[3.5][Pathfinder] Examples of stuff that worked better in 3.5 than in PF

[Darkholme]

As in the title, I'm looking for anything that 3.5 had, that Pathfinder did worse.
Or, from another perspective, what stuff would you take from 3.5 to replace options present in Pathfinder?

I'm not looking for an edition war, I get that some people universally prefer one or the other. Lets say you could have the best of both worlds. What would you need to bring in from 3.5 to make that happen? (Yep, looking for ideas to improve my houserules).

[deuxhero]

Anything Pathfinder bases on CMB/CMD for starters and Improved X feats being 1 feat instead of two to start.

[Darkholme]

Anything Pathfinder bases on CMB/CMD for starters and Improved X feats being 1 feat instead of two to start.

Yeah? I agree regarding the nerfing of combat maneuver feats, but what is your dislike for the CMB/CMD mechanic? Having all of the combat maneuvers take the same roll seems a good idea to me, cuts down on the number of subsystems I need to remember.

[Ken Murikumo]

Something i brought to the attention of my group recently was the skill point limit. In 3.5 it's your level +3, but in PF its just your level with an auto +3 bonus for class skills. That bonus doesn't count as "ranks" for the sake of any prestige classes/feats that have a minimum ranks requirement, AFAIK. This means in 3.5 you could hit some prestige classes 3 levels earlier than you would for PF.

We use all PF and 3.5 material, so we decided to rule that that +3 bonus for class skills does count toward your Ranks for prestige classes and feats, etc...



Yeah? I agree regarding the nerfing of combat maneuver feats, but what is your dislike for the CMB/CMD mechanic? Having all of the combat maneuvers take the same roll seems a good idea to me, cuts down on the number of subsystems I need to remember.

But with this system, the defender has a HUGE advantage until the attacker dumps a feat or two into it to be as good as a 3.5 character with no related feats

[Extra Anchovies]

Tripping in particular got a big nerf.

Metamagic shenanigans look easier in 3.5, but are easier in PF thanks to the hellhole that is Sacred Geometry. 14 ranks in Knowledge (Engineering) gets you two free metamagic feats (plus two more each time you take SG), as long as you could have applied them anyways (e.g. you can get free Dazing on Chain Lightning, but not free Quicken). However, 3.5 has more options for metamagic cheese, thanks to all the free, no-strings-attached metamagic reducers.

[kardar233]

Yeah? I agree regarding the nerfing of combat maneuver feats, but what is your dislike for the CMB/CMD mechanic? Having all of the combat maneuvers take the same roll seems a good idea to me, cuts down on the number of subsystems I need to remember.

Like a lot of Pathfinder changes it's let down in the execution rather than the idea. Most monsters that focus on fighting have significantly more Hit Dice than Challenge Rating, making for a high Base Attack Bonus. Couple that with the generally high base stats (especially Strength) that fighting monsters have and you get CMDs that rapidly get too high for combat maneuver-focused characters to have a chance of beating.

[squiggit]

This means in 3.5 you could hit some prestige classes 3 levels earlier than you would for PF.
Well not necessarily. Theoretically the baseline is shifted as well: i.e. the 3.5 assassin requires 8 ranks in hide/move silently and the PF version requires 5, which lets you access them at the same level.

Can get weird if you're porting prcs tho

[Dalebert]

I don't care for how hard they tried to discourage multi-classing by replacing it with archetypes. It's like they're trying to micro-manage character development. I understand the motivation. So much cheese can result from failing to anticipate how the mixing of different classes can affect play. Also, prestige classes generally suck. The game is heavily geared/incentivized toward staying the same class but that's kind of limiting.

[emeraldstreak]

Sacred Geometry

Join my party and pretend it doesn't exist. What geometry?

[Ken Murikumo]

Well not necessarily. Theoretically the baseline is shifted as well: i.e. the 3.5 assassin requires 8 ranks in hide/move silently and the PF version requires 5, which lets you access them at the same level.

Can get weird if you're porting prcs tho

We did port all the 3.5 material, which is why this was brought up. 3.5 PRCs requiring 13 ranks of XYZ can be taken at level 11 originally , but when ported would make it level 14. Thus the mentioned homeruling.

Sunder, however, became easier. I think?

[Extra Anchovies]

Join my party and pretend it doesn't exist. What geometry?

Are you asking for an explanation of the 14 ranks thing? First, here's the feat itself (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/sacred-geometry). Now here's a thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?363930-Sacred-Geometry-and-Arithmancy) where a few people went over the math and figured out a that a 100% chance of success can be gotten with 14 dice or higher, even with ninth-level spells. This post lists the number of ranks at which each level of spells can be metamagic'd with a 100% success rate, but I recommend reading the whole thread.

ETA: Sacred Geometry gets even better with Paragon Surge, because then you can use one spell slot for two floating metamagic feats.

Unless you were saying that your group refuses to acknowledge the feat's existence, which is probably a good idea.

[Darkholme]

We did port all the 3.5 material, which is why this was brought up. 3.5 PRCs requiring 13 ranks of XYZ can be taken at level 11 originally , but when ported would make it level 14. Thus the mentioned homeruling.I took it as a given back in 2009 after reading the core rules and the conversion document that if I was converting over something that required skill ranks, the number of ranks required was -3, to a minimum of 1. So if something requires 13 ranks in 3.5, allowing it in PF means it only requires 10 ranks. You method could allow you to take pathfinder PRCs & feats 3 levels early. Food for thought.

Anyways, while interesting, the sacred geometry bit is a bit of a derail, and I'd like to refocus this thread a bit - there have been some good points in the thread thus far; I'm interested in hearing more about specific mechanics, or feats, or whatnot, which got worse in PF. I hadn't realized the odds of success for combat maneuvers was so much worse, for instance.

[Ken Murikumo]

I took it as a given back in 2009 after reading the core rules and the conversion document that if I was converting over something that required skill ranks, the number of ranks required was -3, to a minimum of 1. So if something requires 13 ranks in 3.5, allowing it in PF means it only requires 10 ranks. You method could allow you to take pathfinder PRCs & feats 3 levels early. Food for thought.

Actually, i did not know that. Thank you. The cats i play with may not be happy about this, though...

[Darkholme]

Actually, i did not know that. Thank you. The cats i play with may not be happy about this, though...Oh. to be clear: I dont recall if that was something the conversion document explicitly stated, or something I just noticed as a pattern and applied myself, I just know that I have known that's how to convert things ever since 2009. The conversion document should be pretty easy to find though if you want to check for yourself.

[Psyren]

I think being able to grapple in place of an attack (instead of as a standard) was fine. Tetori and Maneuver Master proved that allowing it does not break anything.


Oh. to be clear: I dont recall if that was something the conversion document explicitly stated, or something I just noticed as a pattern and applied myself, I just know that I have known that's how to convert things ever since 2009. The conversion document should be pretty easy to find though if you want to check for yourself.

It does explicitly state this on page 15 of the document.

[Azurefenrir]

Are we counting DSP? If so, DSP being third party instead of official Paizo gets a mention, since so many gaming tables do not allow it. That, of course, leaves out Tome of Battle equivalents, which is one of the best martial options in 3.5.

Other than that, I miss eldritch claw and making Chinese martial artist builds that can fly, flash step (flee the scene), have heightened senses, and punch with chi. You can do some of it with a soulknife archetype, yes, but DSP = third party issue again. Kineticist just isn't enough unless if they make major changes to the class.

...

I think a lot of my issues boil down to "DSP splats should have been allowed on more gaming tables", actually.

[Psyren]

My tables allow it. You just need to find the right ones. :smallsmile:

Granted, if I really went all-out as a psion that would probably swiftly change, but I'm pretty talented at self-nerfing and still having a good time :smallbiggrin:

[Darkholme]

Yeah, I'm not so much talking about "what's missing in official PFRPG" so much as "What PF change was a step backwards?"

Though I suppose that's a good thing to follow up with: What non-Pathfinder (PF3PP counts as PF in this case) material do you wish was available in PF?

[Pex]

The initial Core feats. It was a mistake of Pathfinder to have split up the combat maneuver feats (trip, bull rush, etc.). Further books provide some interesting and fun feats, but the initial Core Book offering did not have a good first impression. New Power Attack looks bad on paper compared to 3E Power Attack but is actually quite good in practice as I know from experience.

Multiclassing. Pathfinder made a purposeful design choice to discourage multiclassing. They do not outright forbid it nor call you names for considering it, but as the rules expanded along with the splat books staying in one class is the way to go. Pathfinder uses archetypes instead. In many cases the alternative class features utilize a shtick of another class to give you a sense of multiclassing while staying single class. I view this as a matter of one's personal preference than a case of 3E or Pathfinder doing it better.

[Darkholme]

The initial Core feats. It was a mistake of Pathfinder to have split up the combat maneuver feats (trip, bull rush, etc.). Further books provide some interesting and fun feats, but the initial Core Book offering did not have a good first impression. New Power Attack looks bad on paper compared to 3E Power Attack but is actually quite good in practice as I know from experience.I actually quite like new Power Attack. New Cleave however; Christ did they ever **** that one up.


Multiclassing. Pathfinder made a purposeful design choice to discourage multiclassing. They do not outright forbid it nor call you names for considering it, but as the rules expanded along with the splat books staying in one class is the way to go. Pathfinder uses archetypes instead. In many cases the alternative class features utilize a shtick of another class to give you a sense of multiclassing while staying single class. I view this as a matter of one's personal preference than a case of 3E or Pathfinder doing it better.I really didn't care for 3.X PrCs. I felt like I couldn't play the character I wanted to play until later levels since it took several classes before I was "in my niche", and it also felt like there was a very sore lack of support for any class outside the PHB, and so many Classes/PrCs were just so damned awful. (in an actual campaign I would often not want to start before level 6 or 7). I'm pretty happy with the replacement of PrCs by Archetypes, combined with multiclassing between base classes. I would have liked if there were more "small alteration" archetypes, which only change one or two things out for something different. So yeah, I think that one is a matter of personal preference. I don't think either approach is perfect, but I have less issues with Pathfinder's approach than 3.5's.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I'm not so much talking about "what's missing in official PFRPG" so much as "What PF change was a step backwards?"

Right, and I answered that (action to grapple.) Or were you talking to Azurefenrir?

I think removing sneak attack from splash weapons was also a mistake. If I throw a flask of acid in your eye, it's got to hurt more than hitting you in the back with it.

[Azurefenrir]

Yeah, I'm not so much talking about "what's missing in official PFRPG" so much as "What PF change was a step backwards?"

Though I suppose that's a good thing to follow up with: What non-Pathfinder (PF3PP counts as PF in this case) material do you wish was available in PF?

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

I guess the biggest thing that struck me was the "racial favored class bonuses" idea, especially with spontaneous casters. For a while before the race emulation FAQ was finalized, a lot of people believed that you should only play human sorcerers just because the FCB was so powerful that there was, quite literally, no merit to choosing any other race. Even now, the FCB effectively constrained sorcerers to a few specific options (human, half-elf, half-orc, aasimar) that had access to the bonus spells if you didn't want to lose a massively advantageous feature. Same with lunar/nature oracles with the "advancing mystery" FCB.

It's not that I think it's overpowered, per se; I just don't like how it pidgeonholes you into playing only certain specific races when playing spontaneous casters. If they changed the human one to something a little bit more on par and gave the FCB to everyone as a class feature, it would be much better overall. Overall, I would have rathered the FCB stay at +1 HP or +1 skill level, since that achieved the goal of giving single-classed characters something extra while not excessively punishing PrCs and multiclassing.

I'm sure the melee feat chains will be a problem as well, though I admit to not playing a single true warrior-type class in pathfinder. My "melee" classes tend to be mostly gishes (oracle, magus, synth summoner, eldritch knight) or other classes that had really good other feats that they have to take, so I never really gotten anything farther than Power Attack. I blame the lack of ToW at my gaming tables for this trend.

...though even if I do play ToW classes, I think I'll end up being distracted by all the shiny new feats in the book (Dex to damage!) and forgetting about improved trip altogether :smalltongue:.


My tables allow it. You just need to find the right ones. :smallsmile:

Granted, if I really went all-out as a psion that would probably swiftly change, but I'm pretty talented at self-nerfing and still having a good time :smallbiggrin:

Can I have your gaming tables :smalltongue:?

[grarrrg]

Something i brought to the attention of my group recently was the skill point limit. In 3.5 it's your level +3, but in PF its just your level with an auto +3 bonus for class skills.

My suggestion?
Undo one of the changes to Skills. Make _dedicated_ Skill Monkeys actually MEAN something again (the poor, poor Rogue).

3.5: Cross-class limited to 1/2 normal max, and cost 2 points each rank.
PF: Cross-class limited to normal max, and cost 1 point each rank.

Either re-instate 1/2 level Maximum, so you can still cross-class on the cheap, but will never be as good as someone with it in-class.
OR
Make cross-class cost double ranks, but still leave the maximum=level. So cross-class can be (almost) as good as in-class, they just have to 'work twice as hard'.

Don't get me wrong, PF greatly improved the skill system, but they made it TOO accessibly easy.

[Extra Anchovies]

<stuff about FCBs>

I'm mostly in agreement with you here; FCBs tend to pigeonhole certain classes into certain races, and often make humans even more better than they normally are. The Gunslinger human FCB grants five extra grit points; that's more than worth two feats (Extra Grit, twice, gives +4). Same goes for Swashbuckler. Rogue/Ninja/Slayer FCB grants three talents, two of which are Advanced talents; that's also worth more than two feats. By contrast, +1 HP or +1 skill point is worth 1 feat (Toughness or Open Minded). Certain other races get some nice goodies, such as the half-elf's Summoner FCB (5 evolution points = 5 feats), but most of the good ones are human.

[Prince Raven]

I feel like 3.5 did prestige classes better, I've yet to come across a Pathfinder prestige class that actually made me excited to play or make a NPC with it.

[Erik Vale]

Pit fighter?

[Kraken]

The change to trapfinding that makes it close to useless. You no longer need trapfinding to locate magical traps, merely to use the disable device skill on them. However, once a trap is located, disabling or bypassing it without disable device is a simple matter of ingenuity.

[Psyren]

My suggestion?
Undo one of the changes to Skills. Make _dedicated_ Skill Monkeys actually MEAN something again (the poor, poor Rogue).

3.5: Cross-class limited to 1/2 normal max, and cost 2 points each rank.
PF: Cross-class limited to normal max, and cost 1 point each rank.

Either re-instate 1/2 level Maximum, so you can still cross-class on the cheap, but will never be as good as someone with it in-class.
OR
Make cross-class cost double ranks, but still leave the maximum=level. So cross-class can be (almost) as good as in-class, they just have to 'work twice as hard'.

Don't get me wrong, PF greatly improved the skill system, but they made it TOO accessibly easy.

Disagree, in both cases you end up right back with 3.5's silly paradigm of the sentry who can't keep watch or the druid who can't hide in the woods (without using magic.)

I think just giving the Rogue skill mastery earlier (and for free, not as a talent) would have been enough. Or give it free with one skill and then let them pick more using talents.

[Ken Murikumo]

My suggestion?
Undo one of the changes to Skills. Make _dedicated_ Skill Monkeys actually MEAN something again (the poor, poor Rogue).

3.5: Cross-class limited to 1/2 normal max, and cost 2 points each rank.
PF: Cross-class limited to normal max, and cost 1 point each rank.

Either re-instate 1/2 level Maximum, so you can still cross-class on the cheap, but will never be as good as someone with it in-class.
OR
Make cross-class cost double ranks, but still leave the maximum=level. So cross-class can be (almost) as good as in-class, they just have to 'work twice as hard'.

Don't get me wrong, PF greatly improved the skill system, but they made it TOO accessibly easy.


Disagree, in both cases you end up right back with 3.5's silly paradigm of the sentry who can't keep watch or the druid who can't hide in the woods (without using magic.)

I think just giving the Rogue skill mastery earlier (and for free, not as a talent) would have been enough. Or give it free with one skill and then let them pick more using talents.


Also dont forget, that in PF you do not get X4 skill points at 1st level. Its the difference between 5 and 20 skill points to start your character.


And, i will cast another vote for prestige classes. Pathfinder has no new PRCs that are even worth looking into, in my opinion. But i do, however, like the amount of archetypes for the base classes. It adds quite a few new ways to play old classes or even milk them for what you need without having to dip.

[Psyren]

I'd say that's a feature rather than a bug. Prestige Classes are intended to have niche appeal for very specific character concepts, not be no-brainer progression paths for every class.

PrCs are for things like:
- Adding the capabilities of another class to your base class more efficiently than straight multi-classing (things like theurges, Eldritch Knight, False Priest or Rage Prophet)
- Giving up your base class abilities to focus on a very niche theme (e.g. Cyphermage's focus on glyphs and Harrower's focus on card-based magic.)
- Focusing on one specific thematic or mechanical direction of your base class at the expense of other directions (e.g. Winter Witch advancing hexes while focusing on cold-themed stuff, or Agent of the Grave focusing on minionmancy while advancing Command Undead.)

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Also dont forget, that in PF you do not get X4 skill points at 1st level. Its the difference between 5 and 20 skill points to start your character.


And, i will cast another vote for prestige classes. Pathfinder has no new PRCs that are even worth looking into, in my opinion. But i do, however, like the amount of archetypes for the base classes. It adds quite a few new ways to play old classes or even milk them for what you need without having to dip.

*COUGH*Mammoth Rider*COUGH*

[Milo v3]

I don't really get the hate for PF's skill system... It just doesn't punish people for thinking about "non-sterotypical" concepts like Fighters who know abit about magic because they are witch-hunters, and archers who can see more than half a foot in front of themselves.

[Psyren]

I don't really get the hate for PF's skill system... It just doesn't punish people for thinking about "non-sterotypical" concepts like Fighters who know abit about magic because they are witch-hunters, and archers who can see more than half a foot in front of themselves.

Apparently everyone else sucking at skills is necessary for the rogue to feel "special," or something.

[Extra Anchovies]

Apparently everyone else sucking at skills is necessary for the rogue to feel "special," or something.

The rogue definitely loses its niche protection as skillmonky, yes. But in exchange, everyone else gets better at skills, especially classes with poor skill lists. I think that's a worthwhile trade for the system. If you want to be a sneaky-type with lots of skills and lots of sneak attack, play either a Slayer or a Ninja, and call yourself a Rogue; both of them can be a lot better than a normal rogue. Even write "Rogue (Ninja)" on your character sheet if being a Rogue matters that much to you.

[Dalebert]

3.5 has a feat for humans that lets them get all skills for 1 point, class skill or not. Has to be taken at 1st level. Forget the name. One level dip into rogue or bard or what-not and now almost everything is a class skill. There are work-arounds in 3.5 to be skill monkeys without being rogues. PF just makes that finagling unnecessary. I'm kind of okay with not needing a class mostly devoted to being a skill monkey for the party. Seems like skills should be something that are spread around the party.

[Psyren]

The rogue definitely loses its niche protection as skillmonky, yes. But in exchange, everyone else gets better at skills, especially classes with poor skill lists. I think that's a worthwhile trade for the system. If you want to be a sneaky-type with lots of skills and lots of sneak attack, play either a Slayer or a Ninja, and call yourself a Rogue; both of them can be a lot better than a normal rogue. Even write "Rogue (Ninja)" on your character sheet if being a Rogue matters that much to you.

The fact that Slayer and Ninja are better does not magically stop the Rogue from being good or capable, is my point.

[Venger]

3.5 has a feat for humans that lets them get all skills for 1 point, class skill or not. Has to be taken at 1st level. Forget the name. One level dip into rogue or bard or what-not and now almost everything is a class skill. There are work-arounds in 3.5 to be skill monkeys without being rogues. PF just makes that finagling unnecessary. I'm kind of okay with not needing a class mostly devoted to being a skill monkey for the party. Seems like skills should be something that are spread around the party.

Able learner. it also works for changelings or doppelgangers. dip factotum and get everything as a class skill.

[Darkholme]

The fact that Slayer and Ninja are better does not magically stop the Rogue from being good or capable, is my point.I try to keep newbie players away from Rogue and Monk; since they're so easy to screw up and be pathetic.

[grarrrg]

Disagree, in both cases you end up right back with 3.5's silly paradigm of the sentry who can't keep watch or the druid who can't hide in the woods (without using magic.)

The 3.5 skill system was OVERLY heavy-handed with the distinction between in/cross class.
Pathfinder is OVERLY lenient on it, with _literally_ 3 points being the difference between in/cross class, regardless of class, regardless of character level.

There should be more of a happy medium between the two, where having a skill in-class actually means something.
My suggestions were based around the easiest ways to 'fix' this, not necessarily the best way to fix this.


Adding the capabilities of another class to your base class more efficiently than straight multi-classing (things like ...Rage Prophet)

You have Rage Prophet in the wrong category then. It does little to help either side of it's parent classes.
It more belongs in "Giving up your base class abilities to focus on a very niche theme". What exactly that theme is I'm not sure.

[Psyren]

I try to keep newbie players away from Rogue and Monk; since they're so easy to screw up and be pathetic.

Whereas I, y'know, teach them.



You have Rage Prophet in the wrong category then. It does little to help either side of it's parent classes.
It more belongs in "Giving up your base class abilities to focus on a very niche theme". What exactly that theme is I'm not sure.

It's still better than going Oracle 10/Barbarian 10. Not as much better as it should be, but still.

And yes, I know how much you hate the class. I agree, it's underwhelming.

[aleucard]

My biggest complaint? The fact that the "Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard" issue seems to have been ported over wholesale into PF. Yeah, by definition 3.5 didn't technically do it better, but the people behind it both didn't know what they were doing at the time and didn't have access to the truly horrific numbers of people who spend a sizable chunk of their free time just picking over the rules and seeing what can be done with it that are around today. Paizo had both, and were able to see and hear the discussions as they occurred on this topic. As such, they don't have the newbie armor for this kind of ****up that Wizards did back then.

[Extra Anchovies]

My biggest complaint? The fact that the "Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard" issue seems to have been ported over wholesale into PF. Yeah, by definition 3.5 didn't technically do it better, but the people behind it both didn't know what they were doing at the time and didn't have access to the truly horrific numbers of people who spend a sizable chunk of their free time just picking over the rules and seeing what can be done with it that are around today. Paizo had both, and were able to see and hear the discussions as they occurred on this topic. As such, they don't have the newbie armor for this kind of ****up that Wizards did back then.

The thing is, challenges are (mostly) designed to scale with the Fighter, or at least monsters are (in terms of AC, attacks, damage, and HP, for example). So a Fighter will be challenged but (assuming they don't take all the trap feats) will be able to survive. A wizard can still blow past everything, yes, but it's very easy to downplay a class to meet the power level of the rest of the party, allowing the DM to adjust challenges accordingly.

Besides, Pathfinder is OGL-based. If they had put in enough effort to balance martials with casters, it would've probably stopped being OGL and started being a unique system, because d20 just does not handle the class balancing act well.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Something Pathfinder did better: rules for magic item creation and favored class rules. No one really bothered with the experience penalties AFAIK, and everyone ignored the multi-classing penalties in 3.5 that made favored class matter.

Worse: Pathfinder has done a worse job of introducing new subsystems and mechanics to the game compared to 3.5. There's been a lot of traditional casting for a really long time.

[Venger]

My biggest complaint? The fact that the "Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard" issue seems to have been ported over wholesale into PF. Yeah, by definition 3.5 didn't technically do it better, but the people behind it both didn't know what they were doing at the time and didn't have access to the truly horrific numbers of people who spend a sizable chunk of their free time just picking over the rules and seeing what can be done with it that are around today. Paizo had both, and were able to see and hear the discussions as they occurred on this topic. As such, they don't have the newbie armor for this kind of ****up that Wizards did back then.

PF widened the gap between mundanes and casters because of the way feats work in the system.

the progression is you get feats at every odd lvl (plus whatever other ones you pick up through your class and such) which gives the mundanes a small buff, but gives casters a much larger one (you only need one or maybe two feats to get good metamagics, some don't require any)

the melee brute feat chains in PF have gotten longer, not shorter, and require even more of an investment than 3.5's due to how fragmented every aspect of mundane fighting is.

to say nothing of how worthless most mundane feats are compared to the stuff casters get which has been mentioned plenty already (sacred geometry) along with normal stuff ported from 3.5 (quicken, twin, empower, etc)

[grarrrg]

It's still better than going Oracle 10/Barbarian 10. Not as much better as it should be, but still.

And yes, I know how much you hate the class. I agree, it's underwhelming.

Ignoring the power-level for the moment:
It's in the same category as Battle Herald (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/a-b/battle-herald), where it requires a Theurge-like entry, but then goes off in a different direction, giving minimal "theurge" support to either side.
Both are in the "Giving up your base class abilities to focus on a very niche theme"

[emeraldstreak]

My biggest complaint? The fact that the "Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard" issue seems to have been ported over wholesale into PF. Yeah, by definition 3.5 didn't technically do it better, but the people behind it both didn't know what they were doing at the time and didn't have access to the truly horrific numbers of people who spend a sizable chunk of their free time just picking over the rules and seeing what can be done with it that are around today. Paizo had both, and were able to see and hear the discussions as they occurred on this topic. As such, they don't have the newbie armor for this kind of ****up that Wizards did back then.

Paizo dont care as they laugh all the way to the bank.

[aleucard]

Paizo dont care as they laugh all the way to the bank.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of things that PF has fixed over 3.5, it's just that this was one of the largest cysts of the whole lot and as far as I can tell, aside from some cosmetics, it hasn't even been touched. What few improvements there have been in this category are 'balanced' out by setbacks in others.

[Deaxsa]

I'll second the CMB mechanic, not once do you make an attack roll. Disarm also got a huge buff/nerf (power shift). I could not stop my barbarian NPC from getting disarmed by a PC (low CMD), so i just started using it myself and found it hilariously easy to use, against the PCs.

[Psyren]

Paizo dont care as they laugh all the way to the bank.

You do realize not everyone considers magic being better than muggles is a problem, right?

[squiggit]

PF widened the gap between mundanes and casters because of the way feats work in the system.
That's patently false. Feat chains suck, sure, but optimized casters in 3.5 can have literally infinite power at their disposal and those tools do not exist in Pathfinder.


You do realize not everyone considers magic being better than muggles is a problem, right?

Yeah, some people see tricking players into taking inferior options to somehow be beneficial. Personally I can't see it but apparently it's what sells.

[Extra Anchovies]

That's patently false. Feat chains suck, sure, but optimized casters in 3.5 can have literally infinite power at their disposal and those tools do not exist in Pathfinder.

True. And even basic metamagic shenanigans aren't possible (excepting Sacred Geometry, which no sane DM would allow in any game that isn't ridiculously high-op).

[Venger]

That's patently false. Feat chains suck, sure, but optimized casters in 3.5 can have literally infinite power at their disposal and those tools do not exist in Pathfinder.

While that's true, my point was that it beat melee down even further by making the feat chains longer and even less worthwhile, which still widens the gap.


Yeah, some people see tricking players into taking inferior options to somehow be beneficial. Personally I can't see it but apparently it's what sells.

Some people like... Sean K Reynolds?

[TypoNinja]

You do realize not everyone considers magic being better than muggles is a problem, right?

If you are writing a novel, sure, if you are designing a game system to be used by people you want rough parity, or divergent enough roles to keep everybody happy and useful.

Compare to something like the Holy Trinity setup a lot of MMO's have, Tank, DPS, Healer. The tank doesn't do nearly as much DPS as a spellcaster raining fire on your enemies but he lives for more than one hit, healers are weak and kill slowly but can keep a party alive.

Different classes are better at different thing. In D&D however a wizard is better at everything, there is no role that cannot be filled by a spellcaster. This is the design failure. Not necessarily that magic is stronger than mundane.

[Extra Anchovies]

Different classes are better at different thing. In D&D however a wizard is better at everything, there is no role that cannot be filled by a spellcaster. This is the design failure. Not necessarily that magic is stronger than mundane.

Wizards can't heal, and they can't tank too well (they can lay down battlefield control, but that's different). Casters as a group, however, can fill all three, especially the cleric and/or druid.

[Prince Raven]

I find the gap between mundanes and casters to not be as bad in Pathfinder, but it's still definitely present.

[georgie_leech]

Wizards can't heal, and they can't tank too well (they can lay down battlefield control, but that's different). Casters as a group, however, can fill all three, especially the cleric and/or druid.

They can when they can rustle up scads of obedient meatshields at the drop of a hat, and have access to heavenly angels and whatnot. Planar Binding is a bit ridiculous.

EDIT: The gap is definitely still there, whether it's viewed as a problem or not. I will say that it's harder to accidentally* step on someone one else's toes the same way you could in 3.5., which is something that I personally experienced on the stepping side. Less than fun.

*Unless a Rogue or Summoner is involved. Rogues lost a lot of niche protection while the summoner... "Hey, remember all that work we did to adjust Wizards and Clerics and Druids so they can't just get multiple sets of actions out of the box and obviate physical stats with a spell? Let's ignore that."

[Psyren]

If you are writing a novel, sure, if you are designing a game system to be used by people you want rough parity, or divergent enough roles to keep everybody happy and useful.

Good news, PF has those things. Everyone can be useful, unless the caster player is going out of his way to overshadow the others or be a richard. And there are divergent roles - just because some casters can do anything, does not mean they can do everything, or even that it is worthwhile for them to try.



Yeah, some people see tricking players into taking inferior options to somehow be beneficial. Personally I can't see it but apparently it's what sells.

It sells because people expect Gandalf to be more capable than Boromir. It makes sense. 4e tried the muscle-wizard thing and it got paddled.

[Darkholme]

People expect Gandalf to be more capable than Boromir. It makes sense. 4e tried the muscle-wizard thing and it got paddled.Hmm.

I have a couple of counterpoints to this.

1. Gandalf is a powerful GMPC, who has to be written out of scenes so that the other characters have the opportunity to meaningfully contribute; or he's left in to serve either as a mentor or to rescue them from situations where they couldn't possibly save themselves.
2. Gandalf is not a counterpoint to Boromir, or even a counterpoint to Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas – He is a counterpoint to Sauron and the Balrog.
3. He is not a mortal mage (I'm not sure if mortal mages even exist in Tolkien's writings), he is a powerful immortal spirit (Maiar) created by god (Eru Iluvatar) and sent to earth to help shape it, which took corporeal(human) form.

Really he is a terrible example of a wizard for a player in an RPG party including Boromir, some hobbits, Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas. Very much an Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit scenario.

In most fiction, the wizards are not the protagonists, they're incredibly powerful side characters who bail the protagonists out of trouble. Also in most fiction, you don't have a team of capable individuals as protagonists like people expect of an RPG. You generally have one highly competent character, and a bunch of side-kicks. (but when you do have a powerful party of protagonists, either the martials can keep up with the mages (Avatar the Last Airbender, Legend of Korra, Supernatural, Angel), or basically everyone has magic (Fullmetal Alchemist, Bleach, Naruto, etc)). Multiplayer videogames and turn based Party RPGs are generally a better example than fiction for relative character power, for that very reason.

If I go with your reasoning that there should be as much gap between a wizard and a fighter as there is between Gandalf and Boromir, I should also reasonably conclude that the wizard should clearly be a heavy handed GM plot device to bail out the party and push the plot in the direction I want it to go, not an option players can build.

Fighters being able to keep up with mages isn't a big reason people disliked 4e; I would argue that was the thing they did best. This is the first time I have heard anyone claim that that was something wrong with 4e, and I've heard many reasons people dislike it (I have quite a few reasons myself).

[Taveena]

Apparently now it's near-impossible to use Tumble due to massive CMDs of the monsters which hurt sneak attacking capabilities?

[Prince Raven]

Yeah, tumble can be very dirficult to pull off against high CMD enemies, but on the plus side you can Sneak Attack undead in Pathfinder.

[Psyren]

Really he is a terrible example of a wizard for a player in an RPG party including Boromir, some hobbits, Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas. Very much an Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit scenario.

Then go with Milamber, or Sparrowhawk, or Raistlin, or any of a dozen other examples where the mage is the protagonist and not the DMPC. Really, this is quibbling at its finest. The point still stands - magic should be superior to not-magic. Not-magic can still be competent, but it does not need to be equal to clear that benchmark.



Fighters being able to keep up with mages isn't a big reason people disliked 4e; I would argue that was the thing they did best. This is the first time I have heard anyone claim that that was something wrong with 4e, and I've heard many reasons people dislike it (I have quite a few reasons myself).

The Giant himself lambasted 4e on this point, so it isn't just me, I assure you. SS&DT:



4e Roy: "LION'S ROAR!"
*healing surge*
4e Roy: "See? That sword move was so inspiring to myself that it turns out I was never bleeding in the first place."
3.5 Roy: "You can heal yourself with a sword move? Without using magic? How am I supposed to fight that???"
4e Roy: "Well actually, I can't do that more than once per encounter."
3.5 Roy: "Why not?"
4e Roy: "Because it's an Encounter exploit."
3.5 Roy: "Yeah, but is there some underlying-"
4e Roy: "Encounter! Exploit!"
3.5 Roy: "You just... you just swung your sword and roared though. You didn't use magic or anything. Why can't you-"
4e Roy: "Ok, if you're going to merge with me, you're going to have to stop asking for a 'cause' for every 'effect.' It's rude."
3.5 Roy: "You have the ability to alter the past by impressing yourself, but you can't swing your sword the same way twice in a row. Why would I ever want to merge with you? Your world makes no damn sense!"

[aleucard]

Hmm.

I have a couple of counterpoints to this.

1. Gandalf is a powerful GMPC, who has to be written out of scenes so that the other characters have the opportunity to meaningfully contribute; or he's left in to serve either as a mentor or to rescue them from situations where they couldn't possibly save themselves.
2. Gandalf is not a counterpoint to Boromir, or even a counterpoint to Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas – He is a counterpoint to Sauron and the Balrog.
3. He is not a mortal mage (I'm not sure if mortal mages even exist in Tolkien's writings), he is a powerful immortal spirit (Maiar) created by god (Eru Iluvatar) and sent to earth to help shape it, which took corporeal(human) form.

Really he is a terrible example of a wizard for a player in an RPG party including Boromir, some hobbits, Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas. Very much an Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit scenario.

In most fiction, the wizards are not the protagonists, they're incredibly powerful side characters who bail the protagonists out of trouble. Also in most fiction, you don't have a team of capable individuals as protagonists like people expect of an RPG. You generally have one highly competent character, and a bunch of side-kicks. (but when you do have a powerful party of protagonists, either the martials can keep up with the mages (Avatar the Last Airbender, Legend of Korra, Supernatural, Angel), or basically everyone has magic (Fullmetal Alchemist, Bleach, Naruto, etc)). Multiplayer videogames and turn based Party RPGs are generally a better example than fiction for relative character power, for that very reason.

If I go with your reasoning that there should be as much gap between a wizard and a fighter as there is between Gandalf and Boromir, I should also reasonably conclude that the wizard should clearly be a heavy handed GM plot device to bail out the party and push the plot in the direction I want it to go, not an option players can build.

Fighters being able to keep up with mages isn't a big reason people disliked 4e; I would argue that was the thing they did best. This is the first time I have heard anyone claim that that was something wrong with 4e, and I've heard many reasons people dislike it (I have quite a few reasons myself).

I agree with basically everything said here. I'll just add something to it.

The reason that 4e was absolute crap was NOT because it put martials and casters on roughly the same level (I dislike the use of the word mundane because by definition that qualifier was lost around level 3). It was crap because just about every ability in the game could have the fluff and name stripped, and the only people who would even have a clue as to what went where are the people who could get paid for being able to figure this sort of thing out. There are more methods of balancing classes than to make the only real distinction be their names and MAYBE archetype.

EDIT: If it's impossible to conceive that a caster is not God even when they've only been through the exact same things the rest of the party has, then how about we say that everyone is using the energy that powers magic, just in different ways? To use a Naruto reference, casters are like the normal ninja, where the martials are like Rock Lee where his "chakra" is instead hardwired into personal enhancement. He's not looking too Mundane in his chunin exam fight, now is he? Yeah, he lost, but that's because 1) Gaara was higher level and 2) Gaara had basically Epic-level backup in the form of his biju.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Then go with Milamber, or Sparrowhawk, or Raistlin, or any of a dozen other examples where the mage is the protagonist and not the DMPC. Really, this is quibbling at its finest. The point still stands - magic should be superior to not-magic. Not-magic can still be competent, but it does not need to be equal to clear that benchmark.Why? Why should magic be more powerful, and, hell why should it be something separate from competence? Why shouldn't magic just be a tool that someone uses to become more competent, equal to someone and their armor, or their technology, or their training or their faith in a god.

[squiggit]

It sells because people expect Gandalf to be more capable than Boromir.
On further thought, I'm actually not sure if that's even true. At low-op the problems we see don't come into play in the first place and on the Paizo forums it's less "Wizards should be broken" and more "Well don't let your wizard be cheesy and the game is perfectly balanced." I've seen far more threads there lamenting the fact that a Wizard can't keep up with a Barbarian than I have seen ones that brazenly assert Wizards should be able to beat everyone else at character creation.

So I'm not sure the problem is that imbalance is good so much as that the level of play we concern ourselves with here isn't relevant for the playerbase at large and therefore marketing and building the game for those consumers. After all if the former was true they probably wouldn't have even bothered narrowing the gap in Pathfinder in the first place.


It makes sense. 4e tried the muscle-wizard thing and it got paddled.
4e also changed a bunch of other things and it's a bit silly to try to single the single one out as the reason it failed (though even that conclusion itself is a bit shaky).


The Giant himself lambasted 4e on this point, so it isn't just me, I assure you. SS&DT:
Well, first that's more whining about the nature of encounter powers than fighters not being terrible. In fact, fighter competency isn't even referenced once inn there. It's just Burlew being intentionally obtuse about encounter effects.


Some people like... Sean K Reynolds?
There's a thread over on the Paizo forums from a few months ago where he was agreeing that martial characters lacking in capabilities and still being constrained by realistic expectations when they're strong enough to be fighting off demigods by themselves was a bit silly. With examples like rogues being able to teleport and competent crossbow specialists being used as examples.

So, no, wouldn't put him in that camp.

[Psyren]

Well, first that's more whining about the nature of encounter powers than fighters not being terrible. In fact, fighter competency isn't even referenced once inn there. It's just Burlew being intentionally obtuse about encounter effects.

The ridiculousness of encounter powers was only part of that. The bigger issue he has was, when you can heal yourself with a sword move instead of magical energy, there's no way to explain that not being repeatable that isn't arbitrary and video-gamey. (Also, just doing that was portrayed as being silly by itself, as highlighted in 4e Roy's nonsensical explanation of how the move worked.)

Or rather, it was about the ridiculousness of applying per-encounter or per-day resources to martial abilities as well as magical ones, when there is no universal law imposed on martial classes the way there is on magic classes in this game. There are no "spell slots" for fighters, no logic for Vancian of any kind. ToB came about as close to justifying that sort of thing as you can get, and even they have to balance their maneuvers around the fact that you can recover and repeat them all day long - which is why level X maneuvers are never able to be equivalent to level X spells, even there. And I am totally fine with that.



EDIT: If it's impossible to conceive that a caster is not God even when they've only been through the exact same things the rest of the party has, then how about we say that everyone is using the energy that powers magic, just in different ways? To use a Naruto reference, casters are like the normal ninja, where the martials are like Rock Lee where his "chakra" is instead hardwired into personal enhancement. He's not looking too Mundane in his chunin exam fight, now is he? Yeah, he lost, but that's because 1) Gaara was higher level and 2) Gaara had basically Epic-level backup in the form of his biju.

I'm 100% fine with martial classes getting supernatural abilities and even some SLAs over time. I've routinely said in these discussions that "Assassin" and "Shadowdancer" - rather than being PrCs - should just be free things high-level rogues get, perhaps even both at once.

What I don't agree with is that those powers should be equivalent to spells. Spells have all kinds of limitations that supernatural abilities and even SLAs don't. So while I am saying there should be a gap, I do think it's too wide at present. But there are archetypes addressing that problem even now.


Why? Why should magic be more powerful, and, hell why should it be something separate from competence? Why shouldn't magic just be a tool that someone uses to become more competent, equal to someone and their armor, or their technology, or their training or their faith in a god.

Because anybody can wear armor. Anybody can use technology. Anybody can swing a pointy stick. Exclusivity, like it or not, is one of the things that makes magic feel special, and thus feel like magic. Harry Potter is special in part because the Dursleys can't ever learn what he does or understand his world. The tension from settings like Wheel of Time or Dragon Age arises from the fact that magic is essentially random - chaos made flesh, that the governments of those settings cannot control or predetermine. Not everyone can be a Jedi, and while the gap is much smaller in Star Wars due to the technology in that setting, there are still a number of things the Force can do that cannot be mimicked with tech.

[georgie_leech]

If Martial characters shouldn't have per encounter or per day limitations on their abilities, why do Barbarians get only a limited number of Rages (or rounds in Pathfinder) per day? Why is someone with the Stunning Fist Feat limited to only using it a few times each day? Are they not a part of 3.P?

[Milo v3]

Strangely, in pathfinder non-magical technology can do everything magic can, and any mundane characters can make those devices if they have decent knowledge skills... Just sucks that said technology requires GM intervention to be made in the first place. :smallsigh:

[T.G. Oskar]

And, i will cast another vote for prestige classes. Pathfinder has no new PRCs that are even worth looking into, in my opinion. But i do, however, like the amount of archetypes for the base classes. It adds quite a few new ways to play old classes or even milk them for what you need without having to dip.

I'd say Gray Warden begs to differ. It's good even for Inquisitors; while they lack some of their spellcasting prowess and their Judgments don't progress equally, they get other good stuff to compensate (Sneak Attack, IMO, being the biggest).


Because anybody can wear armor.

Sure, now. Before, it could be worse than not wearing it.


Anybody can use technology.

Not to the same level of competence. Consider the troubles of Seniors or Boomers to adapt to modern technology, or how GenXers won't be capable of adapting to post-Millenials technology with the same ease Y, Z and Millenials can.


Anybody can swing a pointy stick.

Not without the same level of competence, or worse; harming themselves.


Exclusivity, like it or not, is one of the things that makes magic feel special, and thus feel like magic. Harry Potter is special in part because the Dursleys can't ever learn what he does or understand his world. The tension from settings like Wheel of Time or Dragon Age arises from the fact that magic is essentially random - chaos made flesh, that the governments of those settings cannot control or predetermine. Not everyone can be a Jedi, and while the gap is much smaller in Star Wars due to the technology in that setting, there are still a number of things the Force can do that cannot be mimicked with tech.

That is certainly true: what makes magic unique is that it's special, and that it's powerful. However, in the structure of a game, it's difficult to balance magic with mundane. Most of the people who expect to play mundanes suffer because, by a certain level, the only way they can compete is by going supernatural.

If I must: think of Shadowrun. Magic, just like in D&D, is mysterious and powerful: not everyone is capable of wielding magic, and technology simply hasn't been able to cause anyone to spontaneously manifest the ability to cast spells, not even at the genetic level (and Geneware is certainly a thing). Technology exists, and it certainly can place a spellcaster at the same level of an Adept or Mage. However, unlike in D&D or Pathfinder (or any game based off the v3.x rules of the d20 System, sich as d20 Modern), you can't have a Cyber-Mage; either you become a Mage and eschew technology, fill yourself with so much Cyberware/Bioware that you become emotionally distant and unable to manifest magic in any way, or try to strike a balance but with the ever-real risk of losing your magic forever. The only attempt to combine both ends up in an aberration that's twisted beyond belief, and even then, it can't cast magic (the cyber-zombie, BTW). In this case, technology is used to balance towards magic, even if it's still not equal (by the time a Mage or Shaman undergo several grades of Initiation, the gloves come off; however, try to reach THAT level of prowess!), and you can safely say that technology can allow mundanes to combat or even surpass what magic can.

Extrapolate that feel into D&D. How can a mundane character surpass things that can be easily surpassed by magic? Well, you have magic items, but casters can wield those (and wield some that are unique to them, in that they improve their spellcasting prowess). 3.5's grafts or PF's cybertech can be worn by casters, and it doesn't impede the equipment of Magic Items at all (unlike 3.5's Incarnum); not even THAT divide can be given to mundanes. Thus, magic items have to be treated as an equal aspect of magical and mundane classes. Feat-wise, as mentioned, martial characters are at a disadvantage as feat chains tend to be a bit too large, while spellcasters don't tend to suffer that. Thus, the main point of distinction is between the class features of both kinds of classes, and in that regard, the spellcaster usually, if not always, wins. Focus on the Barbarian's Rage Powers, or the Rogue's Talents; they were ways to allow the "mundane" classes to distinguish, and they can't reach the flexibility of spellcasting, despite the nerf of certain spells. To use your example: the Force can do things that technology cannot; what can technology do that the Force cannot? Judging by how ridiculous the Force can end up being, not even intergalactic travel is a hassle.

And as for teamwork...well, note that a good story has every member assume protagonism, and that is achieved by naturally presenting situations where the characters' attributes and skills shine. In that aspect, the divide between mundane and magical is more evident, because the attributes, skills, powers and abilities of spellcasters can solve multiple situations that mundane characters cannot, or require specialization to achieve. I mean, the whole goal of the 3.5's "God" Wizard wasn't to make everyone redundant, but to make everyone shine, and that is STILL perceived as a problem because it makes challenges difficult (if not highly improbable) when the Wizard isn't around. Aid Another can only help so far. When the Wizard's presence overcomes those challenges, then the other characters lose some of their protagonism; thus, why sometimes the Wizard/powerful character has to hold back.

Certainly, a mundane character will end up having limits. However, once those limits are reached, it's inevitable that you'll end up having to tap into the supernatural one way or another. 3.5 tried at the very least (Incarnum, Soulbinding), and Pathfinder is mostly trying now on its own (if Occult Adventures is any indication, and most of them are still mostly refluffed spellcasting formats), but none of them really managed to achieve that. 4e tried and did the wrong way. 5e also tried, and by all indications, also failed. Let's not mention Dragon (M)Age RPG, where Mages get all kinds of goodies AND magic items AND lots of new stunts while Warriors and Rogues only get a few new stunts at Set 2 (Set 3 adds nothing new to them), and Mages can use Combat, Exploration and Roleplaying Stunts. Doesn't make any of the systems less interesting, but the problem is still there. No system should be perfectly balanced, but at least give a semblance of balance in that regard; the exact way to deal with that balance is what will make fans of the system (or detractors).

[Psyren]

If Martial characters shouldn't have per encounter or per day limitations on their abilities, why do Barbarians get only a limited number of Rages (or rounds in Pathfinder) per day? Why is someone with the Stunning Fist Feat limited to only using it a few times each day? Are they not a part of 3.P?

I actually agree with you - those don't make sense either, except in the gamist sense of (a) not wanting a monk who spams stun attempts at every boss hoping for a 1 or (b) a barbarian who is angry all the time and thus whose physical ability scores might as well just be +4-8 higher than an equal level fighter or ranger.



Sure, now. Before, it could be worse than not wearing it.

A single feat makes you proficient; if full spellcasting were as easy to pick up, every commoner with two brain cells to rub together would do it.



Not to the same level of competence. Consider the troubles of Seniors or Boomers to adapt to modern technology, or how GenXers won't be capable of adapting to post-Millenials technology with the same ease Y, Z and Millenials can.

My grandmother has in her pocket at this very moment a device that would have been beyond my imagination 10 years prior. She also has a Wii and a Facebook account. I have trouble picturing which "post-Milennial technology" you could possibly be referring to.


Not without the same level of competence, or worse; harming themselves.

Fumble rules are a variant.



That is certainly true: what makes magic unique is that it's special, and that it's powerful. However, in the structure of a game, it's difficult to balance magic with mundane. Most of the people who expect to play mundanes suffer because, by a certain level, the only way they can compete is by going supernatural.

If I must: think of Shadowrun. Magic, just like in D&D, is mysterious and powerful: not everyone is capable of wielding magic, and technology simply hasn't been able to cause anyone to spontaneously manifest the ability to cast spells, not even at the genetic level (and Geneware is certainly a thing). Technology exists, and it certainly can place a spellcaster at the same level of an Adept or Mage. However, unlike in D&D or Pathfinder (or any game based off the v3.x rules of the d20 System, sich as d20 Modern), you can't have a Cyber-Mage; either you become a Mage and eschew technology, fill yourself with so much Cyberware/Bioware that you become emotionally distant and unable to manifest magic in any way, or try to strike a balance but with the ever-real risk of losing your magic forever. The only attempt to combine both ends up in an aberration that's twisted beyond belief, and even then, it can't cast magic (the cyber-zombie, BTW). In this case, technology is used to balance towards magic, even if it's still not equal (by the time a Mage or Shaman undergo several grades of Initiation, the gloves come off; however, try to reach THAT level of prowess!), and you can safely say that technology can allow mundanes to combat or even surpass what magic can.

Extrapolate that feel into D&D. How can a mundane character surpass things that can be easily surpassed by magic? Well, you have magic items, but casters can wield those (and wield some that are unique to them, in that they improve their spellcasting prowess). 3.5's grafts or PF's cybertech can be worn by casters, and it doesn't impede the equipment of Magic Items at all (unlike 3.5's Incarnum); not even THAT divide can be given to mundanes. Thus, magic items have to be treated as an equal aspect of magical and mundane classes. Feat-wise, as mentioned, martial characters are at a disadvantage as feat chains tend to be a bit too large, while spellcasters don't tend to suffer that. Thus, the main point of distinction is between the class features of both kinds of classes, and in that regard, the spellcaster usually, if not always, wins. Focus on the Barbarian's Rage Powers, or the Rogue's Talents; they were ways to allow the "mundane" classes to distinguish, and they can't reach the flexibility of spellcasting, despite the nerf of certain spells. To use your example: the Force can do things that technology cannot; what can technology do that the Force cannot? Judging by how ridiculous the Force can end up being, not even intergalactic travel is a hassle.

And as for teamwork...well, note that a good story has every member assume protagonism, and that is achieved by naturally presenting situations where the characters' attributes and skills shine. In that aspect, the divide between mundane and magical is more evident, because the attributes, skills, powers and abilities of spellcasters can solve multiple situations that mundane characters cannot, or require specialization to achieve. I mean, the whole goal of the 3.5's "God" Wizard wasn't to make everyone redundant, but to make everyone shine, and that is STILL perceived as a problem because it makes challenges difficult (if not highly improbable) when the Wizard isn't around. Aid Another can only help so far. When the Wizard's presence overcomes those challenges, then the other characters lose some of their protagonism; thus, why sometimes the Wizard/powerful character has to hold back.

Certainly, a mundane character will end up having limits. However, once those limits are reached, it's inevitable that you'll end up having to tap into the supernatural one way or another. 3.5 tried at the very least (Incarnum, Soulbinding), and Pathfinder is mostly trying now on its own (if Occult Adventures is any indication, and most of them are still mostly refluffed spellcasting formats), but none of them really managed to achieve that. 4e tried and did the wrong way. 5e also tried, and by all indications, also failed. Let's not mention Dragon (M)Age RPG, where Mages get all kinds of goodies AND magic items AND lots of new stunts while Warriors and Rogues only get a few new stunts at Set 2 (Set 3 adds nothing new to them), and Mages can use Combat, Exploration and Roleplaying Stunts. Doesn't make any of the systems less interesting, but the problem is still there. No system should be perfectly balanced, but at least give a semblance of balance in that regard; the exact way to deal with that balance is what will make fans of the system (or detractors).

The thing is, I already understand all this. (And yes, I did read it.) What I am not seeing is why I'm supposed to think it's a problem. Why is it a problem that rage powers can't compete with spells? Why is it a problem that the Force (in skilled enough hands) is more capable than most Star Wars tech? Why is it a problem that mundane has a ceiling that then requires the supernatural to exceed?

Or if you were just stating the way things are with no value judgment one way or another - then again I say, I know.

[T.G. Oskar]

A single feat makes you proficient; if full spellcasting were as easy to pick up, every commoner with two brain cells to rub together would do it.

Three feats or multiclassing (Armor Proficiency has three tiers). And multiclassing is assuming you took the training to learn that, so multiclassing is a moot point anyways.


My grandmother has in her pocket at this very moment a device that would have been beyond my imagination 10 years prior. She also has a Wii and a Facebook account. I have trouble picturing which "post-Milennial technology" you could possibly be referring to.

My mother still struggles when handling the same device your grandmother has, one that was of her own AND that was relatively simple. So does my aunt. So does my grandmother, who can't handle even non-smartphones. My mother is only recently trying to handle a tablet.

That's three examples to yours.


Fumble rules are a variant.

That point being?


The thing is, I already understand all this. (And yes, I did read it.) What I am not seeing is why I'm supposed to think it's a problem. Why is it a problem that rage powers can't compete with spells? Why is it a problem that the Force (in skilled enough hands) is more capable than most Star Wars tech? Why is it a problem that mundane has a ceiling that then requires the supernatural to exceed?

That designers don't understand this. You claim you understand this, and I don't debate you on that. If you were given the reigns of creating a new game system, would you keep that divide? In my case, the answer would be "no". Mostly because I want the people playing Achilles or Heracles to reach those levels of awesomeness without that much of a hassle. That is why I must state the point: i dont' have the problem of mundanes approach a ceiling, but I have the problem that people previously mundane can't cross into supernatural afterwards: that they must still remain mundane, while someone who was supernatural in the first place has no problems reaching a ceiling that doesn't exist. To recognize that, after a point, there is no such thing as a mundane achieving what a supernatural can do, and thus to have the former mundane find its special place that allows it to achieve parity.

[Darkholme]

If Martial characters shouldn't have per encounter or per day limitations on their abilities, why do Barbarians get only a limited number of Rages (or rounds in Pathfinder) per day? Why is someone with the Stunning Fist Feat limited to only using it a few times each day? Are they not a part of 3.P?They are. Lots of people hate that they are, but they are. 4e just took that and expanded that completely, as well with adding "encounter" powers, which additional people have problems with.

[Extra Anchovies]

They are. Lots of people hate that they are, but they are. 4e just took that and expanded that completely, as well with adding "encounter" powers, which additional people have problems with.

Of course, most people seem to be completely fine with Tome of Battle :smallamused:

[georgie_leech]

I actually agree with you - those don't make sense either, except in the gamist sense of (a) not wanting a monk who spams stun attempts at every boss hoping for a 1 or (b) a barbarian who is angry all the time and thus whose physical ability scores might as well just be +4-8 higher than an equal level fighter or ranger.


I guess I don't see why it's superior design to have no special abilities as oppose to having abilities with limitations on use. Fighters gain a huge number of passive bonuses through feats (and class abilities in PF), but they otherwise can't actually do much that is unique to them. Yeah, a Fighter is better at it, but there's nothing stopping a Rogue, or a wizard, or heck, even a Commoner from attempting to Trip someone. Why is it a bad thing to give Fighters an ability that let's them draw on their heroic resolve to power through their wounds*? It may be gamist, but there's always going to be gamist elements in a game. That's kind of the point to playing a game instead of free-form roleplaying.

*HP's in D&D have always been a weirdly defined thing, where it's both actual injury and a strange combination of luck and skill to turn what would be lethal blows into glancing ones. 4E just took that and ran with it; if part of HP is luck and the ability to keep going in spite of injury, there's no reason that only magic can restore it.

[Psyren]

My mother still struggles when handling the same device your grandmother has, one that was of her own AND that was relatively simple. So does my aunt. So does my grandmother, who can't handle even non-smartphones. My mother is only recently trying to handle a tablet.

That's three examples to yours.

Fascinating, now shall we compare that to actual sorcery?


That point being?

That there is zero chance of "harming yourself" with any weapon in this game without them?



That designers don't understand this. You claim you understand this, and I don't debate you on that. If you were given the reigns of creating a new game system, would you keep that divide?

Of course. Not to the extent it currently exists, where rogues have to PrC to get thematic magical abilities they should be getting instinctively (Shadowdancer and Assassin) - but would I keep it so that only casters get things like Gate, Heal, Astral Projection and Shapechange? Absolutely and without reservation.

[Darkholme]

Of course, most people seem to be completely fine with Tome of Battle :smallamused:I'm also in the camp that dislikes ToB for the same reason. If I have limited uses of something each day, I'm a guy who wants an in-game explanation for that that doesn't make me say "That's retarded". Going back to rage, is it that I'm too exhausted? Nope, I still have access to all kinds of other x/day abilities I got from other sources.

I think X/time period abilities are bad game design in 90% of cases. I can put up with it in the case of magic, since well, the fluff is "when you cast a spell it erases it from your memory" for wizards; god only gave me 3 healing spells today for clerics; and "I only prepared X spells from nature today" for druids. What's up with bards and sorcerers? **** if I know; lazy game design.

But 3.X has other stuff I like, so I tolerate this badness. 4e, on the other hand, took the parts of 3e I hate and built an entire skirmish game around it, and yanked out all the stuff I liked. This was not a recipe for a game I would enjoy.

I've more than once considered a massive 3.X houserule that would replace all X/time period and disparate "points" mechanics with some manner of Ki pool or fatigue mechanic or something, but every time I change my mind because it would be such a colossal undertaking.


I guess I don't see why it's superior design to have no special abilities as oppose to having abilities with limitations on use. Fighters gain a huge number of passive bonuses through feats (and class abilities in PF), but they otherwise can't actually do much that is unique to them. Yeah, a Fighter is better at it, but there's nothing stopping a Rogue, or a wizard, or heck, even a Commoner from attempting to Trip someone. Why is it a bad thing to give Fighters an ability that let's them draw on their heroic resolve to power through their wounds*? It may be gamist, but there's always going to be gamist elements in a game. That's kind of the point to playing a game instead of free-form roleplaying.I'm cool with special abilities that you can't spam all the time as a concept (I agree, it's a good idea), it's the implementation I have a problem with.


*HP's in D&D have always been a weirdly defined thing, where it's both actual injury and a strange combination of luck and skill to turn what would be lethal blows into glancing ones. 4E just took that and ran with it; if part of HP is luck and the ability to keep going in spite of injury, there's no reason that only magic can restore it.Ah yes. The next biggest thing I dislike about D&D. I literally just ignore the "luck and skill" aspect of hp, because they make no sense – for instance how does my skill help me make blows less damaging when I'm unconscious or flat footed? How can I skillfully reduce injury while swimming through acid? In D&D you just get tougher and tougher, until arrows only scratch your skin and you can wade through a waist deep river of hydrochloric acid with minimal injury. Work out at the local dungeon–become superhuman. And I'm fine with that being how the game works out, so long as I want to play in a game where that's how the world works.

When I want to play in a fantasy game where you don't become supernaturally tough or magically forget how to use your talents until you go to sleep, I look for other games to play.

I'm starting to realize that the reason I'm so inclined to play some variation on D&D 3.x is that there isn't really an alternative to it that isn't also some variation on D&D 3.x, not because it's super well designed. I can't think of a single other "tolkienesque" fantasy game where you go from schmucks to demigods, let alone one where you have lots of support and player content like you do with D&D 3.x. I don't think one even exists. If you want to play something like D&D fantasy but with better rules, you're going to be looking at the dozens of D&D variants & houserules collections, not a different system entirely.

[The Random NPC]

Yeah? I agree regarding the nerfing of combat maneuver feats, but what is your dislike for the CMB/CMD mechanic? Having all of the combat maneuvers take the same roll seems a good idea to me, cuts down on the number of subsystems I need to remember.

There's like 3 different subsystems, and they're mostly the same regardless. Here I'll list them:
Bullrush: Opposed strength rolls
Disarm: Opposed attack rolls
Feint: Opposed Bluff/Sense Motive
Grapple: Touch attack followed by opposed grapple rolls
Overrun: Opposed strength rolls
Sunder: Opposed attack rolls
Trip: Touch attack followed by opposed strength rolls (defender may use dex instead)
Alright, so there's 5 different ones, but they're pretty obvious, so they're easy to remember. And grappling got even more confusing in PF, what with the system changing on the second round.

[Psyren]

How does grapple change on the second round in PF? It's still CMB vs. CMD, you simply also get to try EA as well - just like 3.5.

[The Random NPC]

How does grapple change on the second round in PF? It's still CMB vs. CMD, you simply also get to try EA as well - just like 3.5.

There are more options available, and some disappear. At least I think, there are two different flowcharts for whether you've been in charge of a grapple from the last round or not. Just took a look at it, seems I misremembered. It isn't that much more complex than 3.5, if it even is more complex. I probably got confused because of my unfamiliarity with the CMB/CMD systems. I do dislike how the numbers scale though. I remember once having a grappling contest, where neither character could establish a grapple against the other because our CMB was so much lower than our opponent's CMD.
Addendum: EA? I assume Escape Artist?

[Extra Anchovies]

Addendum: EA?

Me, of course.



He's referring to the Escape Artist skill.

[The Random NPC]

Me, of course.



He's referring to the Escape Artist skill.

Ah! That makes sense.

[Taveena]

Grappling's a Standard rather than an Attack, so you can only make one grapple attempt per turn. :/

[NeoSeraphi]

All this hate on Pathfinder PrCs...when Paizo gave us Huge-sized animal companions! (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/i-m/mammoth-rider) Finally, you can legitimately say you are riding a pet elephant or rhinoceros. And how about that Huge-sized wolf/tiger/lion? That's pretty amazing too.

Mammoth Rider also has really good class features for a primitive-style barbarian, like Born Survivor, Mistrust of Magic, Undaunted and Mammoth Lord. You really do feel like you're unbreakable when you play that class.

Edit: Oh right, what do I like better in 3.5? Well, I do admit that I miss Turn Undead feats. Like, seriously. All those Divine powered feats that actually made clerics feel useful and flavorful.

[T.G. Oskar]

All this hate on Pathfinder PrCs...when Paizo gave us Huge-sized animal companions! (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/i-m/mammoth-rider) Finally, you can legitimately say you are riding a pet elephant or rhinoceros. And how about that Huge-sized wolf/tiger/lion? That's pretty amazing too.

Hey, I said Gray Warden was a good PrC!

In any case: don't 3.5 Druids get Dinosaurs (Elasmosaurus and Tyrannosaurus), Elephants, Huge Vipers and Orcas already? Sure, they get it a little bit late, but it's not like a feat and a PrC can't get them up to shape...


Edit: Oh right, what do I like better in 3.5? Well, I do admit that I miss Turn Undead feats. Like, seriously. All those Divine powered feats that actually made clerics feel useful and flavorful.

Umm...Channeling Feats exist, if you miss them. But they're nowhere near as useful as Divine Feats, IMO, unless you choose the right deity.

[NeoSeraphi]

Hey, I said Gray Warden was a good PrC!

In any case: don't 3.5 Druids get Dinosaurs (Elasmosaurus and Tyrannosaurus), Elephants, Huge Vipers and Orcas already? Sure, they get it a little bit late, but it's not like a feat and a PrC can't get them up to shape...


Druids, sure. The Mammoth Rider is available to cavaliers, rangers, oracles, and barbarians as well. Screw spellcasting, this is a class for when I want to be a hulking goliath riding a hulking goliath and demolishing it! Also, +10 Str/+6 Con, +4 NA and 15' reach to your animal companion. That's no joke there.



Umm...Channeling Feats exist, if you miss them. But they're nowhere near as useful as Divine Feats, IMO, unless you choose the right deity.

All this stuff is...kind of good, I guess? It's not like Travel Domain or DMM though (obviously).

[aleucard]

The ridiculousness of encounter powers was only part of that. The bigger issue he has was, when you can heal yourself with a sword move instead of magical energy, there's no way to explain that not being repeatable that isn't arbitrary and video-gamey. (Also, just doing that was portrayed as being silly by itself, as highlighted in 4e Roy's nonsensical explanation of how the move worked.)

Or rather, it was about the ridiculousness of applying per-encounter or per-day resources to martial abilities as well as magical ones, when there is no universal law imposed on martial classes the way there is on magic classes in this game. There are no "spell slots" for fighters, no logic for Vancian of any kind. ToB came about as close to justifying that sort of thing as you can get, and even they have to balance their maneuvers around the fact that you can recover and repeat them all day long - which is why level X maneuvers are never able to be equivalent to level X spells, even there. And I am totally fine with that.



I'm 100% fine with martial classes getting supernatural abilities and even some SLAs over time. I've routinely said in these discussions that "Assassin" and "Shadowdancer" - rather than being PrCs - should just be free things high-level rogues get, perhaps even both at once.

What I don't agree with is that those powers should be equivalent to spells. Spells have all kinds of limitations that supernatural abilities and even SLAs don't. So while I am saying there should be a gap, I do think it's too wide at present. But there are archetypes addressing that problem even now.



Because anybody can wear armor. Anybody can use technology. Anybody can swing a pointy stick. Exclusivity, like it or not, is one of the things that makes magic feel special, and thus feel like magic. Harry Potter is special in part because the Dursleys can't ever learn what he does or understand his world. The tension from settings like Wheel of Time or Dragon Age arises from the fact that magic is essentially random - chaos made flesh, that the governments of those settings cannot control or predetermine. Not everyone can be a Jedi, and while the gap is much smaller in Star Wars due to the technology in that setting, there are still a number of things the Force can do that cannot be mimicked with tech.

You know, I think I know where the disconnect here is. You're advocating for significant difference between martials and casters so as to make them not interchangable like 4e did. I'm perfectly fine with that, and in fact support it for the same reason; however, the gap MUST be sideways only in order to be satisfying as a game (both cooperative and competitive), otherwise one overshadows the other. It IS at least theoretically possible to make the two balanced without making the two twins.

[Psyren]

Indeed - but I don't see how we can make it sideways except concerning more basic things like direct damage (which martials already win at.) Martial power simply can't have the same level of control or utility that magic has without breaking suspension of disbelief. Things like long-distance teleportation and flight (I'm okay with short), raising or reanimating the dead, rapidly healing the wounds and afflictions of others, summoning and binding extraplanar creatures, dominating and enslaving minds, long-range reconnaissance/scrying, and just about every illusion are things that I think should require magic. But once you put all those under magic's banner and not mundane's, the gap between what one can pull off and what the other can becomes vertical as well as horizontal.

[Darkholme]

Indeed - but I don't see how we can make it sideways except concerning more basic things like direct damage (which martials already win at.) Martial power simply can't have the same level of control or utility that magic has without breaking suspension of disbelief. Things like long-distance teleportation and flight (I'm okay with short), raising or reanimating the dead, rapidly healing the wounds and afflictions of others, summoning and binding extraplanar creatures, dominating and enslaving minds, long-range reconnaissance/scrying, and just about every illusion are things that I think should require magic. But once you put all those under magic's banner and not mundane's, the gap between what one can pull off and what the other can becomes vertical as well as horizontal. I would be fine with martials eventually stopping being mundane, honestly. They may not all start out that way, but eventually they all go at least as Gish as a Ranger or Paladin - then they can have enough magic that it makes sense for them to not suck.

Perhaps drop the noncasters entirely, and fill their niches with new classes or archetypes for classes that can keep up. Fighters would be Magi, Rangers, Paladins, Inquisitors, or Warpriests, possibly with a couple of archetypes to make them more fighter-y.

But yeah. To make Martials not suck so much:
1. Make everyone at least a half-caster, by some means or another.
2. You're done!

That way, if the fighter can heal himself, or do a long distance teleport that's fine. Give him abilities that fit his niche, and don't be concerned about the fact that they're magic. Give him some more skillpoints while you're at it. He's pathetic. Give the barbarian some amount of rudimentary magic as well. Make the rogue into bard and ranger archetypes (oh wait, they already did that. ;P)

[Psyren]

I'm fine with giving them magic too, but not the same degree of magic as a dedicated casting class gets. A "magical rogue" could slip through shadows, sure - perhaps even to other shadows miles away, or to the Plane of Shadow itself - but they shouldn't be able create life, or rain fire and acid upon a city, or just teleport anywhere they choose without those shadows to slip through, for example.

I could picture for instance an epic/mythic rogue chained with clear ice in a glass prison, kept floodlit from every angle to keep him from escaping, mocking his captors as they grill him every day to find out where he has stashed their priceless artifacts for later retrieval. And one day, a butterfly gets into the facility and perches on the outside of his crystalline cage, partially blocking one of the lights... and in that instant he's gone, leaving the chains to clatter on the floor and an enraged guard to restart the search.

Actually, Mythic solves a lot of the problem - just give the T5 martial classes free mythic ranks past level 10 or so.

[Darkholme]

Actually, Mythic solves a lot of the problem - just give the T5 martial classes free mythic ranks past level 10 or so.But the question at that point becomes... "How much mythic should they have at each level?"


I'm fine with giving them magic too, but not the same degree of magic as a dedicated casting class gets. A "magical rogue" could slip through shadows, sure - perhaps even to other shadows miles away, or to the Plane of Shadow itself - but they shouldn't be able create life, or rain fire and acid upon a city, or just teleport anywhere they choose without those shadows to slip through, for example.

I could picture for instance an epic/mythic rogue chained with clear ice in a glass prison, kept floodlit from every angle to keep him from escaping, mocking his captors as they grill him every day to find out where he has stashed their priceless artifacts for later retrieval. And one day, a butterfly gets into the facility and perches on the outside of his crystalline cage, partially blocking one of the lights... and in that instant he's gone, leaving the chains to clatter on the floor and an enraged guard to restart the search. Hmm. Sure; I could see that. But I think I could see a magical rogue doing more than that, and basically having arcane trickster baked in. Or, use Archaeologist, Sandman, or Urban Ranger, or one of the many Rogue Multiclass Archetypes (http://mcarchetype.wikispaces.com/New+Home+Page) that doesn't use Rogue as the base, but instead as the secondary. Just, you know, do away with the crappy mundane rogue.

Then do the same with the fighter. Consider also doing that with Monk, or just baking in some of the more effective monk Archetypes so they become the default rather than optionals. I might even go as far as to do the same with the Barbarian and Cavalier.they're pretty low tier 4 unless you're good at optimizing.

[Psyren]

But the question at that point becomes... "How much mythic should they have at each level?"

I would just start at adding 1 MR for every level past 10th and see where that lands them. If it's too powerful, scale it back to 1 for every 2 levels or something. The answer to this is more or less going to vary by campaign.


Hmm. Sure; I could see that. But I think I could see a magical rogue doing more than that, and basically having arcane trickster baked in. Or, use Archaeologist, Sandman, or Urban Ranger, or one of the many Rogue Multiclass Archetypes (http://mcarchetype.wikispaces.com/New+Home+Page) that doesn't use Rogue as the base, but instead as the secondary. Just, you know, do away with the crappy mundane rogue.

While you could potentially have a spellcasting rogue, I would use Chameleon as the benchmark there for what it could do. For folks who want full spellcasting and rogue-ishness, well, that's what AT is for. I would also make the divine magic a bit tougher to get as they are supposed to be charlatans.



Then do the same with the fighter. Consider also doing that with Monk, or just baking in some of the more effective monk Archetypes so they become the default rather than optionals. I might even go as far as to do the same with the Barbarian and Cavalier.they're pretty low tier 4 unless you're good at optimizing.

Yeah I would say that things like Qinggong and Master of Many Styles should be baseline for monk without having to trade anything. Multiple styles should just be a Monk and Brawler thing, and ki powers should be a monk thing.

[Thiyr]

I'm fine with giving them magic too, but not the same degree of magic as a dedicated casting class gets. A "magical rogue" could slip through shadows, sure - perhaps even to other shadows miles away, or to the Plane of Shadow itself - but they shouldn't be able create life, or rain fire and acid upon a city, or just teleport anywhere they choose without those shadows to slip through, for example.

So that bolded part reminded me of something. Creating new life, probably not, but I'd be down with a rogue resurrecting people. Bear with me for a second. Going with "high level rogue as master thief" as a starting point, they steal what should be untouchable. Now, as they rise in power, slipping into the shadows, that's nifty. Get them up to really high levels, though, I say give them the ability to steal things that have no right being stolen. Say, stealing the heat from a flame before it can burn you. Stealing the death from a corpse, thus returning it to life. Or even so far as to steal the essence of nothingness from something, bringing it to existence out of nowhere (http://www.mspaintadventures.com/?s=6&p=008193). At that point, suddenly the rogue gets a major boost in the things it can do as a "mundane", even beyond the typical "sneak-n-stab" you'd normally be stuck with. Give me a bit of time and I'm sure I could come up with similar for the fighty-types as well, though it'd take a bit more work (though I'm already considering things like dimensional travel. Cutting through dimensions, similar to The Subtle Knife. While technically magic I'm thinking the visuals from the Dresden Files, as well).

[Psyren]

Ugh, just no. I can't get behind that level of abstraction at all. Where does it end? "I created a new sun by stealing the darkness!" "I duplicated time stop by stealing extra time I wouldn't need 50 years from now." "I made myself immortal by stealing myself from death's clutches." I ended the Blood War by hiding the concept of Conflict where neither the demons nor devils could find it." Count me out.

[Extra Anchovies]

Ugh, just no. I can't get behind that level of abstraction at all. Where does it end? "I created a new sun by stealing the darkness!" "I duplicated time stop by stealing extra time I wouldn't need 50 years from now." "I made myself immortal by stealing myself from death's clutches." I ended the Blood War by hiding the concept of Conflict where neither the demons nor devils could find it." Count me out.

Agreed. Anyone who does that sort of thing is a caster refluffed as a mundane, not the other way around.

[Sith_Happens]

The Giant himself lambasted 4e on this point, so it isn't just me, I assure you. SS&DT:

You should read the preface to that story some time. You know, the one where Rich explains that the only reason SS&DT comes across as harsh on 4e is because he'd already taken all the good shots at 3.5 and didn't want to rehash them.


I'm fine with giving them magic too, but not the same degree of magic as a dedicated casting class gets. A "magical rogue" could slip through shadows, sure - perhaps even to other shadows miles away, or to the Plane of Shadow itself - but they shouldn't be able create life, or rain fire and acid upon a city, or just teleport anywhere they choose without those shadows to slip through, for example.

Not even by boinking each other?:smalltongue:

[Thiyr]

Ugh, just no. I can't get behind that level of abstraction at all. Where does it end? "I created a new sun by stealing the darkness!" "I duplicated time stop by stealing extra time I wouldn't need 50 years from now." "I made myself immortal by stealing myself from death's clutches." I ended the Blood War by hiding the concept of Conflict where neither the demons nor devils could find it." Count me out.

Of course it doesn't have an end. That's not the limit, though. The limit is if you're actually -good enough- at stealing things to do that, which can be represented by level limits. stealing the heat from a fireball is a higher extension of evasion. Give death-stealing as a capstone (because gods know the rogues need one). I actually like the time stop idea as well, as an alternate capstone. The rest of that? That's the realm of epic levels, where it's going up against epic magic.


Agreed. Anyone who does that sort of thing is a caster refluffed as a mundane, not the other way around.

In the sense that they're going so far beyond what is normally capable in the real world, yea, sure it's magic. But if this sort of thing only really starts picking up steam around the level 15-20 range, maybe a touch lower? Why does it matter if you'd doing it via breakdancing with guano, superawesome brainpower, tying yourself together with blue souls, speaking the langauge of the universe really well, or by just being that good of a thief? So long as there's some kind of system in place for not just leaving it as pure fiat as to what you can accomplish, I'm fine with it. At that point, rogues are less broad compared to a caster, but in their niche they're better at what they do (via resource management, be it how often, not needing expensive components, etc.) And wouldn't that be the point in the first place, making "mundane" classes on that same level anyway? I mean, it's better than just "well, you've hit X level, let's just give you magic now" from a thematic perspective, at least imo.

[Psyren]

Why does it matter if you'd doing it via breakdancing with guano, superawesome brainpower, tying yourself together with blue souls, speaking the langauge of the universe really well, or by just being that good of a thief?

Because there are believable rules to govern all the others besides the last one. There is no god of thieves denying you access to the Thief-Weave because you're breaking the universal Laws of Stealing. There is no Law of Thief Sequence to stop you from stealing time from your future self thrice in a row. There are no Thief Points (TP) that limit how often you can steal the heat from a fireball per day, and monsters don't have a Thief Resistance stat to stop you from stealing the breath from their lungs. And any attempt to create limits like that is even more farcical than the abilities themselves.

I'm sorry, but nothing you say could ever get me to take such a proposal seriously.


You should read the preface to that story some time. You know, the one where Rich explains that the only reason SS&DT comes across as harsh on 4e is because he'd already taken all the good shots at 3.5 and didn't want to rehash them.

And that invalidates the shots he took at 4e how? I never said he preferred one edition over the other, you know (though he did, in the same preface you're saying I should have read) just that he raised valid points in critiquing 4e specifically.

[Thiyr]

Because there are believable rules to govern all the others besides the last one. There is no god of thieves denying you access to the Thief-Weave because you're breaking the universal Laws of Stealing. There is no Law of Thief Sequence to stop you from stealing time from your future self thrice in a row. There are no Thief Points (TP) that limit how often you can steal the heat from a fireball per day, and monsters don't have a Thief Resistance stat to stop you from stealing the breath from their lungs. And any attempt to create limits like that is even more farcical than the abilities themselves.

Of course there isn't, because this is a concept, not a fully fledged system yet. That'd be like someone saying "oh, cars will never catch on, they're too big for our footpaths. And how would we get fuel for them? We don't have the infrastructure, it'll never work." That's sillier than anything I've posed, expecting something to be fully fleshed out at the very start of an idea.

Still, you want a mechanical limiter that makes sense? Sure, easy peasy. Doing this stuff is hard. It takes skill, and more importantly, focus. Picking someone's pocket takes a low amount of skill and focus, and it can be done repeatedly, no problem. Taking the heat out of something? Takes a bit more effort, but it's still talking about physical changes. low-to-moderate focus cost (because it's so immediate), but a decently high skill requirement, so push it up to ~level 13+, when wizards are getting 7th level spells. Stealing death? High skill req (20th level), AND a high focus cost. leaves you fairly drained. Stealing time? Again, high skill, req, and focus depends on how much you're trying to take, focus costs growing with what you're spending. Base focus on a reasonable stat (I'd say wisdom, thief's intuition), recover at a rate of 1/hour during non-strenuous activity, fully recover with a full night's rest (perhaps increase recovery with a feat or optional class feature), maybe introduce a scaling increase in cost for each individual time something is used during an encounter (because you start thinking about it too much. Like when you use a word too much and it seems like its spelling is wrong) and you're good. Basically a tweaked inspiration point system cribbed off the factotum, with the law of resistance added in. No need for an external mediator to govern you when people have limits already. Need some kind of way to resist somebody trying to steal your breath (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/steal-breath)? Oh gee I wish we had a mechanic that could do that. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#savingThrows). Seriously, not that hard.


I'm sorry, but nothing you say could ever get me to take such a proposal seriously.

Which kinda disappoints me, but oh well. I just don't see why breakdancing to alter reality is any less preposterous than interacting with the metaphysical concept of death.

[The Random NPC]

Stealing the death from a corpse, thus returning it to life.

Nah, stealing the soul from Death makes way more sense. But I agree with Psyren, there needs to be some limits, and they need to make sense.

[Darkholme]

Which kinda disappoints me, but oh well. I just don't see why breakdancing to alter reality is any less preposterous than interacting with the metaphysical concept of death.One of those ideas sounds like something I'd be cool with in my fantasy RPG. The other is liable to make me give the GM who introduced it a stern expression and raised eyebrow - and if he proved to be serious rather than making a bad joke, protest, and failing that, find a new GM.

This sort of weird "magically silly whimsical munchkin extension of mundane abilities" is very much something I will just go ahead and say "No Thanks" to.

I like the idea of my Rogues & Fighters having magic. It would be a significant step forward in closing the gap in making them feel able to contribute so they don't get sad whenever the wizard does something cool. That said, I'd much rather give them proper magic, and just give them spells that suit the things they do.

[Psyren]

Of course there isn't, because this is a concept, not a fully fledged system yet. That'd be like someone saying "oh, cars will never catch on, they're too big for our footpaths.

Actually, it's more like saying "submarines made of bread will never catch on, because some things just don't work."

I'm sure there are some folks that do like the extreme abstraction approach to "mundane magic" and I wish you the best in designing a game you all can enjoy together.

[aleucard]

Indeed - but I don't see how we can make it sideways except concerning more basic things like direct damage (which martials already win at.) Martial power simply can't have the same level of control or utility that magic has without breaking suspension of disbelief. Things like long-distance teleportation and flight (I'm okay with short), raising or reanimating the dead, rapidly healing the wounds and afflictions of others, summoning and binding extraplanar creatures, dominating and enslaving minds, long-range reconnaissance/scrying, and just about every illusion are things that I think should require magic. But once you put all those under magic's banner and not mundane's, the gap between what one can pull off and what the other can becomes vertical as well as horizontal.

There are workarounds that CAN work. Yeah, a lot of them will look like more permanent versions of magic items/spells, but since everyone's running off of the same gas anyway, that don't mean as much. For instance, a Rogue getting something increasingly similar to the HP-verse Cloak of Death (read: Darkstalker on increasingly powerful meds) around level 5 or so, or a Barbarian beginning to get the kind of frontal force that reminds one of that comic a LONG-assed time ago where someone was stupid enough to think sticking the Juggernaut in a dimensional prison would work, or a Monk getting the kind of reflexes (defensive and offensive) that reminds one of the God-mode commonly referred to as the Sharingan, or any number of odd little things can be done when done by a person fueled by the energy that, when used actively and in equal amounts, plucks at the fabric of reality like Buckethead does at his guitars.

I remember going into a similar rant on the possibilities behind a Bow-using Ranger a while back. Gimme a bit to try and find the link.

EDIT: Found it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18160254&postcount=20)

EDIT The Second: I think I have a better way of putting it, if you'll accept the fluff. Casters of nearly all stripes (with obvious exceptions for the gishes) put forth the vast majority of their energies towards changing the fabric of reality around them, which leaves remarkably little left to do more than make sure they don't get pasted by an errant cough as what normally happens to a Commoner in such fights. Martials, on the other hand, both don't have that extra expenditure for the most part and, by virtue of being the same level, have just as much juice to work with. Where does that energy have to go but inward?

[Darkholme]

Hmm.

Okay. I'm sort of liking where this idea is going.

So, say I were to redo all the non-casters to have something akin to a ki-pool (even if it's called something else so it can't be combined with monk stuff). They are learn abilities built on this ki pool, and some abilities that are not limited by it but instead some other way (x/day, cooldowns, roll to activate, whatever).

What kinds of abilities would you give to the martials that you think would make them more capable of keeping up with casters? (you'd need lots of them)? Throw out any ideas you think would be good. Ideally, provide links or descriptions if you're referencing something, in case we're not familiar with the source material.

[aleucard]

One idea for more generalized boosts would be to have all martials get a special type of bonus feat that can only be filled with things that would change the game like this. Different categories for different archetypes, and you can only get a feat if that class counts as it. Things like (at least a fraction of) BAB to AC for a tank, or what amounts to parkour for a speed-type, or ranged combat maneuvers for a projectile/thrown weapon specialist. Make a couple that each scale off of different things to appeal to both the people who want to stick to one class and want to multiclass (the BAB to AC thing, for example, would appeal to anyone with an interest in keeping it high, while making the RCM one only progress on the original base and certain prestige classes would be sensible). In effect, I can see it working out to looking like a more specialized version of Mythic progression.

The best idea I have for doing it that doesn't rip off existing material is just completely rewriting the classes for a higher level, though. And that'll be even more of a pain in the @#%.

[Darkholme]

The best idea I have for doing it that doesn't rip off existing material is just completely rewriting the classes for a higher level, though. And that'll be even more of a pain in the @#%.Yeah, I hear you.

I decided a while ago that I'm not all that interested in baseline Pathfinder anymore, and in my free time I've been just working on a new corebook where I started with the SRD, and then started replacing things with my (already rather extensive) houserules. (I think that once your houserules are significant enough, you may as well just replace the goddamn book).

I was looking at some tier lists, and I generally agree with Power's Tier List. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=11990.0). For my own purposes I'm thinking of leaving tiers 1,2,3 as is, bumping the tier 4's up to tier 3, and dropping all of the tier 5 & 6 classes (until such a point as I replace them with tier 3 options).

Admittedly, my end result will likely look a hell of a lot different than stock Pathfinder does, but it should still be compatible with any Pathfinder material I might want to use (modules, bestiaries, setting books, and theoretically any pathfinder character options as well). We'll see what I do with it when I'm done; maybe I'll have something worth selling, or at least sharing; and maybe I'll just have improved my home games.

[ericgrau]

Like a lot of Pathfinder changes it's let down in the execution rather than the idea. Most monsters that focus on fighting have significantly more Hit Dice than Challenge Rating, making for a high Base Attack Bonus. Couple that with the generally high base stats (especially Strength) that fighting monsters have and you get CMDs that rapidly get too high for combat maneuver-focused characters to have a chance of beating.
Not the CMDs I checked, and I checked several high level monsters. I found that trippers with basic optimization could do just fine even against huge creatures. I think the lower size bonus for giant monsters counterbalances the dual stat bonuses and in the end it's a wash compared to 3.5. In 3.5 you can also trip huge monsters with basic optimization btw, which was another surprise I found out at the same time. Get large size, the feat, str, etc. and it's pretty doable even in core.

I do like 3.5 better than PF, but CMB/CMD is something that I might want to port from PF to 3.5 rather than the reverse. It is simpler.

[Psyren]

EDIT: Found it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18160254&postcount=20)

PF does have called shots and ways to get ranged maneuvers and other things you wanted for your high-level archer.



EDIT The Second: I think I have a better way of putting it, if you'll accept the fluff. Casters of nearly all stripes (with obvious exceptions for the gishes) put forth the vast majority of their energies towards changing the fabric of reality around them, which leaves remarkably little left to do more than make sure they don't get pasted by an errant cough as what normally happens to a Commoner in such fights. Martials, on the other hand, both don't have that extra expenditure for the most part and, by virtue of being the same level, have just as much juice to work with. Where does that energy have to go but inward?

The issue is not that martials have less "juice" than casters - it's that their training is by necessity narrow and so they can focus their energy only in specific ways. Rogues are simply not trained for frontal assaults and barbarians are poor at subtlety - the instinctive powers a high level member of each camp would tap do not lend themselves to playing in the other's space. A sorcerer however can do either, simply because the forces that power him (e.g. dragons) can, but the price of that broader application is that they have a limited resource (i.e. spell slots.)

One thing I would consider bringing in from 5e to emphasize that is the removal of caster level scaling and bonus spells, and instead balancing spell power around the level of the slot you use to cast them. The end result would be that casters have to be much more careful with their spell use. I think casters get a little too much ammunition in PF - very few games I play in have more than two combats per session so it is very difficult for casters to run out even at low levels, yet that is exactly what the PHB/CRB expects to be happening.


Not the CMDs I checked, and I checked several high level monsters. I found that trippers with basic optimization could do just fine even against huge creatures. I think the lower size bonus for giant monsters counterbalances the dual stat bonuses and in the end it's a wash compared to 3.5. In 3.5 you can also trip huge monsters with basic optimization btw, which was another surprise I found out at the same time. Get large size, the feat, str, etc. and it's pretty doable even in core.

I do like 3.5 better than PF, but CMB/CMD is something that I might want to port from PF to 3.5 rather than the reverse. It is simpler.

Weapon enhancement bonus counts too (since trip is performed with your weapon) and that's another +5, as well as any other attack bonus that benefits your weapon - Weapon Focus, Weapon Training, flanking, favored enemy etc. It's very easy to build a decent tripper in PF, core or otherwise.

[Darkholme]

One thing I would consider bringing in from 5e to emphasize that is the removal of caster level scaling and bonus spells, and instead balancing spell power around the level of the slot you use to cast them. The end result would be that casters have to be much more careful with their spell use. I think casters get a little too much ammunition in PF - very few games I play in have more than two combats per session so it is very difficult for casters to run out even at low levels, yet that is exactly what the PHB/CRB expects to be happening.
The game is designed for 4 combats in a day of adventuring. Perhaps you should make a day take two sessions if your games are too short to allow for that.
Otherwise, if you're going to change up spellcasting per day, you should also be changing ki pools, grit pools, and all x/day abilities. Give them half as many, if you're only going to have half as many fights/twice as many rests.

[Psyren]

The game is designed for 4 combats in a day of adventuring. Perhaps you should make a day take two sessions if your games are too short to allow for that.

(It's less that the games are too short, than that the combats are too long.)

Our DM does that sometimes but it can result in extra bookkeeping too. For example, paper sheets can get pretty messy if you're constantly striking out and rewriting spells used vs. spells remaining, current/nonlethal damage, active buffs and ongoing conditions, remaining uses of nonspell abilities and the like, and online sheets are poor in general at tracking all these things too. It also means you have to end sessions mid-dungeon instead of back in town, which leads to those "where were we again?" moments when the group reconvenes days or weeks later. So that approach is not quite as simple as you make it sound.



Otherwise, if you're going to change up spellcasting per day, you should also be changing ki pools, grit pools, and all x/day abilities. Give them half as many, if you're only going to have half as many fights/twice as many rests.

Weren't you the one advocating for more parity with spellcasters? :smallwink::smalltongue:

Grit, ki, rage rounds, panache and the like are less of a concern to modify because they are typically on lower-tier classes anyway. If they really were a problem, fixing them is as easy as banning Extra Ki and similar feats, but they aren't. So I would personally only apply this change, if I was going to do it at all, to the true casting classes.

[aleucard]

PF does have called shots and ways to get ranged maneuvers and other things you wanted for your high-level archer.



The issue is not that martials have less "juice" than casters - it's that their training is by necessity narrow and so they can focus their energy only in specific ways. Rogues are simply not trained for frontal assaults and barbarians are poor at subtlety - the instinctive powers a high level member of each camp would tap do not lend themselves to playing in the other's space. A sorcerer however can do either, simply because the forces that power him (e.g. dragons) can, but the price of that broader application is that they have a limited resource (i.e. spell slots.)

One thing I would consider bringing in from 5e to emphasize that is the removal of caster level scaling and bonus spells, and instead balancing spell power around the level of the slot you use to cast them. The end result would be that casters have to be much more careful with their spell use. I think casters get a little too much ammunition in PF - very few games I play in have more than two combats per session so it is very difficult for casters to run out even at low levels, yet that is exactly what the PHB/CRB expects to be happening.



Weapon enhancement bonus counts too (since trip is performed with your weapon) and that's another +5, as well as any other attack bonus that benefits your weapon - Weapon Focus, Weapon Training, flanking, favored enemy etc. It's very easy to build a decent tripper in PF, core or otherwise.


Possibly, but not strong enough, and casters got a comparable boost anyway, so all that it's doing there is making sure the gap doesn't become even wider. A lot of this crap should be by default, anyway (Power Attack, for instance, at least to a basic level).

Way I see it, the issue's not quite that they don't have enough versatility, but that their level of skill in their field is so easily replicated with a few spells at most. Fly equals Move Silently: Infinite ranks, for instance. Some of this could be fixed by tweaking the spells, but raising the martial's floor will be a Hell of a lot easier and do a better job, anyway. Buffs should be most useful for allowing those who aren't specialists to not be useless in those fields, not replace the specialists. If a Summon Monster and 1-2 extra spells can do the job of the party Fighter, Rogue, or anyone else, then the problem's not just with the caster.

I personally think a modified spell system where certain spells cost more than others of their same level and can be modified based on CL (with a few, mostly the blaster spells, either getting stronger for the same expenditure, allowing the same level to be cheaper, or both), but the really big stuff needs comparatively high energy expenditure to do would be best. If you want to be able to use a helpful and level-appropriate Summon in a fight, you should be ready to blow at least a tenth of your entire spell pool to do so. It would give decent reason behind keeping Evocation, at least (namely, since they're likely to be one of the cheaper schools, you'll always be able to do something relevant without having to rely on reserve feats).

[Darkholme]

(It's less that the games are too short, than that the combats are too long.) I can understand that. In an 8 hour session, 4 combats can often mean 2.5 - 4 hours of combat.

Something you could consider doing, which I've seen 4e GMs do to speed things up, you could cut enemy HP in half, but double their DPR (not necessarily the maximum DPR, but the average DPR).


Our DM does that sometimes but it can result in extra bookkeeping too. For example, paper sheets can get pretty messy if you're constantly striking out and rewriting spells used vs. spells remaining, current/nonlethal damage, active buffs and ongoing conditions, remaining uses of nonspell abilities and the like, and online sheets are poor in general at tracking all these things too. It also means you have to end sessions mid-dungeon instead of back in town, which leads to those "where were we again?" moments when the group reconvenes days or weeks later. So that approach is not quite as simple as you make it sound.Ah, yeah, I can see that. We all use custom sheets on google docs, which we're typically updating as we play (though there are one or two guys who print it out, pencil stuff in, and then update the online sheet after game).


Weren't you the one advocating for more parity with spellcasters? :smallwink::smalltongue:

Grit, ki, rage rounds, panache and the like are less of a concern to modify because they are typically on lower-tier classes anyway. If they really were a problem, fixing them is as easy as banning Extra Ki and similar feats, but they aren't. So I would personally only apply this change, if I was going to do it at all, to the true casting classes.

Hmm. I am not sure just how much of a nerf exactly that would be, if you specifically target spellcasters. Not to mention, targetting the Ranger and Paladin seems a bad idea; as they're also under the ideal power-floor.