist.

4) There is no (and never will be) official Tier List. I've seen a few floating around, but remember that Tier Lists are more of a theoretical ranking system. The styles of your GM, group and adventure will have the strongest impact on how powerful particular classes wind up being.

Btw, I would remember that Psionics are 3rd Party Material and your GM may not allow those rules. They're rather well written rules, but I've found a lot of resistance from PF GMs towards non Paizo material. If your GM allows Dream Scarred Press material though (and he really should), you'll also have Paths of War available to you as a Tome of Battle substitute. Finally, we have 10 new classes from Paizo coming in August and they're quite fun too.

[Mountain]

- Polymorph, Black Tentacles, and a couple of other famous problem spells got hit with the nerf bat.


This needed to happen. In the last session (3.5) I played, my 7th level cleric/crusader/RKV got hit with a forcecage in the surprise round. I got out, but it occurred to me that nobody else in the group would have.



- Not enough spells were weakened. Again, this is an issue where the gap has widened since core. More spells = more options = more power.

This is exactly the problem I found in 3.5. In my groups, the party is usually composed of a BSF, a skill-monkey, a waste-of-space, and the full caster who does everything (except when he lets the skill-monkey do something).

I really wish it weren't the case, but our group discovered that we can operate perfectly fine without a BSF or the waste-of-space, and the absence of a skill-monkey just makes the full caster work harder. Not having the caster though? It just doesn't work unless the DM takes special care to create encounters that the weak characters can defeat.

[Snowbluff]

1) Yes, though there are benefits to newer players as well (e.g. fewer dead levels.)


1) Most of these "dead level" (a myth and poor design philosophy) are actually traps and should be traded away ASAP. If you have a "class feature" called something like "Bravery" that gives a piddly and awkward bonus, it's a trap.
2) Yes.
3) No.
4) It's mostly the same.

[deuxhero]

This handbook should be useful
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?136890-The-3-5-Pathfinder-Handbook

As for tier changes...
Paladins are buffed and now do one thing very well (smite evil), but aren't too useful when that thing doesn't work (multiple opponents, non-evil opponents) instead of just medicore at it and the only class to really change tiers. Bards gained a lot, but they lost so much support (and it's non-trival to convert due to the changes of all parts of Bardic Performance) and are overall a wash. Monks can reach tier 3/4 with archetypes (Zen Archer and 2/3 of Qingong/Hungry Ghost/Sensei being the big ones).

[grarrrg]

I put Gunslinger above Fighter because it seems to have much more reliable damage, what with the touch attacks and range and all.

Short argument:
Gunslingers are more 'damage specialized' but lose a good bit of (combat) flexibility.
Melee Fighters have a variety of Combat Maneuvers at their disposal, and Archer Fighters have a longer effective range than most Gunslingers.
Gunslingers have to worry about eating AoO's if combat gets within melee range (options range from "long stupid feat chain" to "sub-par backup melee weapon").

[Psyren]

1) Most of these "dead level" (a myth and poor design philosophy) are actually traps and should be traded away ASAP. If you have a "class feature" called something like "Bravery" that gives a piddly and awkward bonus, it's a trap.

That's the point though, there is something there to be traded away now. Archetypes are a thing.