Should I switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

T.G. Oskar

2014-11-22, 07:41 PM

There is very little anymore that you can find in 3.5 that hasn't been ported and improved to PF. You can do ToB, Incarnam, Binders, etc in PF now and the balance is awesome.

Note that all of those are 3rd-party developments, which may cause some problems with Organized Play, but otherwise they're free (and yes, they're well developed; I fully trust on Dreamscarred Press).

That said, OP: don't ask if one system is better than the other. IMO, Pathfinder is no less and no more balanced than 3.5, and it's quickly approaching the same level of bloat that some of 3.5's detractors were claiming. There is certainly good content (the new classes) and positively broken stuff (Dazing Assault, the armor enchantments), but there's also a lot of bad stuff (certain feats like the Improved [Combat Maneuver] and Power Attack feats [more accurate, but you can't approach the damage that you did before]), stuff that's horribly broken (Sacred Geometry) and stuff that doesn't work (some feats)...much like 3.5. Indeed, Pathfinder is being currently developed while 3.5 no longer does (as WotC is heavily developing 5e), but that doesn't mean a lot.

If you're comfortable with 3.5, keep playing it. If you find that you've applied a lot of content from Pathfinder into your 3.5 game, then switch. The idea is to focus on one set of rules (which are very similar, but differ at key aspects) and then port from the other system what you find important or useful. Certain things in 3.5 break when ported to Pathfinder and viceversa, so as a DM you need to adapt any transition (as you've most likely done, since you mentioned that you're porting content already) so that it adapts to the used setting. Rather than look which system is better, go with what you know and what you feel is easier, then take from the other system what you like the most.

Psyren

2014-11-22, 08:09 PM

Why not both? The game was designed to be compatible so... just do that. Pick and choose the things you like from both editions.

JusticeZero

2014-11-22, 08:12 PM

OP already is, but at a certain point, you are spending more time backporting than is justifiable, and should really just consider switching and front porting the few things you didn't back port instead.

Zalphon

2014-11-22, 08:16 PM

I much prefer Pathfinder, personally. It fixes a lot of 3.5e's flaws.

Coidzor

2014-11-22, 08:19 PM

I don't know why you'd build your books into a bonfire and then dance around it, but, hey, it's your saturday night.

Though, really, if you've been playing this long you'll probably be happiest using your own set of houserules and adding in material as it catches your eye rather than axing the rules you like and then taking Pathfinder's ruleset in its entirety with both its improvements and... anti-improvements... upon the base rules set they got from the SRD.

OP already is, but at a certain point, you are spending more time backporting than is justifiable, and should really just consider switching and front porting the few things you didn't back port instead.

Other than either adding CMD/CMB or filing it off, nothing really immediately jumps out at me here, so would you please elaborate a bit on what you're thinking about here?

Extra Anchovies

2014-11-22, 08:20 PM

Pathfinder, front-porting from 3.5 is better than 3.5, back-porting from Pathfinder. Why? Because most of the ways in which Pathfinder is worse is in its feats, and most of the ways that Pathfinder is better is in its base classes. Sure, the PrCs are kinda crap (Mammoth Rider and Winter Witch excepted), but archetypes let you make characters that are fairly customized and fill their intended niche from the early levels rather than waiting 5-6 levels before PrCing.

Coidzor

2014-11-22, 08:25 PM

The even bigger question is how big of a learning curve is there? I've got a decent amount of system mastery, but most of my players are still new to 3.5, and are just getting a handle on this kind of gaming in general. I'm worried they'd get information overload or just not like it.

In my experience, new players have it the easiest, because the main difficulty with pathfinder is where it's similar to but subtly different from 3.5 so you'll find yourself accidentally using your own houserules from 3.5 or 3.5 rules instead of the Pathfinder rules here and there and that can lead to occasional wonkiness.

jaydubs

2014-11-22, 08:26 PM

Pathfinder is easier to pick up for new players than 3.5. Many rules and systems are simplified (skills, or instance). The fact that most of the material is available online, legally, for free, is a big bonus. From a DMing perspective, it's also easier to set limitations on materials without being to limiting. When I DM Pathfinder, I just say "everything first party is allowed, except X, Y, and Z" (with X, Y, and Z being a small handful of archetypes).

That said, 3.5 veterans switching over to PF will find certain aspects restrictive. Specifically: single classing is generally preferable to multiclassing in PF, there is less total material available, and PF games generally have higher floors and lower ceilings in terms of power. For experienced 3.5 players who take a lot of satisfaction from build experimentation, 3.5 definitely offers more options.

I'd scale it like this, with the left being more crunchy mechanically speaking and the right being more simplified.

Crunchy - 3.5 - PF - - 5th edition - - Dungeon World - Casual

Which system is better for you depends largely on where you and your players fall on that spectrum.

Deadkitten

2014-11-22, 08:41 PM

Don't get me wrong, I love 3.5, but I have found out that I keep leaning more and more toward pathfinder as the days pass.

One of the main draws of pathfinder is the fact that it is "evolving", in the sense that it is coming out with new content while 3.5 remains stagnant. While it really comes down to the fact that it is merely a psychological placebo effect for me, I enjoy the fact that there is more coming from pathfinder.

That and the PFSRD is one of the most convenient things in the world to use,which plays a lot into my preference to be honest.
Especially since 3.5 recently had a unfortunate loss in that department.

Optimator

2014-11-22, 08:48 PM

Importing PF stuff into 3.5 is the superior option. PF is a bunch of house-rules anyway.

Psyren

2014-11-22, 09:23 PM

That said, 3.5 veterans switching over to PF will find certain aspects restrictive. Specifically: single classing is generally preferable to multiclassing in PF, there is less total material available, and PF games generally have higher floors and lower ceilings in terms of power.

Feature not bug, rapidly becoming less so, and feature not bug.

georgie_leech

2014-11-22, 09:41 PM

Feature not bug, rapidly becoming less so, and feature not bug.

He wasn't saying these are negatives, just differences that may trip up someone new to Pathfinder after being a 3.5 veteran. Deliberately different design choices are kind of important to note, after all.

Taveena

2014-11-22, 10:09 PM

I play 3.PF. It's... mostly PF, but we use 3.5e's Improved [COMBAT MANEUVER] and pretty much everything else. We've ported over /immense/ amounts of 3.5e's stuff, but... it's honestly about 50/50.

Still, I personally find it easier to turn 3.5e things into Pathfinder things than the other way round. So, yeah, my recommendation is to play Pathfinder and convert 3.5e things to that.

And for god's sake, use the 3.5e versions of the Combat Maneuvers, even if you're using the CMB/CMD system. That melee nerf was totally unnecessary.

Psyren

2014-11-22, 10:23 PM

He wasn't saying these are negatives, just differences that may trip up someone new to Pathfinder after being a 3.5 veteran. Deliberately different design choices are kind of important to note, after all.

I know, I was just emphasizing the "deliberate."

Theomniadept

2014-11-22, 10:26 PM

I can only argue to stay with 3.5.

Pathfinder looks better, and in all honesty you really should import the skill system and possibly feat progression. But plain ol' Pathfinder has only base classes and their OP archetypes. Player variation is much more minimal since prestige classes kinda blow.

The strongest reason to stay 3.5? With 3.5 you have some good non-magical character options. Pathfinder kills all that. The 'gatling chain tripper' is nerfed to hell and back - ignoring the completely logical decision to remove the reach of the spiked chain (yeah I can fluidly control 25 feet of limp links) the Improved Trip feat no longer grants free attacks on trips, meaning you gotta eat up that DEX score so you get more out of Combat Reflexes and thus become more MAD. Not to mention CMD is powered off TWO ability scores meaning that intelligent fighting (disarm, trip, bull-rush, push, etc.) is now worse than derpderp swingsword.

Not that it matters because ranged is OP. Clustered Shot means that archers (and if you're dumb enough to allow them, Gunslingers) deal with DR once. Just once. Meanwhile with melee losing access to all 3.5 feats they now have to soak up full DR on every hit, meaning that superior range and superior damage go hand in hand.

Plus, they completely killed grappling to where it's not even a halfway decent option anymore.

They decided to go the 'We're totally different' route and refused to port most of 3.5 to Pathfinder so enjoy counting your rations for 20 levels, no you can't have any magic items that do that because that would eliminate bookkeeping. Also bards got the nerfbat in that they can't use Inspire Competence on take-20 checks anymore. Bard and Barbarians now measure their singing and raging in rounds per day so you get a nice little bit of bookkeeping in your daily chores.

Magic got....not nerfed, but selectively nerfed. Black Tentacles sucks now thanks to CMD, but equal leveled Solid Fog and Summon Monster weren't touched. So you still have broken OP Wizards...but with less options meaning less diversity meaning more of the same stuff over and over. At least 3.5 broken wizards can be extremely unique in their game-breaking. Clerics got the nerf and now instead of using Turn Undead for stuff like DMM Persistent buffs or Law Devotion + Divine Power + Righteous Might full attacks, they get....channel energy. Woo. You have a small reserve of burst heals. Evil clerics get the shaft because goodbye Rebuke, hello crapd6 per 2 levels of undead-only healing (No, Tomb-Tainted Soul did not get into PF).

But, it has done some cool stuff. I really like Summoner, Oracle, Witch, and Alchemist. If I run another game I'm taking those classes, the skill system, and the feat progression and tossing the rest of Pathfinder into the garbage.

Venger

2014-11-22, 10:33 PM

well said. I enjoy those base classes too, and they'd be pretty fun in a 3.5 game.

Blackhawk748

2014-11-22, 11:08 PM

Well you can do 3.P. The most common form of which is to use the majority of 3.5 feats, with PFs Base Classes and 3.5s PrCs. Generally if they both have the same feat you just pick the better one, which is also what you do with rules. So grappling is back.

Optimator

2014-11-22, 11:14 PM

Stuff

Well put. I do like a lot of the archery options in PF and have duly ported them over. I wouldn't call the OP though. Archery needs the love!

Vva70

2014-11-23, 12:31 AM

From a learning curve standpoint, Pathfinder is far better. The base mechanics are smoother and more consistent, the base classes are fuller and more robust, and there are fewer "trap" options tempting new players into uselessness. For a group just learning the game, I would absolutely recommend Pathfinder.

For an experienced group with good system mastery, Pathfinder still offers some improvements, but they come at the cost of 3.5's vast library of options. Many of those options can be ported without much effort, but "not much effort" is not the same as "no effort." As some have said, Pathfinder's changes do more to restrict high-op mundanes than casters.

If I were running a group of new people, I would run Pathfinder. If I were running a group of 3.5 veterans, I'd probably still run Pathfinder for its base classes and core mechanics (CMB/CMD is much smoother than several different types of opposed rolls), but I would port a lot of 3.5.

T.G. Oskar

2014-11-23, 12:41 AM

I agree on porting the amount of feat slots, though not exactly ALL the feats (Improved [Combat Maneuver] being a clear example), so that everyone benefits. Skill-wise...not everything, particularly the change they did to Jump. I'd use 4e/5e skill grouping as an example: grouping Climb and Swim (and maybe Jump) into Athletics, remove Jump from Acrobatics, and the rest...well, being pretty similar to PF (Perception exists in both sides, and so does Acrobatics). I'd go for a feat list that went something like: Acrobatics (sans Jump; collapse Escape Artist), Animal Handling (i.e. Handle Animal), Appraise, Athletics (collapses Climb and Swim, probably Jump), Craft, Deception (replace Bluff, maybe tag Disguise alongside it), Diplomacy, Disable Device, Heal (probably working as Treat Injury from d20 Modern), Intimidation (like Intimidate, and specifically keep the demoralize option), Linguistics, Perception, Perform, Ride, Sense Motive (or should it be renamed Insight? I like the way 5e worked it), Stealth, Survival. Of the missing skills, the Knowledge skills would be divided into Arcana (which would work like Spellcraft for arcane spells), Dungeoneering, Geography, History (maybe collapsing Nobility and Royalty as well), Local and Religion; meanwhile, Profession would be best set as a background/occupation thing. Maybe also take the passive skill thing from 4e/5e.

I wouldn't agree on using some of the classes as-is, though. The shift of Bardic Music into rounds is just plain murder, whereas a per-day based resource worked fine (just increase the uses at 1st level based on your Charisma modifier). Likewise, if using Divine feats, the Paladin suffers immensely since they have to spend 2 uses of Lay on Hands to get what they already had, unless they go Hospitaler. Finally, some of the things full spellcasters got are kinda whack, particularly the Wizard arcane school class features, if the spells remain as-is (not willing to justify why 5e Wizard got class features and spells, when some are kinda unfair; Signature Spell comes to mind).

If anything, though, I'd DEFINITELY mix the Weapon and Armor/Shield special qualities from both games. Pathfinder weapon qualities are really boring, while 3.5 armor qualities are likewise boring - much fun is to be had with a Paladin wielding a +1 metalline holy grayflame everbright falcata of mighty smiting and stunning surge alongside a +1 clangorous blueshine heavy steel shield of greater healing and determination while wearing a +1 greater blurring adhesive righteous valiant titanic blueshine hellknight plate of greater healing and determination. Likewise, the wondrous items of both games combined can be pretty tasty, particularly if using the MIC rules for stacking item features and specifically the common enchantments added to items.

Snowbluff

2014-11-23, 01:19 AM

Not that it matters because ranged is OP. Clustered Shot means that archers (and if you're dumb enough to allow them, Gunslingers) deal with DR once. Just once.

Okay, 3.5 is better, but this feat would be crap in either edition. Archers can choose matieral type on a whim by buying alternate arrows. If someone can't manage to get around DR as an archer, they have made a significant error at the most basic level of play. :smallannoyed:

SiuiS

2014-11-23, 01:21 AM

A solid question with a subjective answer. I don't like pathfinder; it's a working system that does things on purpose I don't like and am not looking for. 3e is easier to tweak into the form I want.

Your own answer, in the end, will be just as subjective. Have fun finding out though :)

Snowbluff

2014-11-23, 01:23 AM

If you end up stuck with PF, I will say the experience will be objectively more fun with Dreamscarredpress material by about 3 OQFU (objective quantifiable fun units).

mabriss lethe

2014-11-23, 01:34 AM

Coidzor

2014-11-23, 01:35 AM

Feature not bug, rapidly becoming less so, and feature not bug.

More of a mixed bag. Yes, the classes are now more worth staying in but it's still not able to handle several hybrid builds last I had looked into it, though I suppose the newest batch of hybrid classes probably helped with that.

Snowbluff

2014-11-23, 01:43 AM

More of a mixed bag. Yes, the classes are now more worth staying in but it's still not able to handle several hybrid builds last I had looked into it, though I suppose the newest batch of hybrid classes probably helped with that.

*wince*

What if I told you that old archetypes did a better job- DON'T HIT ME! :smalleek:

Coidzor

2014-11-23, 01:58 AM

*wince*

What if I told you that old archetypes did a better job- DON'T HIT ME! :smalleek:

Then I would be as disappointed as I was by several of SKR's lamentable retcons. That's a shame, really, especially since they were ostensibly put together to cover that niche.

I mean, sure, there's a bonus in PF in that there's enough archetypes to use as fodder for class features for putting together your own hybrid PrC since the base progressions you're twisting together are the core of any hybrid PrC anyway. But that's homebrew.

RoboEmperor

2014-11-23, 04:36 AM

Decide what you want to do with your character.
If you want to craft items, golems, etc. without using XP or knowing all the spells, pathfinder
If you use animate dead a lot, pathfinder
If you use stuff in arms and equipment guide, 3.5 because pathfinder doesn't have a lot of the stuff there.
If you want to use power armor and laser guns, pathfinder
If you want to try something new, pathfinder, they have classes that use guns and such
If you want to do a lot of PrC dipping, 3.5

And the list goes on. Figure out what YOU want to do, and pick the one that lets you do that more.

Petrocorus

2014-11-23, 10:22 AM

Small question from someone note really acquainted with PF, what are CMB / CMD?

Now a bigger question, do you think PF is more balanced than 3.5?

Psyren

2014-11-23, 10:31 AM

Small question from someone note really acquainted with PF, what are CMB / CMD?

Combat Maneuver Bonus and Combat Maneuver Defense represent PF's streamlined special attack (e.g. grapple, bull rush, trip) resolution method.

Now a bigger question, do you think PF is more balanced than 3.5?

Of course not. There's just no practical way to make a system fully compatible with 3.5 that doesn't maintain linear warriors and quadratic wizards in some way. Even ToB and PoW could bridge that gap only so far.

However, some key aspects were toned down, such as shapeshifting druids and wizards being able to dump their physical stats and still outfight the fighter.

Venger

2014-11-23, 10:32 AM

Small question from someone note really acquainted with PF, what are CMB / CMD?

Now a bigger question, do you think PF is more balanced than 3.5?

PF took all the "combat maneuvers" (trip, bullrush, disarm, overrun, grapple, etc) and replaced them with one set of numbers: the CMB (combat maneuver bonus) which is your "offense" and CMD (combat maneuver defense)

this is one thing that even most of the people who like PF agree was a bad idea.

monsters' CMDs are very high for a number of reasons: large size, lots of HD and thus BA, enormous str scores, etc.

it's also much harder to accrue bonuses to your CMB since they're fewer and further between, so some of the few nice things melee has, like trippers, are greatly depowered.

I do not because this is the general trend with a lot of melee/mundane options. this is indicative of the overall design philosophy. due to the PF feat progression (feat at every odd lvl plus whatever bonuses your class or archetype, which is like a sub lvl, may give) they made a lot of the fighter feat chains like (for example) whirlwind attack or imptrip several feats longer, so in order to max out a combat style, you might need to take five or six feats instead of just three or four.

for the most part, a corresponding change did not take place with caster feats. you still only need one feat for maximize, empower, enlarge, etc (or sacred geometry) and on top of that, you now have a ton more feats than you used to in 3.5, so you can juice yourself up even more, even if a number of good spells, feats, and prcs don't exist (but people often backport 3.5 content into PF games since it's lacking in certain options)

so the design philosophy serves to widen the gap between mundanes and casters further than 3.5

that said, I do agree with the assertions of other people thus far that some of their original base classes like witch or summoner seem decently balanced (around T3-T4) and I think you could have fun playing one in a not particularly challenging game straight from 1-20.

so some of the content's balanced, but the framework it's overlaid on is not any better balanced than 3.5 and in certain areas is much worse.

StreamOfTheSky

2014-11-23, 11:30 AM

3.5 is preferable to PF, and PF fixed almost none of the issues of 3E (nerfing the hell out of shape shifting abilities, making Paladin a decent class, and...that's about it) while creating many new issues. They nerfed good things for martials at every turn and gave new rewards to casters. Tripping, grappling, even bull rushing are all nerfed badly, and tumble is suicide now making it really tough to survive in melee as a rogue or monk.

"Class skill" is almost meaningless now (+3 bonus... "homogenous 4E" at least had a +5 gap) and nothing was given to rogue to compensate for losing his niche, and for an extra kick in the pants, everyone can find any trap and disable any non-magical trap plus detect magic is at will now and there's a trait to disable magical traps.

Monks had many of their key features nerfed: speed bonus is land-based only now (so later on when everyone is flying, it does nothing); you can't take Imp. Natural Attack despite monk's unarmed strike counting as a nat. weapon; flurry is now TWF and no longer lets you add 2ndary natural attacks to the end (but any other class going unarmed w/ actual TWF can still do so); the 6th level improved trip feat is meaningless since in PF you need greater trip to get the effect of 3E Imp. Trip so the monk still needs Int 13 and Expertise plus wait till level 9. Also, paizo even made a "brawling" armor enhancement that gives untyped +2 to unarmed attack/damage and grapples and it's super cheap at +1 cost. The problem? It's an armor enhancement (light armor only, specifically), and by RAW, Bracers of Armor is not "light armor." Paizo loves sticking it to the monk, even though it was already the worst class.

Casters on the other hand...oh my god... Wizards can cast their "banned" schools now at double cost (so use them on downtime) plus the double cost doesn't aply to wands/scrolls/etc... of banned spells plus they can "ban" divination now (most of those are downtime spells anyway). All their basic class features were added upon or buffed with way better options than melee. Depending what you want, you could have Su teleportation and extended summons at level 1, unlimited standard action single target sleep w/o HD caps at level 1, unlimited Su flight at level 5, etc... Paragon Surge spell lets Sorcerers and Oracles spontaneously cast from their entire spell lists (paizo supposedly fixed this, but iirc, some cheap magic item re-enables it). Cleric domain powers are much stronger with tons of great options like "roll 3d20 and pick the best for initiative 3+wis times per day." The Ring of Continuation brings the fun of Persistent Spell shenanigans to any caster and if you choose ring as your attunement item (instead of a familiar), you can even craft it for half the price. The new "Persistent Spell" of PF instead is +2 spell levels to force two saves vs. your spells. Which is one of many amazing new metamagic options like Dazing (if they fail the save vs. your spell, dazed for [spell level] rounds -- Reflex save or die? yes, please!). Concentration no longer costs skill points and just comes for free. Oh, and pretty much EVERY race boosts a mental stat now (but there's none that boost str/dex or str/con for martials).

If you do mix PF and 3E, I'd very strongly advise you to add PF material to the 3E rules system and not vice-versa, because it is the foundational rules of PF that will poison so many martial abilities (like the combat maneuver system). And that you be very very strict and selective in what PF caster stuff you allow in.

Knaight

2014-11-23, 08:57 PM

I generally slightly favor Pathfinder, but they are effectively the same game. Pathfinder gets called 3.75 for a reason, and I'd argue that 3.501 would be more accurate. It sounds like you are using material from both of them (classes, feats, etc.), so I'd argue to go with the slightly different Pathfinder chassis because of the skill system changes, but import 3.5 feats.

jaydubs

2014-11-23, 10:17 PM

"Class skill" is almost meaningless now (+3 bonus... "homogenous 4E" at least had a +5 gap) and nothing was given to rogue to compensate for losing his niche, and for an extra kick in the pants, everyone can find any trap and disable any non-magical trap plus detect magic is at will now and there's a trait to disable magical traps.

I personally love this change. I always hated the "play X class to be decent at Y skill" part of 3.5, and PF fixed that for me.

Did the rogue get a bit screwed? *shrug* Maybe, but it's worth it in my mind. Being able to play a talky fighter, a sorcerer that can ride horses, a bard that can climb walls, etc. are pluses in my mind. And I always found the trapfinding niche protection to be annoying.

Rogue is getting an overhaul in Pathfinder Unchained anyway.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2014-11-23, 11:13 PM

I'll throw my hat into the 3.P crowd. The TL;DR version is, if you're going to play a game whose main strength is options, use the damn options!

IMO, there are two main reasons to play this edition of D&D, which includes PF and 3.5, as opposed to other D&D-like systems: Inertia and content.

As far as inertia is concerned, you're probably better off sticking with a 3.5 chassis. It has a few more blemishes, but you're used to them. If you're willing to pay a bit of an upfront cost, PF's chassis is similar but slightly better. It depends on how costly it is for you to re-learn some of the small differences like with combat maneuvers, skills, and differences in spells.

As far as content is concerned... There is no good reason (outside of inertia, see above) to be playing this edition with a restrictive, content-minimalist mindset. I don't like the hatred towards "system bloat" (aka more fun toys to use, more concepts realized, more detail...) in general, but even if you agree with that notion, 5e and Dungeon World and the retroclones and a million other indie systems do it better while maintaining a thematic D&D feel. I come here for tasty, crunchy options, so if you're going to run a 3e-ish game, play to its strengths and be inclusive.

Petrocorus

2014-11-23, 11:18 PM

I personally love this change. I always hated the "play X class to be decent at Y skill" part of 3.5, and PF fixed that for me.

Did the rogue get a bit screwed? *shrug* Maybe, but it's worth it in my mind. Being able to play a talky fighter, a sorcerer that can ride horses, a bard that can climb walls, etc. are pluses in my mind. And I always found the trapfinding niche protection to be annoying.

This could have been solve by simply giving any character a couple of skills to choose as class skills.

Knaight

2014-11-23, 11:27 PM

This could have been solve by simply giving any character a couple of skills to choose as class skills.

It could also have been solved by completely removing the entire concept of class and cross class skills, and instead just having skills.

Psyren

2014-11-23, 11:45 PM

This could have been solve by simply giving any character a couple of skills to choose as class skills.

We have that, it's called traits. And if your group thinks characters shouldn't have to spend them on making things into class skills, you are free to grant more than the default, or grant them as roleplaying benefits or something.

But it adds to the game to have, say, the cleric be the expert on the religious-y stuff while the rogue is the guy who knows a guy who knows a guy. Or rather, it adds to the game that they aren't totally interchangeable in this regard. Even a small incentive (+3) goes a long way towards influencing player behavior in a positive direction.

And the whining over rogue "losing its niche" is never something I understood. Yes, any random fighter can sink points into Disable Device or Stealth and be kinda decent at it. But why would he when there's a rogue to do it? More to the point, how does Guy B also being decent at picking locks make Guy A's rolls worse?

Tvtyrant

2014-11-24, 12:12 AM

I would say to stay with 3.5 myself. I'm not being objective here though, I find Pathfinder derivative and bland. It has been out for years and in all that time it has come up with 1 new class (Alchemist.) The rest of them are all but identical to their 3.5 alternatives, or barely differentiated spins on them (Summoner is basically a Bard + Animal Companion.)

They are very similar systems, and other than Pathfinder crippling mundane builds (goodbye trippers, grapplers, uber chargers and hulking hurlers) it doesn't detract from 3.5. If you are staying within the world of D20 there is no reason not to cherrypick the better parts of one and add it to the other.

georgie_leech

2014-11-24, 12:15 AM

We have that, it's called traits. And if your group thinks characters shouldn't have to spend them on making things into class skills, you are free to grant more than the default, or grant them as roleplaying benefits or something.

But it adds to the game to have, say, the cleric be the expert on the religious-y stuff while the rogue is the guy who knows a guy who knows a guy. Or rather, it adds to the game that they aren't totally interchangeable in this regard. Even a small incentive (+3) goes a long way towards influencing player behavior in a positive direction.

And the whining over rogue "losing its niche" is never something I understood. Yes, any random fighter can sink points into Disable Device or Stealth and be kinda decent at it. But why would he when there's a rogue to do it? More to the point, how does Guy B also being decent at picking locks make Guy A's rolls worse?

You said it yourself. It nice to have the difference between the Cleric being the expert on Religion and the Rogue being the guy that knows a guy, or in this case, being the master of all things Trap. You disagree with the extent of the problem, but it's not a terribly hard thing to understand how some people see it as making the Rogue "Less Special."

Psyren

2014-11-24, 12:15 AM

You can trip and grapple just fine in PF if you're halfway decent at optimizing anything. Hulking hurlers and uberchargers are abominations that don't need to exist.

Edit:

You said it yourself. It nice to have the difference between the Cleric being the expert on Religion and the Rogue being the guy that knows a guy, or in this case, being the master of all things Trap. You disagree with the extent of the problem, but it's not a terribly hard thing to understand how some people see it as making the Rogue "Less Special."

It's still hard for me to understand, yes. The way I see it, in this game nearly anyone can steal your job (save for non-magic classes stealing a primarily magical one) if they put their mind to it, and for a game that wants the party to be able to cover any role while still having freedom of class choice that kind of systemic redundancy has to be permitted. The designer's responsibility pretty much stops as long as they make it less convenient for the job-stealer, not impossible.

A druid can still for instance be any party's primary source of melee. But so long as you make them pay a price to do so - namely, stat concentration in their magical/mental abilities - that's fine, there's a tradeoff. They have to evaluate "do I really want to focus on this, or am I more use to the group focusing on my spells and letting the barbarian hit things?" As opposed to 3.5 where the druid could simply check both boxes without thinking about it.

Tvtyrant

2014-11-24, 12:38 AM

You can trip and grapple just fine in PF if you're halfway decent at optimizing anything. Hulking hurlers and uberchargers are abominations that don't need to exist.

So your counter-arguments arguments are "nuh-uh" and "the things you like are dumb." That is an objective and convincing argument you have there.

T.G. Oskar

2014-11-24, 12:38 AM

And the whining over rogue "losing its niche" is never something I understood. Yes, any random fighter can sink points into Disable Device or Stealth and be kinda decent at it. But why would he when there's a rogue to do it? More to the point, how does Guy B also being decent at picking locks make Guy A's rolls worse?

Consider this, since it's the closest thing I can figure to why the Rogue's "niche" has been lost. There's more "skill-monkey" classes than the Rogue or Bard, if you count the Inquisitor and the Investigator as such. Of those, and including the Bard (and why not, the Ranger), each has its own niche: the Bard has Perform and Knowledge skills, the Ranger has Survival (for tracking), the Rogue had Disable Device and the Inquisitor has Intimidate and Sense Motive. When the Inquisitor was released, the Ranger lost it's skill niche, but not its niche itself: the Ranger is no longer the best tracker (the Inquisitor can do quite well with the Track class feature), but its still a superb martial character with nature-related spells, and it still IS the best tracker (because of Swift Tracker and Woodland Stride). The Inquisitor is still the best at Intimidate and Sense Motive because of Stern Gaze, which works exactly as Track. The Bard's "skill protection" at Perform and Knowledge skills is pretty much ensured with Bardic Knowledge and Bardic Performance ensuring they do better (and more) with those skills. The Rogue, being supposed to be the master in terms of acquiring skills, doesn't have the same numerical benefits or skill improvements these classes have, and it's main features in terms of skills were Trapfinding, their large class skill selection and 8 skill points per level (plus Intelligence). The Rogue STILL has 8 skill points (no other class has them), but this becomes less relevant when you have classes with 6 skill points getting all the skills they need, and others that combine this with relevance in Intelligence, thus getting a net increase in skill points than the Rogue does. The skill system makes having a lot of skills as class skills irrelevant, so an earlier benefit the Rogue (and its 3.5 companion class the Factotum) had as an advantage now turns somewhat irrelevant (because the class skill benefit changed drastically). Thus, the Rogue ends up having only Trapfinding as its sole benefit...and a trait gives that away. Then, to add insult to injury, the Investigator gets Trapfinding as well, and with a focus on Intelligence and Inspiration makes sure that their bonus is almost consistently higher enough than that of the Rogue. Mix that with the ability to choose Rogue talents and Alchemy further boosting the result, and the Rogue becomes hopelessly outmatched at its own terrain.

Or so it goes. Not sure if I got it right, since Rogue isn't my kind of class, but if the Rogue isn't meant to be the master of skills, then what the heck is the Rogue supposed to be? A damage dealer? Well, a Fighter can outmatch its combat capabilities almost blow by blow. It can't be the master trapsmith as the Investigator does that better. If the Rogue isn't as defined as the other classes, and when it's defined, you can find a way where another character is consistently better (hence, it's not good at its "niche"), then the Rogue has no point in existing. Again, that's not realizing the potential of the Rogue, but it requires a high degree of system mastery to create a formidable Rogue that stands apart.

Part of the answer uses your own suggestion: why not have the Rogue be the face or the trapsmith of the group? When another character outmatches your skills and you don't consider redundancy to be valuable or important, then that undermines the Rogue in what it's supposed to do. I mean, why the Bard can't be the party face, when it has the spells and the skills to do that consistently better, and it makes a great 4th or 5th party member? A good Rogue player, as with any player who knows its favored classes well, will prove the potential of the class even when there's apparently a better option available, but without that level of system mastery, someone may be capable of outclassing the class in what it's supposed to do the best without even trying.

As a counter-point: I don't see that kind of critique against the Rogue on 3.5, when the Factotum hopelessly outmatches the Rogue in virtually EVERYTHING it does. Even on its supposed niche (Trapfinding), the Rogue has four challengers (Factotum, Ninja, Scout, Spellthief), which have other cool things to compensate (though the 3.5 Rogue is consistently better than the 3.5 Ninja). I don't delve much into why the PF Rogue sucks (or not) because that is a problem that's been dragged from its earlier counterpart. I do say that the PF Rogue isn't that great at a glance because most of its talents are just boring, but that's just me.

Irk

2014-11-24, 12:42 AM

I'm going to agree with Pysren. Be fluent in both systems, it'll give you access to more groups and you'll have more material to play around with. PF is also very easy to learn if you know 3.5, it took me about a day to understand major changes, and I've been working in my free time to understand the nuances. Within about two weeks you should be prepared for a switch, if you so desire, but it's better to understand and pursue both, no reason not to if you already know 3.5.

Snowbluff

2014-11-24, 12:42 AM

*ahem* The 3.5 rogue has always been sad. It did, however, benefit from having access to skills that were incredibly hard to access for a long time in 3.5. In PF, trap stuff and all skills are a trait away.

ericgrau

2014-11-24, 12:55 AM

I've played both and I prefer 3.5 but I would easily play either. Go with what you like. Probably 3.5 since that's what you know, but maybe you'll like the style of PF better once you read it.

I like a lot of the new PF classes and so on. You could port them to 3.5 with little or no change. They add a little bit of extras to the base classes but it's not a huge difference. You could leave them alone or remove a tiny bit.

Knaight

2014-11-24, 01:25 AM

But it adds to the game to have, say, the cleric be the expert on the religious-y stuff while the rogue is the guy who knows a guy who knows a guy. Or rather, it adds to the game that they aren't totally interchangeable in this regard. Even a small incentive (+3) goes a long way towards influencing player behavior in a positive direction.

Sure, but it can also work just fine to have a fighter who happens to be very well schooled in theological matters (high knowledge: religion). Maybe they were the third sibling in a noble line and were supposed to be shipped off to the clergy, but left for an adventuring life instead. Maybe they're just a scholar of religion, but never had any aptitude for magic. Cross class skills make this sort of thing needlessly difficult, and the attribute bonuses often provide that incentive you want anyways.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2014-11-24, 01:28 AM

Class redundancy is okay, and niche protection via restrictions isn't the greatest game design. I think the big issue with the Rogue class in both 3.5 and PF was the question: Why should I play a rogue, as opposed to a similar class, for some reason other than playing on hard mode or "just because"? The answer can't be the theme, because I can make a thematically identical character from different classes. It has to be a part of their mechanics.

In 3.5, some reasons existed:
- Certain racial sub levels such as Changeling Rogue 1
- Craven
- PrC qualification
- Skills

Notice, however, that all of those except Skills were mainly relevant to a brief dip. So if I modify the question to "why should I go more than 2-3 levels in rogue?" only the rogue's 8+int skill points and relatively broad skill set remains... but Factotum does it better.

In PF, I can't really think of any reason to play a Rogue unless you're actually playing a Ninja, and even then I don't like the limited ki pool. Bards can replace skill checks with Perform checks; some Inquisitor archetypes can add your WIS to basically all social skills; Investigators have already been mentioned. So what does a rogue get that's better or more interesting than those classes?

Forrestfire

2014-11-24, 01:58 AM

Personally, I prefer 3.5. The system is a wonderfully versatile point-buy system in disguise, and between Pathfinder's focus on single-track characters and the active antagonism of many of the developers (less so now that SKR's gone, thankfully), along with the fact that it exacerbated the most aggravating issues with 3.5, I just don't really like system. For all its utter terribleness, 3.5 does what I want it to.
... And when I want to play a well-designed game for a combat-heavy campaign, I use 4e instead.

Psyren

2014-11-24, 01:58 AM

So your counter-arguments arguments are "nuh-uh" and "the things you like are dumb." That is an objective and convincing argument you have there.

No, my argument is "it is objectively possible to make a (very) competent tripper and grappler in PF, and if you don't think so, then that is your own lack of system mastery speaking."

As for my assessment of the two CharOp builds you listed - it's my opinion, sure, but if you really want those things in your PF game nothing is stopping you. But no designer is obligated to include them for you or make them PFS-legal.

Part of the answer uses your own suggestion: why not have the Rogue be the face or the trapsmith of the group? When another character outmatches your skills and you don't consider redundancy to be valuable or important, then that undermines the Rogue in what it's supposed to do.

Oskar, this is pretty much the opposite of what I said. I DO consider redundancy to be valuable and important. If only Class X can do Role X, then you are forced to bring Class X along if you want to have that role. That undermines the very point of letting you choose classes freely. The idea that a bard or ranger can be "the trap guy" just as easily as a rogue is a feature of the system, not a bug - it means you can bring any of them along and the DM does not have to take pruning shears to his plot or encounters if they reiy on those elements.

Vva70

2014-11-24, 02:10 AM

PF took all the "combat maneuvers" (trip, bullrush, disarm, overrun, grapple, etc) and replaced them with one set of numbers: the CMB (combat maneuver bonus) which is your "offense" and CMD (combat maneuver defense)

this is one thing that even most of the people who like PF agree was a bad idea.

monsters' CMDs are very high for a number of reasons: large size, lots of HD and thus BA, enormous str scores, etc.

I'm curious. What do you see in the nature of CMB/CMD that makes it innately harder to pull off?

Let's say I want to trip a troll. I'm bad at this, so I don't have any feats or class features helping me. I have 5 BAB and a +4 STR mod. Either way, I have to eat an attack of opportunity first, since again, I'm bad at this.

Against the 3.5 troll (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm) I first have to make a touch attack against a touch AC of 11. I succeed on a 2 or higher, so that's not a big issue. Then I must make an opposed strength check. My check is at +4 (STR), and the troll's is at +10 (+6 STR, +4 size). I must beat the troll's roll by 7 to successfully trip him. To simplify the math, I'll pretend that I win on ties, which means I would only need to beat the troll's roll by 6 (in reality we would reroll on ties). So I succeed on the touch attack 95% of the time, and on the strength check 26.25% of the time, for a combined total of just under 25% chance of tripping the troll.

Against the Pathfinder troll (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/giants/troll) I just make a attack roll with my CMB against the troll's CMD. My CMB is 9 (+5 BAB +4 STR), and the troll's CMD is 22 (+4 BAB +5 STR +2 DEX +1 Size +10). I have to roll 13 or higher, which gives me a 40% chance of tripping the troll. Even if we bumped up the Pathfinder troll's strength to that of the 3.5 troll, I would still have a 35% chance of tripping.

My odds of tripping a troll increase by 10-15% in Pathfinder based on core mechanics. And that's cheating the math to make 3.5 look better than it is (counting ties as wins instead of rerolls). And Pathfinder does it with one roll, versus three for 3.5 (touch attack, my STR check, and the troll's STR check).

Now I will certainly grant you that there are more options in 3.5 for improving trip attempts. And I'll also agree that splitting the numeric bonus on combat maneuver feats unnecessarily weakens maneuver strategies, and was probably a poor design decision. I will agree wholeheartedly that at high optimization levels, a 3.5 tripper will out-trip a Pathfinder tripper by orders of magnitude.

But the difference isn't the core mechanic. CMB/CMD is not the problem. It's not even a problem.

At low optimization levels, Pathfinder is actually better for PCs, because it reduces some of the most common bonuses that monsters get to resist trips. In 3.5, a huge quadruped gets +8 for being huge and +4 for having four legs. In Pathfinder, that same huge quadruped would only get +2 from size and +2 from legs.

Venger

2014-11-24, 02:25 AM

Now I will certainly grant you that there are more options in 3.5 for improving trip attempts. And I'll also agree that splitting the numeric bonus on combat maneuver feats unnecessarily weakens maneuver strategies, and was probably a poor design decision.

This is basically what I was talking about.

Trippers are by no means optimized characters in 3.5, they're a low-op option.

And if you tie, that is a win for the tripper. You don't reroll on ties. I gather you're thinking of grapple.

Lanaya

2014-11-24, 02:30 AM

Psyren

2014-11-24, 02:39 AM

To play devil's advocate - you won't notice it with something low-CR like a troll, but at higher levels CMD does indeed scale faster. A Balor's grapple check in 3.5 for instance is +36; in PF however their CMD is 54, which against (say) a monk with the same stats, is basically like you took the 3.5 opposed check and had the Balor always roll an 18.

But CMB is an attack roll, not an ability check, and that distinction makes a world of difference in practice. All kinds of bonuses apply that didn't before - flanking, high ground, weapon training, even your weapon's enhancement, if it is used in the maneuver in question (and if not, there are other ways to get a +5 enhancement bonus to your maneuver.) Routine party buffs like haste and bless count too, and even Aid Another can help now. In addition, size does not confer the nigh-insurmountable advantage it did in 3.5, where being medium without Powerful Build or size-changing magic generally meant not using maneuvers at all past a certain level.

If you give everyone d12 hit dice and full BAB, the barbarian starts to look a lot less impressive. Yes barbarians are just as effective as they were before, but now everyone else is just as tough and accurate, and they have other things they can do as well. If you gave full wizard casting to every class, fans of wizards will start to feel a bit screwed over because they've been stripped of all their unique powers and definition as a class. Classes are defined in comparison to other classes as much as they're defined in a vacuum - barbarians are tough warriors because they have d12 hit points and 1 BAB per level, but if every other class in the game gets at least 3d10 hit points and 4 BAB per level they become massive wimps. When everyone's a skillmonkey, no one will be.

There is far more to "toughness and accuracy" than hit die and BAB. Very few other classes get morale bonuses to their Strength and Con, bonuses that stack with every single other bonus that WBL can buy, and almost no others get access to rage powers, which confer myriad other benefits.

And no, not everyone is a skillmonkey. What the rogue gets for free they have to spend resources (traits, feats, more limited skillpoints etc.) on. The fact that they can do so does not make it the smartest use of the party's versatility, nor something the game's design needs to be planned around.

georgie_leech

2014-11-24, 03:03 AM

There is far more to "toughness and accuracy" than hit die and BAB. Very few other classes get morale bonuses to their Strength and Con, bonuses that stack with every single other bonus that WBL can buy, and almost no others get access to rage powers, which confer myriad other benefits.

And no, not everyone is a skillmonkey. What the rogue gets for free they have to spend resources (traits, feats, more limited skillpoints etc.) on. The fact that they can do so does not make it the smartest use of the party's versatility, nor something the game's design needs to be planned around.

In that case, what was wrong with spells letting a Wizard or similar turning into a monster of some sort and going to town in melee combat? After all, it's not like it changes the numbers the Barbarians or Fighters get. And they don't even get Morale bonuses to Strength and Constitution without spending extra spells!

Psyren

2014-11-24, 03:44 AM

In that case, what was wrong with spells letting a Wizard or similar turning into a monster of some sort and going to town in melee combat? After all, it's not like it changes the numbers the Barbarians or Fighters get. And they don't even get Morale bonuses to Strength and Constitution without spending extra spells!

Because spells are not a meaningful opportunity cost as you well know (or should.) Dumping your physical stats - something most wizards would do anyway - and picking up polymorph for the odd occasion you needed to be a pyrohydra or troll is a no-brainer for most.

But diverting 14-16 to Str and Con is much more meaningful.

georgie_leech

2014-11-24, 03:56 AM

Because spells are not a meaningful opportunity cost as you well know (or should.) Dumping your physical stats - something most wizards would do anyway - and picking up polymorph for the odd occasion you needed to be a pyrohydra or troll is a no-brainer for most.

But diverting 14-16 to Str and Con is much more meaningful.

Are Traits a meaningful opportunity cost then?

Coidzor

2014-11-24, 04:19 AM

You can trip and grapple just fine in PF if you're halfway decent at optimizing anything. Hulking hurlers and uberchargers are abominations that don't need to exist.

On the contrary, the world would have been the poorer for internet D&D forum based humor if not for the hulking hurler.

Psyren

2014-11-24, 04:45 AM

Are Traits a meaningful opportunity cost then?

For a class skill? Of course. As Stream mentioned above, the difference between class skill and non-class skill is pretty minor in PF anyway, and traits can do a lot of neat things. So it's a small cost for a small benefit, no harm done.

On the contrary, the world would have been the poorer for internet D&D forum based humor if not for the hulking hurler.

Well yeah, but I laughed at Hood and Jack B. Quick too - that doesn't mean I think they need to keep being official.

georgie_leech

2014-11-24, 05:10 AM

For a class skill? Of course. As Stream mentioned above, the difference between class skill and non-class skill is pretty minor in PF anyway, and traits can do a lot of neat things. So it's a small cost for a small benefit, no harm done.

For the ability to also disarm magic traps as well. That's a pretty significant change from a thematic perspective. It used to be that Rogues (or later, anyone that had access to the Trapfinding class feature) were the only non-spell casters who could interact with magic without having to rely on magic themselves. A Rogue had the ability to use completely non-magical means to interfere with Spells, albeit a limited subsection of them. It implies specialised training, or otherwise unusual circumstances. That's thematically appropriate for someone with great skill. With it reduced to a Trait, it's no longer as special; someone with "a knack" for it can suddenly do the same.

icefractal

2014-11-24, 05:24 AM

Rules-wise, there's not a lot of difference. PF made some minor improvements - skills, for instance; the way combat manuevers are done is nicer even if the feats were incorrectly weakened; some other stuff, mostly small.

Option and balance wise, I like 3.5 better - at least when you include the majority of the material. It's not that everything is better balanced, or that the TO peaks aren't outrageously high, but there's enough material there to make a diverse party of characters that are all on the same page, power-wise. Which is harder to do in Pathfinder, unless you go all-casters. Also, 3.5 just has more stuff, although Pathfinder is catching up.

Note: If you include all the DSP stuff, the gap is considerably narrower, both in terms of total options and in filling out a balanced party. There's still some cool things that just haven't made it over though.

However - and this is for me a big one - prep-wise, Pathfinder blows 3.5 out of the water. Because of the PFSRD, it's that simple. All the material, indexed, cross-linked, available from anywhere, able to be copy-pasted and worked with, legally available (and still extant). Makes my own character building faster, makes introducing new players easier, makes prepping for a game faster and smoother.

So - I actually end up playing and running more Pathfinder than 3.5, for that reason.

killem2

2014-11-24, 05:33 AM

I enjoyed the switch. I think my players did as well. It is a bit more refined, but of course it had a lot to source material to learn from.

Psyren

2014-11-24, 05:33 AM

For the ability to also disarm magic traps as well. That's a pretty significant change from a thematic perspective.

Not really. The far more valuable ability was detecting them, and now everyone can do that, no traits or class features needed. Granted, they were doing that in 3.5 too (with a cantrip no less) and nobody was up in arms then either.

Once you know it's there, any caster can fire a dispel at it from 100 ft. away. Or set it off with a celestial honey badger. Or just walk around it, or even throw up an AMF and stroll right over it with impunity. Disable Device to get rid of it has its perks of course, but that was always only the secondary benefit of trapfinding. So the outrage over the rogue's niche protection being a new thing continues to be confusing.

It used to be that Rogues (or later, anyone that had access to the Trapfinding class feature) were the only non-spell casters who could interact with magic without having to rely on magic themselves. A Rogue had the ability to use completely non-magical means to interfere with Spells, albeit a limited subsection of them. It implies specialised training, or otherwise unusual circumstances. That's thematically appropriate for someone with great skill. With it reduced to a Trait, it's no longer as special; someone with "a knack" for it can suddenly do the same.

For starters, everyone in 3.5 relies on magic; that's the whole idea behind WBL (and VoP for that matter.) Nobody in 3.5 got anywhere (not past, say, 3rd level anyway) without "relying on magic."

Second, even if you go around allowing regional traits from adventure paths as though they are general use, the main point still stands - sticking Trap Finder on another class doesn't magically stop the rogue from being able to do it too. If you're in a party with one and want to usurp his job that badly go ahead, but there are probably more efficient ways you could go about it than blowing a trait so you can scratch runes off a wall with copper wire or something.

georgie_leech

2014-11-24, 02:36 PM

Not really. The far more valuable ability was detecting them, and now everyone can do that, no traits or class features needed. Granted, they were doing that in 3.5 too (with a cantrip no less) and nobody was up in arms then either.

Once you know it's there, any caster can fire a dispel at it from 100 ft. away. Or set it off with a celestial honey badger. Or just walk around it, or even throw up an AMF and stroll right over it with impunity. Disable Device to get rid of it has its perks of course, but that was always only the secondary benefit of trapfinding. So the outrage over the rogue's niche protection being a new thing continues to be confusing.

For me, it's not about a balance perspective, but a thematic one. It's not about whether it was the best option for dealing with magical traps, but what it implied about the Rogue and their skills. This was something that only a select few (those with levels in Rogue, or later on other classes with Trapfinding) could do. Personally, I do enjoy that this trait makes a possible vulnerability in magic traps more accessible; it's a slight thematic shift to magic not being completely all-powerful. But I can still acknowledge that it made the Rogue less special to do so.

For starters, everyone in 3.5 relies on magic; that's the whole idea behind WBL (and VoP for that matter.) Nobody in 3.5 got anywhere (not past, say, 3rd level anyway) without "relying on magic."

Exactly. And yet here's an ability without any obvious magic needed that can directly counter some spells. There are very few things that can do that. Even if in the end it's not a particularly powerful method of dealing with them, it was still a relatively unique way of doing so.

Second, even if you go around allowing regional traits from adventure paths as though they are general use, the main point still stands - sticking Trap Finder on another class doesn't magically stop the rogue from being able to do it too. If you're in a party with one and want to usurp his job that badly go ahead, but there are probably more efficient ways you could go about it than blowing a trait so you can scratch runes off a wall with copper wire or something.

At this point I strongly suspect you just don't want to understand, given how dismissive you're getting. But I'll give it one last shot. Imagine if there was a trait that let you Smite Evil or Lay on Hands a few times a day. Even if they were much more limited in scope, it still means that the Paladin's ability to do so is less unique. If there was a trait that let you Rage or gained access to a Rage Power, it makes the Barbarians less special. If there was a trait that let you turn into animals, the Druids are no longer as unique for having the ability to do so. The existence of the Arcane Dabbler trait does make Wizards a little less special; the fluff and limiting it to elves (acknowledged as a magical race in fluff) means that it has less of an impact than others.

"Niche" is about what unique abilities a Class brings to the table. When a Rogue has as short of a list as it does, anything that cuts into it is remarked on.

ericgrau

2014-11-24, 02:56 PM

For a class skill? Of course. As Stream mentioned above, the difference between class skill and non-class skill is pretty minor in PF anyway, and traits can do a lot of neat things. So it's a small cost for a small benefit, no harm done.
Well having little difference between class skills and cross class skills is a similar issue.

A +4 to a skill for the mere cost of a trait does matter though. Or specifically a +1 and removing a -3 I suppose. The difference being that the first 3 points catches you up to a focused skill user.

Psyren

2014-11-24, 03:17 PM

Exactly. And yet here's an ability without any obvious magic needed that can directly counter some spells. There are very few things that can do that. Even if in the end it's not a particularly powerful method of dealing with them, it was still a relatively unique way of doing so.

And rogues can do it without burning a trait, so why not let them, and spend your trait elsewhere?

The trait is there in case nobody wants to play a rogue but the party wants that ability, or so that a different kind of rogue like Knife Master can spend a trait and still do that thing. There's nothing wrong with either of those.

At this point I strongly suspect you just don't want to understand, given how dismissive you're getting. But I'll give it one last shot. Imagine if there was a trait that let you Smite Evil or Lay on Hands a few times a day. Even if they were much more limited in scope, it still means that the Paladin's ability to do so is less unique.

And I actually agree here but you're equating apples and oranges. Skills are not class features; expecting them to have the same level of exclusivity is silly. Skills are by definition a more generalized form of training because they don't require X levels in a particular class.

T.G. Oskar

2014-11-24, 03:35 PM

At this point I strongly suspect you just don't want to understand, given how dismissive you're getting. But I'll give it one last shot. Imagine if there was a trait that let you Smite Evil or Lay on Hands a few times a day. Even if they were much more limited in scope, it still means that the Paladin's ability to do so is less unique. If there was a trait that let you Rage or gained access to a Rage Power, it makes the Barbarians less special. If there was a trait that let you turn into animals, the Druids are no longer as unique for having the ability to do so. The existence of the Arcane Dabbler trait does make Wizards a little less special; the fluff and limiting it to elves (acknowledged as a magical race in fluff) means that it has less of an impact than others.

"Niche" is about what unique abilities a Class brings to the table. When a Rogue has as short of a list as it does, anything that cuts into it is remarked on.

I guess you haven't seen Bestow Grace of the Champion (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/bestow-grace-of-the-champion), then.

Sure: it's not a trait, which is easily accessible, but it DOES represent what you're looking for. The Paladin is more than the sum of its parts, but the spell pretty much gets all the parts at a lesser degree: it gets one use of the Mark at half level, one use of Lay on Hands at half-level, Detect Evil, Divine Health, the immunity effect of Aura of Courage, DIVINE GRACE, and the ability to activate Paladin spells with ease. You'd suspect that it'd work like, say, (Tenser's) Transformation, or its Rogue equivalent Nightstalker's Transformation, but NOOO - the character gets ALL those benefits without losing spellcasting at all.

Sure: you don't get the divine bond, the auras, the mercies or the capstone, and the uses are limited, but don't tell me that the core concepts of the Paladin aren't reunited in that spell (the primary abilities and some of the best secondaries, if using ACG rules). It's also a Cleric/Oracle spell, and a pretty high one, but the fact that the Cleric, the class that consistently outmatched ANY martial character and specifically outmatched the Paladin in 3.5 (barring builds like A-Game Paladin, or really, any build with Sword of the Arcane Order tacked on), gets to use it kinda adds insult to injury. Having it as a scroll (expensive and one shot, but still existing) just makes it worse, since a Cleric, Oracle, or anyone with access to that spell list can use it. Tack it on a class that has superb combat capabilities and its own set of tricks (Magus, Warpriest) and suddenly it can outclass the Paladin, as full BAB and some spellcasting aren't enough to compensate (not even the one attack they receive). If you don't care about spells, a Fighter can do lots of danger.

There's things I don't like about PF, there's things I loathe about PF, and then there's this. You know, when you change Divine Power to still be great but not the archetype-replacing spell it was, and then you STILL create a spell like this, you have to expect someone going SMH on it.

Oh, and yeah, one last thing in the interest of fairness: the spell can only target a Lawful Good creature, so it's not like anyone can use it, right? You know, just like the Holy Avenger...

ericgrau

2014-11-24, 03:45 PM

And I actually agree here but you're equating apples and oranges. Skills are not class features; expecting them to have the same level of exclusivity is silly. Skills are by definition a more generalized form of training because they don't require X levels in a particular class.
The problem with that is that besides that rogues fight, and they fight worse than other classes. So you fight worse, anyone can cover the major skills and all you get are some extra secondary skills. Yay?

It's one thing for a class to be worse, but quite another for it to be nearly obsolete.

Psyren

2014-11-24, 03:50 PM

The problem with that is that besides that rogues fight, and they fight worse than other classes. So you fight worse, anyone can cover the major skills and all you get are some extra secondary skills. Yay?

It's one thing for a class to be worse, but quite another for it to be nearly obsolete.

Who cares about "other classes?" A well-built rogue can wreck anything in the Bestiary, and that's literally all that matters.

jaydubs

2014-11-24, 03:54 PM

My preferred outcomes, in order:

1. The skill system is broadly accessible to all classes. The rogue gets a new niche, or at least new stuff it can do to make up for some of that infringement on its role. (I'm hoping this is what they do in Pathfinder Unchained.)

2. The skill system is broadly accessible to all classes. The rogue has its niche infringed, making it less appealing because of that.

3. The skill system is the rogue's niche. The skills a class can be good at are heavily restricted by the class skill system.

Right now PF is somewhere between 1 and 2, with the rogue getting some cool tricks to make up for it, but could probably use some more help.

But to put it bluntly, I'd much rather the rogue be a lackluster class than have a restrictive skill system burden every other class. I feel the same way about traps. Heck, I'd prefer removing the rogue entirely to binding something as broad as the skill system to it.

Ssalarn

2014-11-24, 04:14 PM

I've been playing 3.5 since I started playing the game, and have been teaching other people to play 3.5. I've also gathered to myself (and converted) a large amount of Pathfinder material, though the campaign setting I play is homebrewed with a mixture of fluff from all the campaign settings. So, I guess the question is: Which system is better built, rules-wise, Pathfinder or 3.5?

Pathfinder is a more consistent system rules-wise. In some cases that's of dubious benefit; some combat maneuvers for example, while being much easier to run at the table, don't work nearly as well or reliably for the classes that should benefit from them the most iconically (tripping monks and dirty tricking rogues both have some difficulties using those abilities reliably).

I, personally, prefer Pathfinder. While some of the biggest issues from 3.5 remain (see: martial/caster disparity), Pathfinder has a much stronger core of Tier 3 classes, better "playability" (particularly for newer players) thanks to the consolidation of many skills and mechanics, and they left out or mitigated many of the more troublesome mechanics from the 3.5 era (DMM, CoDzilla, sarukkh, etc.).

The biggest things I miss from 3.5 are, fortunately, pretty well covered by third party publishers. Pathfinder has some very solid and reliable 3pp that are really a cut above what you traditionally saw back in 3.5 when there weren't a lot of controls or quality checks in place(Paizo themselves, of course, being the exception). Dreamscarred Press, Kobold Press, Rite Publishing, Alluria Press, and several more companies all help fill in the sadly undersupported subsystem area for Pathfinder. While I am currently working on a project for Dreamscarred Press, I'm not going to let that stop me from saying that they really put out some awesome and high quality materials, easily on par with what Paizo puts out for quality of content (and in many instances, even better balanced and fine-tuned).

StreamOfTheSky

2014-11-24, 07:53 PM

I don't feel like making another long post that won't sway the minds of those strongly pro-PF anyway, so I just want to say...

The issue isn't that other classes can do the rogue's niche. The issue is that PF gave away all the rogue's niches and didn't give the rogue anything in return to make the class continue to be relevant. Like it or not, 3E rogue's appeal was largely the stuff it could do that other classes could not (of course, casters obsolete every martial, in 3E and PF, but even then replacing rogue required far more resource investment than most mages were willing to make). If you take that away, you need to replace it with some other reason to take the class.

"But rogue has more skill points!"
Except he doesn't. The SAD wizard will end up with more; the Bard w/ Versatile Performance ends up w/ more, etc.. Also, skills (like everything) are on different tiers of power. The top few (perception, UMD, diplomacy) are vastly better than the weakest ones. Once you have the ranks to max out the best skills, each new +1 point/level becomes less and less useful.

"But rogue can get the best bonuses!"
Even more wildly untrue, especially since Rogue is a MAD class. And other than trapfinding, gets basically zero bonuses to skills...he can't even take Skill Focus as a talent. Meanwhile Bard's getting big knowledge boosts (or be Archaeologist and get bonuses to all the stuff trapfinding grants and more), anyone with feather domain gets +1/2 level on all perception, Synthesist can get a whopping +8 to any skill for 1 evolution pt. apiece... It's actually amazing how many not-rogue classes get more flat skill bonuses than rogue does! Then you factor in that a trait for a non-class skill nets +4 vs. +3 for something that's innately a class skill...

Gah! This is getting too long. It's pointless to make the case anyway, no one ever listens.

Snowbluff

2014-11-24, 07:57 PM

Stream makes a good point: My next summoner should be a synthesist skill monkey. :smalltongue:

GoodbyeSoberDay

2014-11-24, 08:25 PM

Who cares about "other classes?" A well-built rogue can wreck anything in the Bestiary, and that's literally all that matters.Everyone else in this thread cares about other classes, it seems. A well-built NPC class can wreck anything in the Bestiary, but no one's clamoring to play them. The value of a thing is relative to other, comparable things. So again I ask: Why roll a rogue when you can roll something like a rogue, but better?

(Again I admit there wasn't much reason to roll rogue in 3.5 either.)

Milo v3

2014-11-24, 08:28 PM

Aren't paizo re-writing the rogue in Unchained because of things like this?

Lanaya

2014-11-24, 08:46 PM

Who cares about "other classes?" A well-built rogue can wreck anything in the Bestiary, and that's literally all that matters.

Maybe if your DM is a computer, but most humans will adapt encounters to fit the power level of the party rather than just grabbing something that the book says is the right CR and throwing it at you. If every other class can take five of anything in the bestiary but the rogue can only take one you'll end up facing five bad guys for each PC, and the rogue will be the only one not pulling their weight in the fight. And even after the DM scales down encouters so that you're fighting five baddies for every non-rogue character you're still going to be hopelessly outlcassed and totally reliant on the PCs who can actually fight to save you from the horde of monsters you're facing.

killem2

2014-11-25, 08:23 AM

I don't feel like making another long post that won't sway the minds of those strongly pro-PF anyway, so I just want to say...

The issue isn't that other classes can do the rogue's niche. The issue is that PF gave away all the rogue's niches and didn't give the rogue anything in return to make the class continue to be relevant. Like it or not, 3E rogue's appeal was largely the stuff it could do that other classes could not (of course, casters obsolete every martial, in 3E and PF, but even then replacing rogue required far more resource investment than most mages were willing to make). If you take that away, you need to replace it with some other reason to take the class.

"But rogue has more skill points!"
Except he doesn't. The SAD wizard will end up with more; the Bard w/ Versatile Performance ends up w/ more, etc.. Also, skills (like everything) are on different tiers of power. The top few (perception, UMD, diplomacy) are vastly better than the weakest ones. Once you have the ranks to max out the best skills, each new +1 point/level becomes less and less useful.

"But rogue can get the best bonuses!"
Even more wildly untrue, especially since Rogue is a MAD class. And other than trapfinding, gets basically zero bonuses to skills...he can't even take Skill Mastery as a talent. Meanwhile Bard's getting big knowledge boosts (or be Archaeologist and get bonuses to all the stuff trapfinding grants and more), anyone with feather domain gets +1/2 level on all perception, Synthesist can get a whopping +8 to any skill for 1 evolution pt. apiece... It's actually amazing how many not-rogue classes get more flat skill bonuses than rogue does! Then you factor in that a trait for a non-class skill nets +4 vs. +3 for something that's innately a class skill...

Gah! This is getting too long. It's pointless to make the case anyway, no one ever listens.

One of my players is a pathfinder rogue. He enjoys it fine. Makes skill checks for us an everything. Not saying this case helps with the other players who feel they need to steal everyone's spotlight.

Classes are only as irrelevant as the player or group allows them to be. Same is true for prevalence.

Psyren

2014-11-25, 08:31 AM

Gah! This is getting too long. It's pointless to make the case anyway, no one ever listens.

Maybe you should come to terms with the fact that most of this problem lives in your head if the majority can still make effective rogues and have fun with PF.

Everyone else in this thread cares about other classes, it seems. A well-built NPC class can wreck anything in the Bestiary, but no one's clamoring to play them. The value of a thing is relative to other, comparable things. So again I ask: Why roll a rogue when you can roll something like a rogue, but better?

(Again I admit there wasn't much reason to roll rogue in 3.5 either.)

Because I feel like it. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Also, as you yourself noted, you're not going to find rogue players in either edition if you limit your perspective just to the GitP echo-chamber. Go forth, free your mind.

Am I saying rogue is totally where I want it to be? Of course not, and I look forward to seeing what the Unchained version will look like. But is it worth writing off the whole game over? No.

One of my players is a pathfinder rogue. He enjoys it fine. Makes skill checks for us an everything. Not saying this case helps with the other players who feel they need to steal everyone's spotlight.

Classes are only as irrelevant as the player or group allows them to be. Same is true for prevalence.

You must not be part of this thread according to SoberDay :smalltongue:

Snowbluff

2014-11-25, 09:23 AM

Am I saying rogue is totally where I want it to be? Of course not, and I look forward to seeing what the Unchained version will look like. But is it worth writing off the whole game over? No.

Excuse me! Wasn't the whole point of this rogue thing was to show a problem with the game? Rogue is bad because everyone else got its nice things. If skills weren't as or more accessible to every class compared to the rogue, people wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

Psyren

2014-11-25, 09:39 AM

Rogue is bad because everyone else got its nice things.

And this is exactly what I will never stop disagreeing with. The rogue's "nice things" are not finite - other people getting them does not take them away from the rogue.

Also, if it truly matters that much, rogue still does have unique nice things, like Skill Mastery. Fast Stealth, Slow Reactions, Crippling Strike, Opportunist etc.

Snowbluff

2014-11-25, 10:01 AM

And this is exactly what I will never stop disagreeing with. The rogue's "nice things" are not finite - other people getting them does not take them away from the rogue.

Also, if it truly matters that much, rogue still does have unique nice things, like Skill Mastery. Fast Stealth, Slow Reactions, Crippling Strike, Opportunist etc.

Those marginally improve their abilities, but generally don't grant them improved capabilities. "I attack more when Vivisectionist faceroll." "I get a 10 when another class can get +8." "I get faster movement while stealthed when other classes can fly, turn invisible, turn into innocuous animals..." Which is another issue entirely, since people were led to believe this was a balanced system. It really has a huge amount of power bloat that people left 3.5 to avoid. More people should be angry about this. :l

Rogue's biggest problem is a system wide problem. They are only a symptom of a diseased and atrophied skills system. So when people ask "how are the skills," we tell them this. Not that it is all bad.

The consolidated skills are nice, even if they NEVER BOTHERED TO CONSOLIDATE KNOWLEDGE SKILLS! Holy crap, how did they get away with this? Not all knowledge skills even tell you about monsters. 90% of the stuff I need to know about a monster comes from what knowledge I would have to roll, anyway. "Roll dungeoneering." "Aberration, got it. Named Bullet." I wince every time I hear "Roll knowledge History." Why won't Knowledge Local work here? If it was a demon who did it, why not knowledge planes? You can be a nature expert, but no nothing about hills or terrain features. If geography is used for astronomy, how come Heavens oracles get knowledge arcane instead? Did anyone proofread or even bother to look at these rules? Do they just roll a d12 to determine what arbitrary knowledge roll you need for each situation in this modules? [/rant]

Psyren

2014-11-25, 10:10 AM

More people should be angry about this. :l

Why? Because CharOp is telling them they're having badwrongfun?
If there were more of a problem then more people would be angry. They're not, so there isn't. It's simple.

Everything you listed - the facerolling vivisectionist, the invisible flying spellcaster, the shapeshifter - they all have weaknesses that a good rogue does not. (Not sure what you mean by "+8" vs. 10 - the ability to take 10 and a bonus to X are apples and oranges, plus rogues can get plenty of bonuses too.)

@ Knowledge skills: For starters that wasn't the rogue's job in 3.5 either, and at least he has a chance to be decent at it now. Second, monster identification is overrated; most of the time you don't need to know exactly what something is in order to kill it, and with the reduced immunity to sneak attack across the board that is even more true now as well. To quote Arya Stark: "You stick 'em with the pointy end."

Extra Anchovies

2014-11-25, 10:10 AM

Also, if it truly matters that much, rogue still does have unique nice things, like Skill Mastery. Fast Stealth, Slow Reactions, Crippling Strike, Opportunist etc.

Even those aren't unique to the rogue. There's a good number of other classes/archetypes that get access to most if not all of those, notably the Slayer (but also the Archaeologist Bard archetype, plus a few others I can't remember off the top of my head).

Psyren

2014-11-25, 10:13 AM

Even those aren't unique to the rogue. There's a good number of other classes/archetypes that get access to most if not all of those, notably the Slayer (but also the Archaeologist Bard archetype, plus a few others I can't remember off the top of my head).

Yeah, there's a couple of other classes that can get rogue talents. And a rogue can get a familiar and spells, or create alchemical items. Why should it matter?

Snowbluff

2014-11-25, 10:19 AM

Why? Because CharOp is telling them they're having badwrongfun?
If there were more of a problem then more people would be angry. They're not, so there isn't. It's simple.
The biggest detractor of 3.5 is how dense and bloated it is. Now PF is bloated. I don't think it's what people had in mind when the system was announced.

Everything you listed - the facerolling vivisectionist, the invisible flying spellcaster, the shapeshifter - they all have weaknesses that a good rogue does not. (Not sure what you mean by "+8" vs. 10 - the ability to take 10 and a bonus to X are apples and oranges, plus rogues can get plenty of bonuses too.) Weakness that can be attritibuted to things that would hinder a rogue in other ways where a rogue has the unique weakness of not having these abilities in the first place. A vivisectionist is still a strong sneak attacker without his mutagens, for example. However, a Rogue will never be a vivisectionist, and will still suffer a large stealth penalty when hit with glitterdust.

@ Knowledge skills: For starters that wasn't the rogue's job in 3.5 either, and at least he has a chance to be decent at it now. Second, monster identification is overrated; most of the time you don't need to know exactly what something is in order to kill it, and with the reduced immunity to sneak attack across the board that is even more true now as well. To quote Arya Stark: "You stick 'em with the pointy end." It wasn't a rogue problem. It is a system problem. Not to mention that you just a agreed with me, anyway.

Psyren

2014-11-25, 10:30 AM

The biggest detractor of 3.5 is how dense and bloated it is.

According to who? I've never heard that. Indeed, most of 3.5's praise has been directed toward the latter books - adding new subsystems, greater support for those subsystems, recognizing and attempting to mitigate martial/caster imbalance etc. And PF was founded on the very principle of letting you bring ALL your 3.5 books in with you and then pick theirs up too, so if they were trying to avoid bloat they've got a very odd way of going about it.

Thinking "density" is a problem to be solved is exactly the kind of thinking that made WotC decide scrapping the entire edition was a good idea. You don't truly believe that, do you?

Weakness that can be attritibuted to things that would hinder a rogue in other ways where a rogue has the unique weakness of not having these abilities in the first place. A vivisectionist is still a strong sneak attacker without his mutagens, for example.

But not without his eidolon, which can be easily switched off or otherwise mitigated. It's not so easy to remove a rogue's innate skills.

It wasn't a rogue problem. It is a system problem. Not to mention that you just a agreed with me, anyway.

I'm still not seeing how. Knowing what a creature is, aside from now being something even the fighter can do, was never a requirement for killing it. Perhaps for killing it efficiently, but that just means the specialist is a nice-to-have rather than a requirement.

Snowbluff

2014-11-25, 10:51 AM

According to who? I've never heard that. Indeed, most of 3.5's praise has been directed toward the latter books - adding new subsystems, greater support for those subsystems, recognizing and attempting to mitigate martial/caster imbalance etc. And PF was founded on the very principle of letting you bring ALL your 3.5 books in with you and then pick theirs up too, so if they were trying to avoid bloat they've got a very odd way of going about it.

Thinking "density" is a problem to be solved is exactly the kind of thinking that made WotC decide scrapping the entire edition was a good idea. You don't truly believe that, do you? Well, first of all no one believes that 3.5 and PF material are frequently married. That was pretty much a marketing slogan, and I would be really surprised if it sold any books.

Anyway, I empathize with the concept that 3.5 is a hard system to get into. I'm a walking encyclopedia of tips and tricks for building characters in the d20 System, but that took years of lurking and practice. It's not for everyone and I know plenty of people who would rather not. This is one of the reasons why a bunch of people I know moved onto PF, and dropped it for 5e afterwards. It wasn't long ago that PF was "Play this if you liked 3.5 but want to keep it simple." That really isn't a valid answer anymore.

But not without his eidolon, which can be easily switched off or otherwise mitigated. It's not so easy to remove a rogue's innate skills. :v

I'm still not seeing how. Knowing what a creature is, aside from now being something even the fighter can do, was never a requirement for killing it. Perhaps for killing it efficiently, but that just means the specialist is a nice-to-have rather than a requirement.You agreed with me when you said monster abilities matter little past type.

After fighting 5 consecutive rakshasa a couple of sessions ago, I can tell you that it's a pleasant utility. Either way, the system needs to be overhauled with the following goals:
1) All knowledge skills consolidated.
2) All skills provide monster knowledge, as above.
3) Lower requirements for basic requirements on basic info, and the removal of "trained only," so people other than wizards and bards know things.
3) Greatly improved efficacy at higher rolls, including monster identification. Exact DRs and resistances, SLAs available, all of that jazz. If I get a huge roll over the CR, I should be able to pretty much read the stat block.

Ssalarn

2014-11-25, 11:23 AM

Aren't paizo re-writing the rogue in Unchained because of things like this?

Yep. They're specifically releasing a rewritten version of the Rogue that's going to receive several buffs to bring it back into relevance as a solid class in its own right. While they haven't made any specific announcements as to how, I think the credible speculation I've heard is that the Rogues is getting his 1/day talents axed and replaced with abilities that are more useable and relevant, and his martial debuffing abilities are getting a big boost.

Unchained is also going to feature a full BAB, d10 hit die Monk.

@ Knowledge skills: For starters that wasn't the rogue's job in 3.5 either, and at least he has a chance to be decent at it now. Second, monster identification is overrated; most of the time you don't need to know exactly what something is in order to kill it, and with the reduced immunity to sneak attack across the board that is even more true now as well. To quote Arya Stark: "You stick 'em with the pointy end."

Got to agree, Knowledge skills are generally only useful for casters because they're usually the only ones who can actually take advantage of them. In a recent playtest of the Occultist, I nailed pretty much every Knowledge check that came up, but with the rest of my party consisting of two Kineticists, a Mesmerist, and a melee Medium, that knowledge made zero difference in the choices anyone took. I don't know that I would ever bother investing in Knowledge skills for a Rogue unless it was to support my backstory with mechanics (maybe he's got Knowledge: History trained because he's supposed to be an archaeologist?), or because the campaign we were playing in made Knowledge: Local or Knowledge: Nobility relevant enough to warrant the resource.

atemu1234

2014-11-25, 11:25 AM

Unchained is also going to feature a full BAB, d10 hit die Monk.

Even if I don't switch to pathfinder, I'll probably wind up using that variant of the monk.

Psyren

2014-11-25, 11:44 AM

Well, first of all no one believes that 3.5 and PF material are frequently married. That was pretty much a marketing slogan, and I would be really surprised if it sold any books.

Who are these people you keep polling? :smalltongue:
"no one believes" X. The "biggest detractor" is Y. Your opinion is neither fact nor even particularly widespread. Every communication from Paizo has been "mix and match as you see fit, " with the sole exception being sanctioned play (i.e. PFS.)

Anyway, I empathize with the concept that 3.5 is a hard system to get into. I'm a walking encyclopedia of tips and tricks for building characters in the d20 System, but that took years of lurking and practice. It's not for everyone and I know plenty of people who would rather not. This is one of the reasons why a bunch of people I know moved onto PF, and dropped it for 5e afterwards. It wasn't long ago that PF was "Play this if you liked 3.5 but want to keep it simple." That really isn't a valid answer anymore.

Well for starters, if you think 5e won't balloon a few years from now I have a nice bridge to sell you. Designers unfortunately have to eat, which means continual production, and the ones that work for shareholders even moreso.

But more importantly, they're already proactively addressing the potential issue of system creep. Pathfinder Unchained for one, and the Obsidian and Goblinworks partnerships to bring in new blood from the electronic gaming sphere.

You agreed with me when you said monster abilities matter little past type.

Ah, gotcha.

After fighting 5 consecutive rakshasa a couple of sessions ago, I can tell you that it's a pleasant utility. Either way, the system needs to be overhauled with the following goals:
1) All knowledge skills consolidated.
2) All skills provide monster knowledge, as above.
3) Lower requirements for basic requirements on basic info, and the removal of "trained only," so people other than wizards and bards know things.
3) Greatly improved efficacy at higher rolls, including monster identification. Exact DRs and resistances, SLAs available, all of that jazz. If I get a huge roll over the CR, I should be able to pretty much read the stat block.

I disagree with (1) - having some people in the party or town have certain kinds of knowledge but not others creates a more immersive world. Having the brilliant wizard who can explain planar cosmology in detail, but knows nothing of local politics or heraldry is a common trope. Equally common is the court enchanter who is very well-versed in all three topics, yet does not consider the wilderness to be worth his time. And of course you can have the genius character that has the potential to know everything about everything, but they spent so much time reading they never learned much about riding or hunting.

For (2) I could see any given knowledge skill providing monster lore on something. I don't think that, say, Nobility & Royalty will be as generally useful as Religion or Arcana or even History for most monsters, but it could help you suss out certain humanoid opponents like an order of royal assassins or the abilities of a magocracy's ruling circle.

(3) I'm fine with. (4) should be primarily the province of the DM in question, though guidelines should be given.

Ssalarn

2014-11-25, 11:47 AM

Well, first of all no one believes that 3.5 and PF material are frequently married. That was pretty much a marketing slogan, and I would be really surprised if it sold any books.

Literally every person I've played with outside of PFS who bought Pathfinder books, did so so they could use an updated game with continuing support and still be able to bring over their favorite 3.5 stuff. My very first game of Pathfinder included a converted Incarnate, a race from a 3.5 splatbook (I think Stormwrack?), and an updated Savage Species monstrous character.

Snowbluff

2014-11-25, 11:54 AM

Who are these people you keep polling? :smalltongue:
"no one believes" X. The "biggest detractor" is Y. Your opinion is neither fact nor even particularly widespread. Every communication from Paizo has been "mix and match as you see fit, " with the sole exception being sanctioned play (i.e. PFS.)
I pretty much play strictly PF material in PFS and Adventure Paths. I have a group at a nearby library. Nice guys. Pretty much everyone I play PF with is anti-3.5. We have a larger portion of 3.5 people here, since they tend to congregate here, but compare this board to the Paizo one (little to no 3.5) or the Minmax one (substantial division as well), and you see there is a divide. I think we've already substantiated this point here in a previous thread with a large portion of people strongly preferring one or the other, and preferring not to mix it or not being it games where it's mixed.

Well for starters, if you think 5e won't balloon a few years from now I have a nice bridge to sell you. Designers unfortunately have to eat, which means continual production, and the ones that work for shareholders even moreso.

But more importantly, they're already proactively addressing the potential issue of system creep. Pathfinder Unchained for one, and the Obsidian and Goblinworks partnerships to bring in new blood from the electronic gaming sphere.
I know it will happen, and I look forward to it. However, it doesn't mean the people who want less power gaming in a d20 style system will be happy, even in a rules light system.

I disagree with (1) - having some people in the party or town have certain kinds of knowledge but not others creates a more immersive world. Having the brilliant wizard who can explain planar cosmology in detail, but knows nothing of local politics or heraldry is a common trope. Equally common is the court enchanter who is very well-versed in all three topics, yet does not consider the wilderness to be worth his time. And of course you can have the genius character that has the potential to know everything about everything, but they spent so much time reading they never learned much about riding or hunting.

For (2) I could see any given knowledge skill providing monster lore on something. I don't think that, say, Nobility & Royalty will be as generally useful as Religion or Arcana or even History for most monsters, but it could help you suss out certain humanoid opponents like an order of royal assassins or the abilities of a magocracy's ruling circle.

(3) I'm fine with. (4) should be primarily the province of the DM in question, though guidelines should be given.
1) Well, the wizard will know about Local stuff because local is a disproportionately good skill, where as what he knows to know about Arcane is actually covered by spellcraft- argh! There is so much to be done! [/stressed]
2) I would have Nobility rolled into Local, for example. Maybe specific bonuses will be given with certain perks or traits to further differentiate them. Good point.
4) Harder guidelines are what I am for. The current ones seems a bit nebulous. It's a rules-heavy system, after all.

Psyren

2014-11-25, 12:20 PM

I pretty much play strictly PF material in PFS and Adventure Paths. I have a group at a nearby library. Nice guys. Pretty much everyone I play PF with is anti-3.5. We have a larger portion of 3.5 people here, since they tend to congregate here, but compare this board to the Paizo one (little to no 3.5) or the Minmax one (substantial division as well), and you see there is a divide. I think we've already substantiated this point here in a previous thread with a large portion of people strongly preferring one or the other, and preferring not to mix it or not being it games where it's mixed.

That fills me with pity to be perfectly honest. For myself, every single IRL group I've played with has been fine including 3.5 material, and even allowing the 3.5 versions of some feats. (Not the 3.5 versions of existing spells though, nor have we pushed for that anyway.) If I wanted strict PF-only I'd play Society, not at home (and have in fact done so.)

No matter what your personal experiences have been, however, Paizo is not to blame for any DM who chooses to ignore their advice.

I know it will happen, and I look forward to it. However, it doesn't mean the people who want less power gaming in a d20 style system will be happy, even in a rules light system.

To those people I unfortunately have to say, tough cookies. More options are good, even with Sturgeon's Law. It's easier to get new material (especially when it's free and searchable) and say "I don't like this bit, this bit and that bit" than it is to try and come up with something that doesn't exist out of whole cloth. That's why we buy books at all, instead of say, freeforming.

1) Well, the wizard will know about Local stuff because local is a disproportionately good skill, where as what he knows to know about Arcane is actually covered by spellcraft- argh! There is so much to be done! [/stressed]
2) I would have Nobility rolled into Local, for example. Maybe specific bonuses will be given with certain perks or traits to further differentiate them. Good point.
4) Harder guidelines are what I am for. The current ones seems a bit nebulous. It's a rules-heavy system, after all.

I'm for harder guidelines too. Not necessarily "I get to read the statblock" since the statblock is only meant for typical members of that creature's race anyway, but a bit more data on what counts as "useful information" would be good for both the DM and the player. The problem with hardening it too much is that you start to get as much info from what the DM doesn't tell you as what he does. (For instance, if it said something like "provide details in this order - type, immunities, resistances, DR, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities... etc.") and the DM for a specific monster started off by listing its type and SLAs, you could metagame to conclude that this monster has no immunities.

For the most part, Spellcraft only deals with... well, spells. Knowledge (arcana) can be much broader than that.

I would not roll Nobility into Local at all. The politically-savvy noble who nevertheless knows nothing of the city's seedy underworld is another common trope. This is the kind of the person who would wear satin and velvet to the Bad Guy Bar and loudly request on entering that he requires the services of a ruffian to steal from his rival, i.e. the kind who would be lucky to wake up in an alley the following morning in his smallclothes with a shiner, if he wakes up at all.

Snowbluff

2014-11-25, 12:34 PM

That fills me with pity to be perfectly honest. For myself, every single IRL group I've played with has been fine including 3.5 material, and even allowing the 3.5 versions of some feats. (Not the 3.5 versions of existing spells though, nor have we pushed for that anyway.) If I wanted strict PF-only I'd play Society, not at home (and have in fact done so.)

No matter what your personal experiences have been, however, Paizo is not to blame for any DM who chooses to ignore their advice. It's good and it's bad. Moar optionz = moar gudt, but at the same time having a myriad of complex and cobbled together rules makes it harder to talk about and work together with.

To those people I unfortunately have to say, tough cookies. More options are good, even with Sturgeon's Law. It's easier to get new material (especially when it's free and searchable) and say "I don't like this bit, this bit and that bit" than it is to try and come up with something that doesn't exist out of whole cloth. That's why we buy books at all, instead of say, freeforming.

I'm for harder guidelines too. Not necessarily "I get to read the statblock" since the statblock is only meant for typical members of that creature's race anyway, but a bit more data on what counts as "useful information" would be good for both the DM and the player. The problem with hardening it too much is that you start to get as much info from what the DM doesn't tell you as what he does. (For instance, if it said something like "provide details in this order - type, immunities, resistances, DR, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities... etc.") and the DM for a specific monster started off by listing its type and SLAs, you could metagame to conclude that this monster has no immunities.

For the most part, Spellcraft only deals with... well, spells. Knowledge (arcana) can be much broader than that.

I would not roll Nobility into Local at all. The politically-savvy noble who nevertheless knows nothing of the city's seedy underworld is another common trope. This is the kind of the person who would wear satin and velvet to the Bad Guy Bar and loudly request on entering that he requires the services of a ruffian to steal from his rival, i.e. the kind who would be lucky to wake up in an alley the following morning in his smallclothes with a shiner, if he wakes up at all.
So what I've got here:
1) Skill synergies from 3.5 will be replaced with skill perks. Now, these will be small bonuses to replace multiple categories to differentiate individual uses of a skill, kind of how PF class skills work. For example, you can have a perk for Nobility, which gives a bonus on Knowledge Local checks (or society knowledge, I guess) that involve nobility.

2) I have no idea how I would assign these perks. We could make it RP-based (like a trait that's based on your backstory), a skill trick (spend a skill point like in 3.5, but with less requirements), or by class (You get 2 based on your first level class, etc, like 4e skills).

I guess the goal will be improve the ability of the knowledge checks, while still allowing for differentiation.

Extra Anchovies

2014-11-25, 12:36 PM

Unchained is also going to feature a full BAB, d10 hit die Monk.

Oooh, I like that. I wonder what their Barbarian and Summoner reworks are going to be? Maybe the Summoner will be taking a step away from just spamming Summon Monster, since the goal of Unchained is to take things in a new direction...

dascarletm

2014-11-25, 12:49 PM

Wouldn't the wizard only have knowledge (local) if said wizard was interested in such topics... or had to take a lot of undergraduate classes on the subject?:smalltongue:

I mean sure from a metagame perspective, or games that have a 4th wall with 0 hardness and 1 HP sure.

Ssalarn

2014-11-25, 01:29 PM

Oooh, I like that. I wonder what their Barbarian and Summoner reworks are going to be? Maybe the Summoner will be taking a step away from just spamming Summon Monster, since the goal of Unchained is to take things in a new direction...

They've been pretty clear that the Summoner changes are probably going to be things that are effectively nerfs. The Spiritualist from the Occult Adventures playtest is probably a good example of where the bar will be set for the Unchained Summoner. I know that a couple of the Paizo people have talked about changing it so that instead of a giant grab-bag of evolutions, the eidolon could instead be themed to a specific Outsider type that would narrow his options. Pretty much all speculation at this point though, other than the fact that James Jacobs has been pushing for the themed eidolons and Jason Buhlman's pitch regarding the Summoner and Unchained at the PaizoCon 2014 dinner was "If you want a Summoner who isn't the most ridiculousy broken OP thing at your table...".

Their stated goal with the Barbarian was to make it easier to run at the table. My guess would be that this means they're going to do something along the lines of the way the wookie and dark side rage abilities were handled in Star Wars Saga Edition; instead of actually increasing your stats (and by association all of your skills, feats, etc. that key off your stats) you'll probably get something like +2 to attack and damage and 2 temp hp per hit die. Word on the street is that they may also get rid of per rage abilities as well and tweak things a bit so that all Rage Talents look a lot more like the Totem line, where each one basically customizes your abilities and stuff during a rage. So instead of "1/Rage I can sunder a spell" it'd be "while raging I can sunder spells". So I expect that these simplifications will actually be a bit of a power boost for the Barbarian, or at least a utility boost.

Psyren

2014-11-25, 01:33 PM

Hopefully it tones the spells down too, they did not need so many discounts.

Ssalarn

2014-11-25, 01:48 PM

Hopefully it tones the spells down too, they did not need so many discounts.

If you look at the Spiritualist in the updated playtest doc, that's what they did there. It's basically the same spell list as the Summoner, but with all of the spell discounts removed so that spells like haste kick on at 3rd level as normal, etc.

Knaight

2014-11-25, 03:53 PM

Petrocorus

2014-11-25, 03:55 PM

1) All knowledge skills consolidated.

How exactly would you consolidate them? In how many skills?

... I've played with outside of PFS who ...

PFS is PathFinder Society?

As a quite related note, does anyone know how to legally get PDF versions of 3.5 books? Except for the fews on DriveThruRPG.

Ssalarn

2014-11-25, 04:16 PM

PFS is PathFinder Society?

As a quite related note, does anyone know how to legally get PDF versions of 3.5 books? Except for the fews on DriveThruRPG.

Yeah, PFS is Pathfinder Society.

I don't think there currently are any legal ways to pick up 3.5 .pdfs outside of the ones licensed on DTRPG and any other sites Wizards might have licensed. WotC started re-releasing their old IP and editions a couple years ago back around the close of 4E and put out several adventure modules designed to be easily adapted to the rule system of your choice, so they haven't given up on squeezing a few more pennies out of those properties. I'm pretty sure I saw a brand new reprint of Magic of Incarnum the other day, and I know that all the core books for 3.5 have been stocked at the local Barnes and Noble recently (though when I was down there on lunch it looked like they'd been cleared out or pushed aside in favor of a 5E display stocked for the holiday season).

Snowbluff

2014-11-25, 04:34 PM

How exactly would you consolidate them? In how many skills?

1) Local, Nobility, history would be come society. This is my biggest gripe.
2) Engineering and dungeoneering would become... neering. If I wrote the fluff, engineers investigate Lovecraftian horrors for physics and architecture information.
3) Nature and Geography would become Nature.
4)Planes and Religion may become the same or religion may become attached to society. Nah, I think they should come together as religion.
5) Arcane would remain the same.

So 5-6.

Coidzor

2014-11-25, 04:35 PM

Psyren

2014-11-25, 04:44 PM

While I'd agree that the later books are better, the prevalence of rules light games (or at least rules lighter games) in non-WotC RPGs is pretty suggestive of a lot of people thinking 3e is too bloated. I'd personally go so far as to say that Core is too bloated - 1000 pages of rules really aren't necessary as far as I'm concerned.

And that's fine, I'm not at all saying that rules-light games shouldn't exist. I just don't think D&D needs to be one of them. Other systems do that far better, and I say let them.

Also, I'm not sure how suggestive "prevalence of games" is supposed to ultimately be. If that's the case then people need to vote with their wallets, because D&D and PF are generally 90% of what I see at most conventions or on sites like MeetUp.

georgie_leech

2014-11-25, 04:45 PM

How exactly would you consolidate them? In how many skills?

4E had a decent set. Arcana and Planes (as it pertained to the elemental planes, Feywild, and Shadowfell) got mushed together into Arcana. Dungeoneering got Dungeoneering, Architecture, and a pit of Planes that relates to Aberrant creatures (under the logic that you generally find Aberrations in dungeons). History covers a lot of what Local and Nobility would have, and of course including History. For getting around in Modern society, there's also Streetwise, those it's not exactly a knowledge check; if you were making a check to see if you could follow the etiquette necessary to not mortally offend someone, it would probably bee either Streetwise or Diplomacy, depending on other parts of the situation. Nature and Geography become Nature, with a side of Survivor too. Finally, Religion got Religion and a smattering of Planes as it pertains to the divine. That's right, they're finally teaching Clerics what the afterlife is like! :smallbiggrin:

Psyren

2014-11-25, 04:57 PM

Yeah, even here on the boards there's a substantial bias against mixing, to the point where pointing out that they can mix is about 50-50 whether that's going to get you pushback and hostility.

And the Paizo boards are full of hating on 3.5 in order to build up PF from every time I've been over there.

When I go to, let's call it neutral ground sites like Facebook or ENWorld I see lots of people claiming they mix.

Most folks on the Paizo board prefer PF obviously - why else would they be there - but they're not nearly as hostile to 3.5/3.P as folks here are towards PF.

That's right, they're finally teaching Clerics what the afterlife is like! :smallbiggrin:

You do know 3.5 and PF clerics both got Planes right? :smalltongue:

georgie_leech

2014-11-25, 05:24 PM

You do know 3.5 and PF clerics both got Planes right? :smalltongue:

Meaning that the lessons on their deities now include at least the cliffnotes on where they live.

Psyren

2014-11-25, 05:30 PM

Meaning that the lessons on their deities now include at least the cliffnotes on where they live.

Class skills represent what your class is expected to know; your cleric still has to put in the effort via the skill points (and conversely, not be dumber than dirt, as represented by needing a halfway decent Int mod.)

Besides, if you worship a philosophy or ideal, do you necessarily care where the "gods" live? So combining the two ultimately doesn't make much sense.

Petrocorus

2014-11-25, 06:01 PM

1) Local, Nobility, history would be come society. This is my biggest gripe.
2) Engineering and dungeoneering would become... neering. If I wrote the fluff, engineers investigate Lovecraftian horrors for physics and architecture information.

Ok, now, i want to play that!

3) Nature and Geography would become Nature.
4)Planes and Religion may become the same or religion may become attached to society. Nah, I think they should come together as religion.
5) Arcane would remain the same.

Planes with Religion and not with Arcane?

Yeah, even here on the boards there's a substantial bias against mixing, to the point where pointing out that they can mix is about 50-50 whether that's going to get you pushback and hostility.

On this boards? I myself am under the impression that there are people advising to mix or at least to import PF classes on every player help thread.

atemu1234

2014-11-25, 06:15 PM

Planes with Religion and not with Arcane

I'd make the planes link to religion or arcane, separately, depending upon if they link to religion or magic.

Snowbluff

2014-11-25, 06:32 PM

Planes with Religion and not with Arcane?
Well, the gods and their critters are outsiders. That's my reasoning, anyway.

Arcane... I don't know what to do with. Mixing it with the new Religion/Planes would make a strong knowledge too good. Elementals might be changes and placed under Arcane.

Coidzor

2014-11-26, 04:30 AM

Most folks on the Paizo board prefer PF obviously

Did I misspeak somewhere and give you the impression that I had some kind of issue with people on Paizo's boards liking Pathfinder instead of what I meant to say, which I believe that I said, which was that they were actively denigrating 3.5 and the idea of mixing 3.5 with PF? :smallconfused:

Taveena

2014-11-26, 05:07 AM

1) Local, Nobility, history would be come society. This is my biggest gripe.
2) Engineering and dungeoneering would become... neering. If I wrote the fluff, engineers investigate Lovecraftian horrors for physics and architecture information.
3) Nature and Geography would become Nature.
4)Planes and Religion may become the same or religion may become attached to society. Nah, I think they should come together as religion.
5) Arcane would remain the same.

So 5-6.

While I like the ideas, I'd say Planes and undead-identifying should be Arcana, while the societal aspect of Religion should be... Society. Maybe move Humanoids to Nature, but not certain about that - it'd work better with KDev/Kirin Strike, but not as well with 'yes that is indeed an elf'.

Venger

2014-11-26, 05:16 AM

while we're consolidating, maybe just like... one knowledge skill? just called "knowledge" and you could use it for everything. all the same little situational bonuses could apply (class features, feats, etc to help ID certain types or boost certain situations) but this way if we were retooling the entire skill system, non-smartypants classes could contribute/be useful too and not let wizard have all the fun with his int+2 skillpoints and his nothing to put them in.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-11-26, 08:22 AM

Honestly, I'd rather just untie skill points from Int scores. Just give classes a set number of skill points that they get when they level up.

Venger

2014-11-26, 08:47 AM

Honestly, I'd rather just untie skill points from Int scores. Just give classes a set number of skill points that they get when they level up.

wouldn't that be something?

why are they even linked at all, anyway?

of course, skillreqs for prcs would have to be scaled way back since on one's gonna have any skill points now, either that or boost the number each class gives.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-11-26, 11:29 AM

wouldn't that be something?

why are they even linked at all, anyway?

of course, skillreqs for prcs would have to be scaled way back since on one's gonna have any skill points now, either that or boost the number each class gives. I think boosting most classes' skills/level by 2 or 3 would be more than enough to get them back up to par. The issue would be at higher levels, when characters rely on boosted intelligence, but I think some of that could be negated with skill consolidation.

Snowbluff

2014-11-26, 12:16 PM

While I like the ideas, I'd say Planes and undead-identifying should be Arcana, while the societal aspect of Religion should be... Society. Maybe move Humanoids to Nature, but not certain about that - it'd work better with KDev/Kirin Strike, but not as well with 'yes that is indeed an elf'.

Humanoids being anything but society is silly. Not to mention nature already covers a ton of creature types. Absolutely no on that.

Undead being covered with arcane sounds good, though. Then Religion can have elementals back.

Planes is religion. It has a lot more to do with the contents, and less to do with the worshippers. It can't be society because then society would cover 1) something that has little to do with society and more to do with outsiders and 2) it would cover too many knowledge types.

SiuiS

2014-11-26, 06:20 PM

According to who? I've never heard that. Indeed, most of 3.5's praise has been directed toward the latter books - adding new subsystems, greater support for those subsystems, recognizing and attempting to mitigate martial/caster imbalance etc. And PF was founded on the very principle of letting you bring ALL your 3.5 books in with you and then pick theirs up too, so if they were trying to avoid bloat they've got a very odd way of going about it.

That's because the later books weren't extra clutter in the same system and obviating some existing details, they were new subsystems fit alongside. If they did that from the start and had a consistent eye for balance, the bloat wouldn't have happened.

Who are these people you keep polling? :smalltongue:
"no one believes" X. The "biggest detractor" is Y. Your opinion is neither fact nor even particularly widespread. Every communication from Paizo has been "mix and match as you see fit, " with the sole exception being sanctioned play (i.e. PFS.)

It's not a hard leap to make, though. Here at least, there's a big issue with mixing. 3.5 players are tired of being told pathfinder is better and PF players tend to disdain the lesser third edition stuff.

But more importantly, they're already proactively addressing the potential issue of system creep. Pathfinder Unchained for one, and the Obsidian and Goblinworks partnerships to bring in new blood from the electronic gaming sphere.

Now that's interesting. What is 'unchained'? What are the obsidian and goblin works things?

As a quite related note, does anyone know how to legally get PDF versions of 3.5 books? Except for the fews on DriveThruRPG.

Take your books, rip out the pages and scan them into a system for personal use. That's probably quite literally it.

Class skills represent what your class is expected to know; your cleric still has to put in the effort via the skill points (and conversely, not be dumber than dirt, as represented by needing a halfway decent Int mod.)

Besides, if you worship a philosophy or ideal, do you necessarily care where the "gods" live? So combining the two ultimately doesn't make much sense.

Class skills are also not that limiting considering. It's possible to take skills that aren't class skills and not fall too far behind (since you don't need to be on the bleeding edge to succeed).

And that's poppycock. Just because you follow an ethos doesn't make the gods less gods.

Ssalarn

2014-11-26, 06:50 PM

Unchained is Paizo's "here are some things we would have done differently if we'd known then what we know now and hadn't been bound to conform to certain mechanics due to the OGL". It includes, amongst other things, rewrites of existing classes like a Monk with full BAB and d10 hit die, a Rogue who's basically the master of martial debuffing, a reworked Summoner, and a new subsystem for martial classes that's apparently something like the Magus' arcane pool. It hasn't released yet, but is slated for Spring 2015.

Milo v3

2014-11-26, 08:37 PM

Actually, now that I think about it, Rogues should be more useful in Pathfinder than they are in 3.5e, since sneak attack isn't an auto-lose against constructs and undead.

Psyren

2014-11-26, 08:48 PM

It's not a hard leap to make, though. Here at least, there's a big issue with mixing. 3.5 players are tired of being told pathfinder is better and PF players tend to disdain the lesser third edition stuff.

These boards are hardly representative, and even here I do not see any PF people sneering at 3.5. Even throughout this very thread the PF advocates have merely been saying "use PF as the base" - not "set your 3.5 library on fire, the promised land is here!"

Class skills are also not that limiting considering. It's possible to take skills that aren't class skills and not fall too far behind (since you don't need to be on the bleeding edge to succeed).

Right, this is exactly what I've been saying. Because cross-class skills are cheaper and have the same cap as class skills, anything you choose to invest in, you can be good at.

And that's poppycock. Just because you follow an ethos doesn't make the gods less gods.

Actually that's precisely what it means. They get demoted to "very powerful outsider" in the eyes of such clerics, or at most "chief representative of the ideal I venerate." But a cleric who venerates the concept of, say, Death isn't going to be beholden to using Wee Jas' specific holy symbol or observing her specific holidays. She isn't his god; none of them are.

Snowbluff

2014-11-26, 09:07 PM

Actually, now that I think about it, Rogues should be more useful in Pathfinder than they are in 3.5e, since sneak attack isn't an auto-lose against constructs and undead.
Actually, there are spells, items, and ACFs (particularly undead, the more common type) to get around it. Your ignorance on the issue is demonstrated by not mentioning plants. :smalltongue:

Actually that's precisely what it means. They get demoted to "very powerful outsider" in the eyes of such clerics, or at most "chief representative of the ideal I venerate." But a cleric who venerates the concept of, say, Death isn't going to be beholden to using Wee Jas' specific holy symbol or observing her specific holidays. She isn't his god; none of them are.

Poppycock! Wee Jas is the best goddess and you'd be a fool not to celebrate Knight Templar Day or Making Fun of Vecna Day!

Milo v3

2014-11-26, 09:14 PM

Actually, there are spells, items, and ACFs (particularly undead, the more common type) to get around it. Your ignorance on the issue is demonstrated by not mentioning plants. :smalltongue:
I know about those, but those are basically tax. As for plants, they're so uncommon didn't really think they'd be worth mentioning.

Snowbluff

2014-11-26, 09:26 PM

I know about those, but those are basically tax. As for plants, they're so uncommon didn't really think they'd be worth mentioning.It's not perfect, but your statement was a certifiable falsehood, and had to be corrected either way.

Knaight

2014-11-26, 09:51 PM

Actually, now that I think about it, Rogues should be more useful in Pathfinder than they are in 3.5e, since sneak attack isn't an auto-lose against constructs and undead.

Which is long overdue, as far as I'm concerned. Look at the inevitables art in 3.5 - that pretty much screams that it is sneak attack susceptible, yet somehow they're immune.

SiuiS

2014-11-26, 10:06 PM

These boards are hardly representative, and even here I do not see any PF people sneering at 3.5. Even throughout this very thread the PF advocates have merely been saying "use PF as the base" - not "set your 3.5 library on fire, the promised land is here!"

This thread is also not indicative of the whole forum.

Actually that's precisely what it means. They get demoted to "very powerful outsider" in the eyes of such clerics, or at most "chief representative of the ideal I venerate." But a cleric who venerates the concept of, say, Death isn't going to be beholden to using Wee Jas' specific holy symbol or observing her specific holidays. She isn't his god; none of them are.

You're seriously saying that because you're, say, Spanish, you don't believe the king of England or the king of France are real kings. "Specific holy days" and "particular holy symbol" have nothing to do with a divinity being a divinity, they are about a divinity being your patron. Conflating the two is silly.

YossarianLives

2014-11-26, 10:49 PM

Pathfinder is probably a better system in terms of balance (although caster still have superiority) but I prefer 3.5. Not because I think the system is better but because I don't like a lot of the things they changed. Such as unlimited cantrips and the fact that they RUINED half-orcs.

Especially since 3.5 recently had a unfortunate loss in that department.
RIP D&D Tools :smallfrown:

Milo v3

2014-11-26, 10:59 PM

they RUINED half-orcs.

They were given non-crippling ability scores, and an actual racial ability. How is that ruined? :smallconfused:

T.G. Oskar

2014-11-27, 02:51 AM

Pathfinder is probably a better system in terms of balance (although caster still have superiority) but I prefer 3.5. Not because I think the system is better but because I don't like a lot of the things they changed. Such as unlimited cantrips[...]

Huh? I don't see that as a problem. In fact, it's a nice move for some classes.

For example: Sorcerers and Wizards in 3.5 don't have much of a distinction other than one preparing its classes and the other doing them spontaneously. Had they made Sorcerers cast cantrips at-will and Wizards only use their cantrips sparingly, there would have been a noticeable distinction. The problem goes a bit wider, of course: Wizards learn spells faster than Sorcerers, while fluff-wise Sorcerers gain access to their spells faster.

Unlimited cantrips/orisons doesn't really break the game, either. The most damage you can do with a cantrip is 1d4, and PF removed Cure/Inflict Minor Wounds for Bleed/Stabilize, so in that regard they went away with the "problem" spells. They still have problem cantrips/orisons (Prestidigitation comes to mind), and 3.5 already had an unlimited cantrip/orison accessible with a feat (Detect Magic, via Vatic Gaze).

In fact, it was a paradigm shift that became part of post-3e systems, since 4e was designed with that idea in mind (the at-will spells, or cantrips, for Arcane classes) and 5e followed suit. 5e goes worse in that regard, since the cantrips also scale in level, thus making them ALWAYS relevant. In all regards (PF, 4e, 5e) it was a positive move; just a bit of a shame that PF didn't also go with allowing all attacks after movement, which is often considered a fix for martial classes (particularly the Monk, who gains greater movement and can exploit that).

[...]and the fact that they RUINED half-orcs.

They were given non-crippling ability scores, and an actual racial ability. How is that ruined? :smallconfused:

I agree with this: how they were ruined? Early 3e developers (Cook, Tweet) thought too highly of Strength scores because of 2e backgrounds, and needlessly nerfed the Half-Orc by making it the only class with two ability score penalties rather than one. Half-Orcs aren't a "must-have" race, though, since other races went similar changes (all other Core races gained an extra +2 to ability scores), and even Humans got a +2 to an ability score, which is already overblown when they're the default race anyways.

Half-Orcs are actually fun to play in this case, but not a race that HAS to be played.

Ssalarn

2014-11-28, 12:27 PM

They were given non-crippling ability scores, and an actual racial ability. How is that ruined? :smallconfused:

This was pretty much my thought exactly. Making half-orcs a viable race capable of entering just about any class while still retaining some very orcish character elements was one of my favorite things about Pathfinder. While they're not as crazy good as dwarves or humans, half-orcs are much more in line with their peers in Pathfinder than they were in 3.5, where they could basically serve as Barbarians or even crappier Fighters.

At-will cantrips/orisons were also a big win in my book. That was another big draw to Pathfinder for me; no more sling or crossbow wielding wizards during the first couple levels. I really prefer classes that are capable of being what they're supposed to be and get better at it, over classes that take 3-5 levels to finally actually start playing like the class you signed up for.

The one big thing I think they (Pathfinder) screwed up on was the formula for determining CMD. I don't think size bonuses should have been calculated in; after all, most creatures are already getting Strength bonuses as a result of their increased size and many maneuvers are limited in that they can't target creatures who are more than one or two size categories larger, so this creates a double-dipping effect whose end result is poor scaling in the system. If you slice out the size bonuses from the CMD equations, Combat Maneuvers actually stay relevant and scale properly with investment throughout the whole length of the game. This also helps buff the Rogue a little bit, as creatures are no longer applying their Strength and size bonuses to the DC for him to tumble through or around them. This means the Rogue is better able to avoid AoO and set up flanks, bringing him a little bit closer to the relevance he lost in the transition between 3.5 and PF.

Psyren

2014-11-28, 01:27 PM

I know about those, but those are basically tax. As for plants, they're so uncommon didn't really think they'd be worth mentioning.

It's simple - taxes are horrible when PF does it, but perfectly fine when 3.5 does it.

This thread is also not indicative of the whole forum.

Perhaps, but the anti-PF crew is certainly loud enough on this board for it to seem so.

You're seriously saying that because you're, say, Spanish, you don't believe the king of England or the king of France are real kings. "Specific holy days" and "particular holy symbol" have nothing to do with a divinity being a divinity, they are about a divinity being your patron. Conflating the two is silly.

No - I'm saying that if I don't consider kings to be authority figures, then it won't matter to me whether they are king of France, England, Westeros or wherever.

Snowbluff

2014-11-28, 01:56 PM

It's simple - taxes are horrible when PF does it, but perfectly fine when 3.5 does it.

It's simple, Psyren is allowed to misrepresent what other people are saying. :smalltongue:

Lord_Gareth

2014-11-28, 02:18 PM

It's simple - taxes are horrible when PF does it, but perfectly fine when 3.5 does it.

Even if this were true - and it's not - Paizo had 10 years of 3.5 to learn from. WotC's introduction of, f'rinstance, the rogue ACFs was them finally resolving a problem after they grew the hell up about their own game. The 3.5 crowd is a little justifiably bitter that Paizo didn't learn a thing from 3.5's run and is still fighting the evolution of their own game in many ways.

Palanan

2014-11-28, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Psyren
These boards are hardly representative, and even here I do not see any PF people sneering at 3.5.

Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth
The 3.5 crowd is a little justifiably bitter that Paizo didn't learn a thing from 3.5's run and is still fighting the evolution of their own game in many ways.

And here I was about to comment that while I appreciate Psyren's general perspective, there are some regrettable exceptions.

:smallsigh:

Lord_Gareth

2014-11-28, 02:36 PM

And here I was about to comment that while I appreciate Psyren's general perspective, there are some regrettable exceptions.

:smallsigh:

Not sure if mad at me, him, or both of us.

Psyren

2014-11-28, 03:45 PM

Even if this were true - and it's not - Paizo had 10 years of 3.5 to learn from. WotC's introduction of, f'rinstance, the rogue ACFs was them finally resolving a problem after they grew the hell up about their own game. The 3.5 crowd is a little justifiably bitter that Paizo didn't learn a thing from 3.5's run and is still fighting the evolution of their own game in many ways.

They did learn from those 10 years. They may not have implemented every enhancement you personally wanted to see, but it's still a long way from "not learning a thing."

And I'm not saying you shouldn't feel bitter - but just as detractors have a right to air their bitterness, those who are happy have a right to opine that the first group is overreacting.

Palanan

2014-11-28, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by Psyren
They did learn from those 10 years. They may not have implemented every enhancement you personally wanted to see, but it's still a long way from "not learning a thing."

This, very much so.

Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth
The 3.5 crowd is a little justifiably bitter that Paizo didn't learn a thing from 3.5's run….

I'm part of the "3.5 crowd" and I'm not in the slightest bitter at Paizo. I may not be ready to switch wholesale, but I'm more intrigued by Pathfinder than anything.

And even to someone who isn't an artiste and connoisseur of game design, it's obvious Paizo was paying attention and that they did, in fact, learn a thing or two.

Ssalarn

2014-11-28, 05:29 PM

This, very much so.

I'm part of the "3.5 crowd" and I'm not in the slightest bitter at Paizo. I may not be ready to switch wholesale, but I'm more intrigued by Pathfinder than anything.

And even to someone who isn't an artiste and connoisseur of game design, it's obvious Paizo was paying attention and that they did, in fact, learn a thing or two.

Along these lines, one of the things that I think is fairly important to keep in mind is that Paizo got one big run on a fairly tight timeframe to roll out the CRB. Since then, that's pretty much been the design standard they work by, making small tweaks and errata as necessary but trying very hard not to invalidate that material. As someone with probably over a grand worth of Paizo books, I actually really appreciate that. Major changes devalue my investment.
A book like Pathfinder Unchained is perfect; it introduces new options that can take the place of subpar options in the core line, but in such a way that that other material isn't invalidated. So if I want to take the time to dig around and make my Qinggong Sensei Monkto have a good character, I can, and if I want to just make a fast monk who works out of the box, I'll be able to.

Another thing to consider is what you're making the comparison against. This is a point of game design philosophy that people can have very different takes on, which can impact the way you view things. What you should really probably be balancing a class against is the Bestiary, Bestiaries, or the underlying formula those books are written upon, which basically says CR X critter has this much hp, good saves of roughly X and poor saves of roughly Y, and roughly this many special abilities. Since the formula for challenge indicates that a CR = APL encounter should use up roughly 20% of a party's resources and a CR = APL+3 encounter should use 50% + of their resources, and if the design premise is that a given character should be effective against roughly 60% of the creature options out there, you can quickly determine exactly what the class' resources should look like, what weaknesses they should have based on their strengths, etc.

Mark Seifter's Kineticist from the Occult Adventures playtest is actually a very good example of a technically correct class that follows this formula very well. It's also viewed as a fairly weak class. Why is that? Because instead of comparing the class to the challenges it should be facing, most people compare it to other classes. They try to find the nearest comparison of a class that does stuff similar to what that class does, and then test the numbers. The problem, of course, is that not every designer took the same care in balancing their material, and some materials will have unexpected interactions with mechanics they weren't actually intended to interact with at the time they were written, etc. etc. Spellcasting classes are particularly bad in this regard, because every spell opens a new avenue of options and can be made to interact with any other spell in the game by a savvy player, so there's near infinite combinations of moving parts that are basically impossible for any designer to account for. So the Kineticist looks weak next to the other options out there, but the reality is that the problem lies with the existing options having strayed from the game's assumptions rather than with the new class not conforming to the game it's designed for.
This is actually a reason I like Pathfinder as the base system over 3.5. 3.5 was redesigned and reconceived multiple times over the length of its existence, with WotC eventually realizing that they had so much stuff out there that defied their balance assumptions that all they could really do is make new materials that either conformed to the new (much more powerful) normal, try to hold to their original standards and put out a class that is basically terrible (Hexblade, Samurai, etc.), or create a class so dynamically different from the current standard that it's actually kind of hard to tell where on the grid it lies (things like the Dragon Shaman, Incarnate, and Binder, who have a lot of flexibility but for whom it's harder to gauge resource usage). While Pathfinder does have a few outliers and they've inherited some of the innate imbalances of the former edition, they've at least kept all of their materials on the same scale and with relatively few exceptions most of the new materials can at least be quickly evaluated as a counterpart to a CRB entry. This has had the side-effect of making it easier for 3pp companies to make stronger materials; since Paizo hasn't introduced a bunch of new subsystems that have to be taken into account, it's easier for the supporting companies who do develop those subsystems to create a stand-alone product that works within that framework and can utilize its components but won't suffer sudden shifts in balance when a new PF book drops. They provide a constant that makes it easier to graft in variables at a rate and exposure level you choose.

Thurbane

2014-11-28, 05:50 PM

There are two main things that irk me about Pathfinder:

1. A lot of the changes are well thought out and do streamline the game somewhat, but there are a few niggly little changes that are just there for the sake of change, and when you've played 3.X for a number of years they often trip you up. Can't think of specifics off the top of my head, but in the main Pathfinder game I played a year or two back, this kept happening to me.

2. They ramped a lot of stuff up that really didn't need a boost. While some of the core classes really needed a boost (and got one to varying degrees of success), the really powerful classes got some nerfs (again, with varying degrees of success) but also got boosts as well. Instead of trying to genuinely balance to "mid-tier" (I abhor the tier ranking system, but it will do for my explanation), they kind of just threw power ups to everyone.

T.G. Oskar

2014-11-28, 06:42 PM

Another thing to consider is what you're making the comparison against. This is a point of game design philosophy that people can have very different takes on, which can impact the way you view things. What you should really probably be balancing a class against is the Bestiary, Bestiaries, or the underlying formula those books are written upon, which basically says CR X critter has this much hp, good saves of roughly X and poor saves of roughly Y, and roughly this many special abilities. Since the formula for challenge indicates that a CR = APL encounter should use up roughly 20% of a party's resources and a CR = APL+3 encounter should use 50% + of their resources, and if the design premise is that a given character should be effective against roughly 60% of the creature options out there, you can quickly determine exactly what the class' resources should look like, what weaknesses they should have based on their strengths, etc.

Mark Seifter's Kineticist from the Occult Adventures playtest is actually a very good example of a technically correct class that follows this formula very well. It's also viewed as a fairly weak class. Why is that? Because instead of comparing the class to the challenges it should be facing, most people compare it to other classes. They try to find the nearest comparison of a class that does stuff similar to what that class does, and then test the numbers. The problem, of course, is that not every designer took the same care in balancing their material, and some materials will have unexpected interactions with mechanics they weren't actually intended to interact with at the time they were written, etc. etc. Spellcasting classes are particularly bad in this regard, because every spell opens a new avenue of options and can be made to interact with any other spell in the game by a savvy player, so there's near infinite combinations of moving parts that are basically impossible for any designer to account for. So the Kineticist looks weak next to the other options out there, but the reality is that the problem lies with the existing options having strayed from the game's assumptions rather than with the new class not conforming to the game it's designed for.

Not sure if serious or bait.

That said: the reason why the comparison to other classes is done is because other classes can work as a way to approximate or define how some challenges are faced. There's a good reason why the Wizard, the Cleric and the Druid are so good at what they do: spells allow them to deal with any challenge. They have limitations, but creativity works towards reducing or outright removing those: by creatively casting Augury, Divination, Commune/with Nature or Contact Other Plane, you can try to draw the information from the GM to do effective problem solving, then you take from your extensive list of spells to tailor-suit the solution. There's a reason why "Batman Wizard" exists - the Wizard's spellcasting potential is vast, but you need to prepare it for the situation at hand, much like Batman prepares its utility belt (and even his other equipment, like his costume). A Fighter isn't equipped with as many tools to deal with this, and creativity with Fighters can only take so far.

When attempting to see if the class is balanced according to the challenges they must face, you have to define what are those challenges. Combat-related challenges? Well, the Face has nothing to do here. Roleplaying challenges? How about ignoring whether that +1 weapon will work or not? Exploration? It requires a toolset only few have. In that regard, some classes have tools that solve that, and others don't.

Now, it's often mentioned (and it's true, but that doesn't mean the premise I'll mention is invalid because of it) that D&D, Pathfinder and other roleplaying games are team-focused games. If you as a player don't have the right tool to solve the challenge, then your party probably has it, and there shouldn't be a worry. However, the idea is that if the character doesn't have that necessary tool to handle the situation, and only one member of the party does, then the challenge suddenly got harder (if not making its success highly improbable). Redundancy (as Psyren mentions) is important, because it covers for when the specialist is taken down, allowing the rest of the party to overcome the challenge. What happens, then, when one class has redundancy in the number of ways to handle a situation, AND it can exceed the specialist on what it does? After all: when opening locks, Knock can overcome even the Rogue that specializes in Disable Device/Open Lock? 3.5 effectively made the Open Lock skill entirely irrelevant, as it always worked; Pathfinder nerfed Knock to become a CL check, but the bonus is still higher than its equivalent bonus regarding Disable Device. DD has more bonuses, but between the required Intelligence and the class skill bonus, you need at least one or two bonuses to kick in. Oftentimes, the lock gravitates between a DC of 20 or 30, so by 10th level you can effortlessly open the simplest locks and succeed on one of two attempts to open harder locks. The only thing, the ONLY thing, the spellcaster needs is a simple spell slot; the mundane character has to deal with skill points, ability scores and potentially feats to equal the effort, and if the spellcaster wants to specialize, chances are it might beat the specialist in its own ground. Without entering into the ground of "magic is hard to learn and use, therefore it should be capable of doing everything", the effort in at least one thing to solve the same challenge is a reason why comparing to other classes is still valid.

I can't say much about the Kineticist other than from what I've seen on the forums, but I have a hint of why it's considered weak - as a class that's effectively a spellcaster, it seems limited in the set of tools it has to solve challenges (with or without requiring much creativity) when it otherwise shouldn't. Perhaps it may be its damage potential, or its inability to solve certain situations that its closest example (3.5's Warlock) could without much difficulty, or that it requires too much of an effort to approach effectiveness (here defined as "being able to deal with the situation without spending many resources", and resources being defined as "ability score increases, feats, spell slots/limited class feature pool, consumable magic items and/or magic item slots"). Exactly WHY is beyond me, but it seems to gravitate towards these three, and most likely it's the damage potential. In that regard, it may seem to you that it can handle the challenges, but does it handle the same challenges at the same degree of effectiveness as other classes?

The Tier system in 3.5 (like it or not) was designed with that idea in mind: to gauge the potential of a class to handle challenges by means of its class features alone. This could increase or decrease based on the build (the sum of the race, class, feat, skill and magic item selection), but for the most part, it assumed the same level of optimization (a qualitative aspect) and the same level of challenge (which could be qualitative or quantitative). With those two things being equal, the idea was to determine which classes seemed to work well together and draw data from it: that it was used for grief (or whether the system is valid and sound data or not) was an unfortunate circumstance of its creation. If you have any issues with the Tier system or not (as Thurbane has, and other people do), that might not matter; however, to say that comparison between classes (or rather, how classes deal with the same challenges with their class features) doesn't sound right.

A final bit: when doing homebrew, oftentimes it's good to see how the tools of another class can help. 3.5 suggested it somewhat implicitly; 5e and Pathfinder do it explicitly. That there is a comparison between classes, except that you're comparing how classes deal with things in order to determine how your new class handles the same challenges. If you find a class can't handle the challenges it's supposed to handle, then comparing between classes and providing similar, if not the same, tools is necessary.

In conclusion: to say that comparing between classes isn't an effective way, or that it shouldn't be the way to create new content or balance existing content is folly at best. You don't have to build classes that always have to approach Tier 1, or Wizard balance point, or that every character has to cast spells (you do have to allow every character to approach supernatural ways to handle situations; exactly how they gain those supernatural methods is what makes the class distinguish). However, using your same argument, it has to be capable of handling the challenges placed upon it, and most specifically, to be capable of contributing in the case where the specialist is down for the count. Or, to say it better - everyone should be a pinch hitter, in one way or another. Exactly HOW well is where creativity kicks in.

Ssalarn

2014-11-28, 07:12 PM

The problem is that no one draws the comparison to, for example, a Bard drawn entirely out of the CRB, the compare to an Arcane Duelist Bard with Dervish Dance and Piranha Strike who uses exquisite accompaniment (just as a random collection of mechanics from multiple splat books). This is now a character who exceeds the expectations of the game. Or comparing your new class' combat damage to an optimized pouncing eidolon and/or a TWF double-barreled Pistolero. These are aberrations, and examples of some of Paizo's worst game design. When these are used as "balance points" in new class design though, they skew the game more and more away from its expected baseline because a class that actually is balanced to the expectations of the game is going to seem underpowered by the artificially inflated baseline. Just look at Pathfinder's iconics and/or the premades in their modules (usually the same as the iconics); the system is balanced for those characters to win, despite the fact that compared to what someone with system mastery and a computer or a good book collection can build they're practically incompetent.

However, using your same argument, it has to be capable of handling the challenges placed upon it, and most specifically, to be capable of contributing in the case where the specialist is down for the count.

Right, and most specialists have (generally) virtually no chance of failure at whatever they specialize in. Being able to fill in isn't supposed to mean that you can do everything that person can do as well as they can; it means that where they hjave a 5% chance of failure you hopefully have around a 30-40% chance of failing. Still more likely to succeed than not, but not guaranteed. Even more, it doesn't take looking at the other classes to establish these numbers, it just takes you looking at the DCs of locks, or traps, or the AC or saves of CR appropriate foes, etc. Comparing to the upper reaches of a class using multiple splatbooks is how legitimate creep happens, and is why comparisons to existing classes should be secondary to evaluating whether a new class meets the expectations of the game. 3.5 kind of muddled around and had a few books where they did a really good job with this, some where they really screwed the pooch, and some where they threw balance to the system out the window altogether. Good balance checks to the system first, then to the other classes in the system. Ideally, doing it that way brings everything in at the correct level and controls bloat and creep. Unfortunately, there are some designers who have incrementally moved that line farther and farther away from true, distorting the expectations of players in the system. Pathfinder has at least done a better job of controlling this, with a couple notable exceptions.

SiuiS

2014-11-28, 10:13 PM

Perhaps, but the anti-PF crew is certainly loud enough on this board for it to seem so.

Granted.

No - I'm saying that if I don't consider kings to be authority figures, then it won't matter to me whether they are king of France, England, Westeros or wherever.

Ontological status is not relevant to authority over you. It's based solely on ontological status. Whether it matters to you is irrelevant. Whether it matters to an ethos cleric is irrelevant. They are still gods. If that was based on perspective and mattering to mortals they couldn't have existed before the world.

they kind of just threw power ups to everyone.

Aye. I would have preferred a weakening of the top instead of a boosting of the bottom. I like the 3.5 bottom. It's functional.

The problem is that no one draws the comparison to, for example, a Bard drawn entirely out of the CRB, the compare to an Arcane Duelist Bard with Dervish Dance and Piranha Strike who uses exquisite accompaniment (just as a random collection of mechanics from multiple splat books). This is now a character who exceeds the expectations of the game. Or comparing your new class' combat damage to an optimized pouncing eidolon and/or a TWF double-barreled Pistolero. These are aberrations, and examples of some of Paizo's worst game design. When these are used as "balance points" in new class design though, they skew the game more and more away from its expected baseline because a class that actually is balanced to the expectations of the game is going to seem underpowered by the artificially inflated baseline. Just look at Pathfinder's iconics and/or the premades in their modules (usually the same as the iconics); the system is balanced for those characters to win, despite the fact that compared to what someone with system mastery and a computer or a good book collection can build they're practically incompetent.

Very interesting.

Psyren

2014-11-28, 10:41 PM

Ontological status is not relevant to authority over you. It's based solely on ontological status. Whether it matters to you is irrelevant. Whether it matters to an ethos cleric is irrelevant. They are still gods. If that was based on perspective and mattering to mortals they couldn't have existed before the world.

Putting aside that it is based on perspective (i.e. if enough worshipers believe they aren't deities, they starve), and also putting aside the fact that whether they existed before the world is irrelevant (because it is cosmic philosophies/truths like Good and Law that matter to an ethos cleric, not a ball of dirt and water) - putting all that aside, my point was that their "ontological status" has no bearing on folks who have no reason to be pious towards them, and thus where they live doesn't have to have any bearing to those people either. Thus you can feasibly have a cleric who is knowledgeable about religion but doesn't invest in Know Planes.

Snowbluff

2014-11-28, 10:45 PM

And that's why we need this stupid knowledge system fixed. Paizo couldn't even get the basics down!

Petrocorus

2014-11-29, 09:52 AM

Aye. I would have preferred a weakening of the top instead of a boosting of the bottom. I like the 3.5 bottom. It's functional.

Wait, when you mean the bottom, do you mean Rogue, Ranger, Warlock? Or do you mean Monk, Samurai, Paladin? Because, IMHO, the later classes are not that functional without some serious op.

SiuiS

2014-11-29, 01:23 PM

Wait, when you mean the bottom, do you mean Rogue, Ranger, Warlock? Or do you mean Monk, Samurai, Paladin? Because, IMHO, the later classes are not that functional without some serious op.

I'm not sure how much is just internalized system skill, but in real games where everyone wasn't a world shaking caster at low levels, I've never had a problem with monk or paladin. I also bought orientation adventures and find it infinitely better at samurai, because fighter is useful at that scale.

Not to say there isn't a difference or dichotomy. It's fully possible to play in a way that makes the base combat system irrelevant. But I find that the end result of playing with it is that bounded accuracy arises naturally; everyone is within at worst 12 points of each other for bonuses, and it's almost always a contest against the opponent's RNG. When it's not, it's appropriately thematic (barring that other class who can just use denial stuff).

It's just when you're able to shoot a rainbow cone that incapacitates everyone in the room, it doesn't matter if tripping or grappling are viable tactics in general, compared to the opposition, because it's still very inefficient at best compared to your team.

Petrocorus

2014-11-29, 03:40 PM

I'm getting interested in PF and DSP stuff. But i'm a bit confuse.
If i understood well, Païzo has not release anything about psionics and let DSP do it.
So PF psionics comes from DSP's Ultimate Psionics?
And what are Psionics Unleashed and Psionics Expanded in relation to Ultimate Psionics? Added materials? Replacements?

Not to say there isn't a difference or dichotomy. It's fully possible to play in a way that makes the base combat system irrelevant. But I find that the end result of playing with it is that bounded accuracy arises naturally; everyone is within at worst 12 points of each other for bonuses, and it's almost always a contest against the opponent's RNG. When it's not, it's appropriately thematic (barring that other class who can just use denial stuff).

I'm sorry, but i just don't understand that part?

Squirrel_Dude

2014-11-29, 03:56 PM

Book 1: Psionics Unleashed
Book 2: Psionics Expanded

Psionics Unleashed + Psionics Expanded = Ultimate Psionics

SiuiS

2014-11-29, 04:01 PM

I'm sorry, but i just don't understand that part?

Basically, the latter classes are indeed functional without optimization, but it is possible to exceed them so much it doesn't matter if that is how this particular game is being played.

For reference, I'm going to remove all casters from my next game. I'm going to refluff true namers, incarnates, maybe totemists, maybe binders, and shadow casters, and that's going to be the extent of player casting ability. And from running he numbers, it should work great.

Roxxy

2014-11-29, 05:01 PM

I prefer Pathfinder by a longshot. The big things that swing me that way are the bloodline system for Sorcerers, the Witch, Alchemist, and Investigator classes, and the idea of having a ton of alternate class features you can trade for. However, it should be noted that I am an avid house ruler no matter what system I am playing, and I made a fair number of feats either scale with level, be more powerful, not be prerequisites for other feats, or just not exist. I also use inherent bonuses as a replacement for the magic item system, so weapon bonuses are decoupled from the weapon itself. If you have +2 flaming weapon, you have that regardless of what weapon you are wielding (note that I consider the switch hitter an ideal do to the commonality of single shot firearms in my setting, so it is expected that martials are generally good both in melee and at range). I do track primary and off hand bonuses separately, but two weapon fighting is just one feat that gets better as you level up (so you never buy improved or greater), and I lowered Dex requirements. Improved and greater combat maneuver feats are combined into single feats, and Combat Expertise is not a feat (anyone can do it), so that tax and the 13 Int requirement to get into a lot of combat chains are gone. I have other changes, too.

I also use 3PP, especially talented classes. These are currently out for Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Cavalier, Ranger, and Barbarian, but eventually all classes will have them. They turn class features (including those from archetypes) into talents, and as you level up you buy the talents you want. Some abilities are edges, which is like a talent but more restrictive and often more powerful, and representative of main class abilities. With this system, I can build a Monk who doesn't get any unarmed combat damage boost but does get a quarter staff damage boost, has flurry of blows and Wis based defense, and who gets access to magic powers fueled by a Ki pool, all while skipping over abilities I don't want. Head and shoulders above a vanilla Monk. If I build a Rogue all the Ninja options are rolled into the edge and talent system, and something like sneak attack is an option I can get but don't have to. Fighter has no edges and a talent every level, and bonus feat is a talent, so I can go around picking up cool archetype abilities and never take a single bonus feat, or I can get a bonus feat every single level. So on and so forth. Love the talent system to death.

With all of this, Pathfinder is awesome, but it is not regular Pathfinder at all, given that it plays differently from what Paizo intends. Then again, I have this drive to customize the rules of any RPG I play.

Petrocorus

2014-11-29, 05:58 PM

Basically, the latter classes are indeed functional without optimization, but it is possible to exceed them so much it doesn't matter if that is how this particular game is being played.

OK.
I understand your point, i would agree with it for many T5 classes. The Marshall, for instance, is functional despite being underpowered compared to some other classes. But i would still disagree in regards of the Monks. As it is in the SRD, i consider it to be really dysfunctional past the first 3 or 4 level, too many problems between the different abilities, and too MAD to do any job.

For reference, I'm going to remove all casters from my next game. I'm going to refluff true namers, incarnates, maybe totemists, maybe binders, and shadow casters, and that's going to be the extent of player casting ability. And from running he numbers, it should work great.

Oh, this is cool. I assume that when you say refluff, you also mean fix for the Truenamer.
No love for the Soulborn?
Do you remove Psionics as well?

GoodbyeSoberDay

2014-11-29, 11:23 PM

These boards are hardly representative, and even here I do not see any PF people sneering at 3.5. Even throughout this very thread the PF advocates have merely been saying "use PF as the base" - not "set your 3.5 library on fire, the promised land is here!"I truly wish this sentiment matched my gaming experiences. I've had 3.5 DMs who were cool with PF content, but almost never the other way around.

Roxxy

2014-11-29, 11:27 PM

I truly wish this sentiment matched my gaming experiences. I've had 3.5 DMs who were cool with PF content, but almost never the other way around.I'm not massively against 3.5 content. I just don't have that much that is currently useful to me as GM. If a player has something that isn't unbalanced or flagrantly unthematic, I doubt it would pose a problem to use it.

Psyren

2014-11-30, 02:01 AM

I truly wish this sentiment matched my gaming experiences. I've had 3.5 DMs who were cool with PF content, but almost never the other way around.

I wish it did too. Any DM who isn't playing PFS but ignores 3.5 entirely is doing his table a disservice in my opinion.

Ssalarn

2014-12-01, 12:33 PM

OK.
I understand your point, i would agree with it for many T5 classes. The Marshall, for instance, is functional despite being underpowered compared to some other classes. But i would still disagree in regards of the Monks. As it is in the SRD, i consider it to be really dysfunctional past the first 3 or 4 level, too many problems between the different abilities, and too MAD to do any job.

Oh, this is cool. I assume that when you say refluff, you also mean fix for the Truenamer.
No love for the Soulborn?
Do you remove Psionics as well?

Soulborn is pretty widely considered to be terrible (and honestly, rightly so). It's scaling and bind acquisition are so poor that the class is painfully underpowered regardless of which system you use as a baseline. You're generally going to be better off with a ground-up rebuilt of a full BAB, heavy armor class than trying to salvage it. Dreamscarred Press is currently running a release of a reimagined system inspired by Magic of Incarnum, and their playtest class the Daevic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?349964-Dreamscarred-Press-Introduces-Akashic-Mysteries) makes for a competent and Pathfinderized Soulborn replacement. Full disclosure, I'm the lead designer writing that series for DSP, so... That may influence my opinion somewhat :smallsmile:

The nice thing about the Monk is that in Pathfinder, while the core monk is full of abilities that don't synergize well making him generally anemic as a class, the fact that you can combine the Qinggong archetype with any other archetype, and the existence of several really good archetypes and style feats, means that you can pop that Tier 5 base class into a Tier 3-4 fairly easily. Sensei, Sohei, Tetori, Zen Archer, and a few others all provide some really solid ground to build from, and you can clip out basically any abilities that don't jive with your build by using Qinggong to replace them with a relevant SLA.

SiuiS

2014-12-01, 01:59 PM

OK.
I understand your point, i would agree with it for many T5 classes. The Marshall, for instance, is functional despite being underpowered compared to some other classes. But i would still disagree in regards of the Monks. As it is in the SRD, i consider it to be really dysfunctional past the first 3 or 4 level, too many problems between the different abilities, and too MAD to do any job.

You know, I see that in theory but it's never come up for me in practice. Out last monk was always the second best guy in the party – in a party that often had two specialists. He was the rock star of that campaign, and actively refused any help with optimizing.

With Tashalatora, chaos monk, and spirit lion them being things, I don't think it takes much OP-fu to make a monk work. Hell, giving them spring attack for free fixes a lot. Or boosting their BaB. Many small tweaks push them into 'viable' and only doing too many makes them broken from this perspective.

Oh, this is cool. I assume that when you say refluff, you also mean fix for the Truenamer.
No love for the Soulborn?
Do you remove Psionics as well?

Soulborn is like that thing where it was demonstrated that you could make a perfectly grammatical sentence that a was still nonsense. The Soulborn follows all the rules for being a class but fails at being a class. A paladin who gets bonus feats and uses all those bonus feats on incarnum stuff is a better Soulborn than the Soulborn.

True namer I will play with first, because it looks 'broken' only at the edge of difficulty. For casual play it seems fine. I may be wrong though.

Psionics has to go because it's tier 1 stuff. I don't want one obviously superior option on the table (which means I'll have to rejigger everything once I get hands on experience).

Ssalarn

2014-12-01, 04:33 PM

Psionics has to go because it's tier 1 stuff. I don't want one obviously superior option on the table (which means I'll have to rejigger everything once I get hands on experience).

Even in 3.5 there weren't a lot of psionics builds that were genuinely Tier 1. Most psions were more Tier 2 territory, and I don't believe any psionic class outside the psion even broke Tier 3. If you use Dreamscarred Press' psionic materials for Pathfinder (available for free at d20pfsrd.com), you'll be using some of the best balanced materials available for the Pathfinder game. The Psion is solidly Tier 2, the Wilder is technically Tier 2 but probably the weakest Tier 2 you can come up with, and pretty much every other class is Tier 3-4. The Aegis, Cryptic, Dread, Marksman, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Tactician, and Vitalist are all awesome, flavorful, and right in that Tier 3-4 sweet spot.

Aegis013

2014-12-01, 06:36 PM

Even in 3.5 there weren't a lot of psionics builds that were genuinely Tier 1. Most psions were more Tier 2 territory, and I don't believe any psionic class outside the psion even broke Tier 3.

Ardent could break into T2 with both its ACFs: Dominant Ideal and Substitution Powers (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070629a). Particularly if they used Dominant Ideal with the Time Mantle and Linked Synchronicity for the ability to not just break, but to utterly destroy the action economy.

Soulborn is like that thing where it was demonstrated that you could make a perfectly grammatical sentence that a was still nonsense.

Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

I guess it's technically not nonsense, but it's a reasonable example of what you're saying, I think.

Petrocorus

2014-12-01, 06:49 PM

With Tashalatora, chaos monk, and spirit lion them being things, I don't think it takes much OP-fu to make a monk work. Hell, giving them spring attack for free fixes a lot. Or boosting their BaB. Many small tweaks push them into 'viable' and only doing too many makes them broken from this perspective.

According to me, when you use Tashalatora, some psionic dip and LST Barb, you're already optimizing. Not a lot, certainly not in a game breaking way, it's not the best you can do, but you're already optimizing and it's not an out-of-the-box monk.

Soulborn is like that thing where it was demonstrated that you could make a perfectly grammatical sentence that a was still nonsense. The Soulborn follows all the rules for being a class but fails at being a class. A paladin who gets bonus feats and uses all those bonus feats on incarnum stuff is a better Soulborn than the Soulborn.

OK, i'm not a specialist of MoI and ToM, so i was not really aware of this.

True namer I will play with first, because it looks 'broken' only at the edge of difficulty. For casual play it seems fine. I may be wrong though.

According to what i gathered here, the problem is in the scaling of the DC, mostly.

Psionics has to go because it's tier 1 stuff. I don't want one obviously superior option on the table (which means I'll have to rejigger everything once I get hands on experience).
I second Ssarlarn's answer. Only Psion and Substitute Power Ardent are T2. Maybe Educated Wilder. StP Erudite is T1 thank to many shenanigans and normal Erudite if you apply Text Trumps Table on the UP/D, but most of other classes from XPH and CPsi are T3 or worse.

Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

What!?!?

Venger

2014-12-01, 06:51 PM

Ardent could break into T2 with both its ACFs: Dominant Ideal and Substitution Powers (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070629a). Particularly if they used Dominant Ideal with the Time Mantle and Linked Synchronicity for the ability to not just break, but to utterly destroy the action economy.

Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

I guess it's technically not nonsense, but it's a reasonable example of what you're saying, I think.

I think a better example for this would be the "James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher."

Once explained, you can see what the writer was trying to do, but it only enflames your desire to smash their teeth into dust.

Petrocorus

2014-12-01, 06:53 PM

I think a better example for this would be the "James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher."

Once explained, you can see what the writer was trying to do, but it only enflames your desire to smash their teeth into dust.

OK, could you please both explain this things to this poor non native English speaker?

Venger

2014-12-01, 07:01 PM

OK, could you both explain this things to this poor non native English speaker?

sure. I'm an English teacher, so explaining nonsense like this is what I do best (and why I'm so good at the byzantine mess that is D&D rulebook English)

"James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher"

This is usually used as an example of "lexical ambiguity" or "being confusing due to poor word or syntactical choices"

this is easily cleared up by inserting the punctuation which the original lacks and adding context, which is not present

James and John are doing some grammar worksheets and showing their teacher some sample sentences. They're working with tense, and John says "had" on his worksheet. It's actually supposed to be "had had," which is what James put on his sheet. Consequently, the teacher is more pleased with him. Here it is with the missing punctuation:

"James, while John had had 'had,' had had 'had had.' 'Had had' had had a better effect on the teacher."

What it means is:

"John put 'had' on his sheet. James put 'had had' on his sheet. This was the correct answer, so the teacher was happy."

The soulborn is a meldshaping class, alongside totemist and incarnate. The soulborn is terrible. Even without understanding meldshaping, all you need to know is he, a meldshaping class, can shape no melds at all for three levels.

Really.

They designed the class like this on purpose. Aside from an occasional 2 lvl dip for tibbits, soulborn sees no use in actual play.

Does that answer your question?

Aegis013

2014-12-01, 08:30 PM

OK, could you please both explain this things to this poor non native English speaker?

I am not an English teacher, but I do enjoy grammar, so I can try to explain the buffalo sentence too. Buffalo can be used as an adjective, noun and verb in English due to the insanity that can result from homonyms.

Buffalo (adjective - from the city known as Buffalo in New York state, USA) buffalo (noun - animal) buffalo (verb - bewilder, baffle, bamboozle) Buffalo (adjective, same as before) buffalo (noun - animal).

So the sentence says: Buffalo critters who are from Buffalo intimidate/bamboozle other buffalo critters who are also from Buffalo. It's not a particularly useful sentence for communication, but its grammatically correct.

SiuiS

2014-12-01, 09:00 PM

Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

I guess it's technically not nonsense, but it's a reasonable example of what you're saying, I think.

That sentence is only correct if you have seventeen buffalos, isn't it?

I was referring to the more recently discussed "colorless green ideas sleep furiously", which is grammatically correct but utter nonsense (as opposed to buffalo^17, which is both grammatically correct and also sensible, though confusing and lacking proper punctuation). Like, they took the structure that worked prior for ranger and paladin (first four levels blank, then "casting" ability kicks in), but because meldshaping isn't as strong as casting and is perfectly balanced from level one onward, you're stuck with a half-chassis for no reason.

It's actively better to be a fighter with a meld feat.

According to me, when you use Tashalatora, some psionic dip and LST Barb, you're already optimizing. Not a lot, certainly not in a game breaking way, it's not the best you can do, but you're already optimizing and it's not an out-of-the-box monk.

Certainly. But I wouldn't use a Tashalatora chaos monk spirit lion barbarian. I would use chaos monk. Or spirit lion totem. Or monk 12/psywar8 Tashalatora. Optimization is more than just not using the default class, or else every Druid who wasn't a healer with a falcon scout pet would be "optimized" before bear form ever came into it.

I've had a monk use the alternate fighting styles to have a longsword as a monk weapon. It was game changing because we didn't have to fuss with getting character appropriate and class appropriate weapons. Certainly fly trying with a longsword isn't optimized! It's all a matter of scale.

According to what i gathered here, the problem is in the scaling of the DC, mostly.

Yes. It goes up faster than you could boost it, meaning you've got two uses and that's about it for guarantees. I don't know if that's actually limiting in an adventuring day or not though.

I second Ssarlarn's answer.

I found it too commercial for my tastes. Why go to pathfinder for this? At that point I could just homebrew up my own stuff wholesale. I find value and joy out of gettig what I need by the books with the smallest tweaks possible. That's why utterly changing the face of incarnum by altering the description is so interesting to me.

The soulborn is a meldshaping class, alongside totemist and incarnate. The soulborn is terrible. Even without understanding meldshaping, all you need to know is he, a meldshaping class, can shape no melds at all for three levels.

Really.

They designed the class like this on purpose. Aside from an occasional 2 lvl dip for tibbits, soulborn sees no use in actual play.

Does that answer your question?

So terrible. Ugh.

Petrocorus

2014-12-01, 09:05 PM

sure. I'm an English teacher, so explaining nonsense like this is what I do best (and why I'm so good at the byzantine mess that is D&D rulebook English)

I'm a teacher myself, but neither of English nor French, sciences. I may ask a co-worker if we can find this kind of thing in French.

The soulborn is a meldshaping class, alongside totemist and incarnate. The soulborn is terrible. Even without understanding meldshaping, all you need to know is he, a meldshaping class, can shape no melds at all for three levels.
Really.
They designed the class like this on purpose. Aside from an occasional 2 lvl dip for tibbits, soulborn sees no use in actual play.

From what i understood by reading the class, the Soulborn is more or less a Paladin with spellcasting replaced by meldshaping and other features made more "incarnum-thematic". And since the Pally does not cast spell before level 4, they seemed to have copied this into the Soulborn. I don't have enough understanding of meldshaping myself to see how bad that progression is. So thank you.

Does that answer your question?
Yes, it does, thank you.

Buffalo (adjective - from the city known as Buffalo in New York state, USA) buffalo (noun - animal) buffalo (verb - bewilder, baffle, bamboozle) Buffalo (adjective, same as before) buffalo (noun - animal).

So the sentence says: Buffalo critters who are from Buffalo intimidate/bamboozle other buffalo critters who are also from Buffalo. It's not a particularly useful sentence for communication, but its grammatically correct.
Thank you very much. I didn't know buffalo could be used as verb.

Certainly. But I wouldn't use a Tashalatora chaos monk spirit lion barbarian. I would use chaos monk. Or spirit lion totem. Or monk 12/psywar8 Tashalatora. Optimization is more than just not using the default class, or else every Druid who wasn't a healer with a falcon scout pet would be "optimized" before bear form ever came into it.

What i meant is that, in my point of view, this is more that "not using the default class" but clearly improving the build with other classes combination contrary to ...

I've had a monk use the alternate fighting styles to have a longsword as a monk weapon. It was game changing because we didn't have to fuss with getting character appropriate and class appropriate weapons. Certainly fly trying with a longsword isn't optimized! It's all a matter of scale.

... this, for instance, that i would not call optimizing but just using one of the options of the class to make it a bit different thematically. We may just have a different acceptance of what "optimizing" means.

Yes. It goes up faster than you could boost it, meaning you've got two uses and that's about it for guarantees. I don't know if that's actually limiting in an adventuring day or not though.

Neither do i, but from i read here, it seems to be quite limiting.

I found it too commercial for my tastes. Why go to pathfinder for this? At that point I could just homebrew up my own stuff wholesale. I find value and joy out of gettig what I need by the books with the smallest tweaks possible. That's why utterly changing the face of incarnum by altering the description is so interesting to me.

I was just stating that psionics were not that powerful and not really T1. Now, there are no arguing for tastes.

ZamielVanWeber

2014-12-01, 09:32 PM

That sentence is only correct if you have seventeen buffalos, isn't it?

It is correct for any number of buffalos actually.

I looked at Pathfinder when it first came out and I can honestly say I was disappointed with a lot of the design decisions they made. It felt like they took a years of learning from the mistakes of 3.5 and threw it out a window. Years down the road I can say: I have not felt Paizo really make too much recitification of this. I mean, they have sort of gotten better, but I cannot get over my initial distaste. I find DSPs material to be quite nice though, so if I ever ended up in PF again I would probably buy a copy of Akashic Mysteries and use that over Paizo stuff.

I find when it comes down it, I always. personally, find this debate boiling down to a very personal level. People will argue back and forth, every, single, time this question gets asked. My advice: try it. I did. I hated it. You may love it, you may not. It is still worth a try.

Aegis013

2014-12-01, 09:46 PM

It is correct for any number of buffalos actually.

Yup.
I particularly like for that reason. Five? Seventeen? Five hundred? Still a correct sentence, despite being composed of nothing but buffalo.

Though I see now what SiuiS meant, although saying Buffalo one hundred times at someone might be correct and "sensible" in that it can be interpreted to have legitimate meaning, but it's not sensible in that it doesn't achieve any other goal than probably confusing or annoying the recipient, probably exactly what Soulborn's execution did for plenty of people who wanted a decent full BAB meldshaper.

SiuiS

2014-12-01, 09:47 PM

From what i understood by reading the class, the Soulborn is more or less a Paladin with spellcasting replaced by meldshaping and other features made more "incarnum-thematic". And since the Pally does not cast spell before level 4, they seemed to have copied this into the Soulborn. I don't have enough understanding of meldshaping myself to see how bad that progression is. So thank you.

That is basically correct. The problem is unlike paladins (detection, protections, smite, CHA to saves) and rangers (favored enemy, fighting style, uh... Stuff?), the Soulborn has all the penalties slowing him down but the payoff isn't worth it. You hit "casting" level and you're maybe as useful as a level 1 cleric.

What i meant is that, in my point of view, this is more that "not using the default class" but clearly improving the build with other classes combination contrary to ...

I don't agree. I wasn't saying "monk is okay if you use every possible bonus", I just listed a few. Monk is okay, and you can use a bonus to fix any problem if you have one. If default monk doesn't work for you, you can build it so it can from level 1 on. Is the lack of mobility a problem? Add a few levels of barbarian and say you trained in the wilds doing crazy okinawan stuff. Not enough attacks? Chaos monk. Want a wuxia sorcerer? Tashalatora.

Chaos monk spirit lion totem whirling frenzy barbarian Tashalatora psychic warrior is hugely optimized, but I wouldn't use all of them.

I was just stating that psionics were not that powerful and not really T1. Now, there are no arguing for tastes.

That's fine. The potential is the problem. As an actual casting class. Psionics will easily outstrip every other class. I'm not removing them for being tier one necessarily, I'm removing the. Because the default system exceeds the parameters I'm going for. Shadow casting might, warlocks likely would, dragon shamans and such too, but unlike the casters I have almost no firsthand experiences with their bell curve.

You can accidentally be too strong as a wizard, sorcerer, psion, wilder, Druid or cleric and invalidate first level encounters. Can you accidentally be too good a warlock? Or true namer?

I find when it comes down it, I always. personally, find this debate boiling down to a very personal level. People will argue back and forth, every, single, time this question gets asked. My advice: try it. I did. I hated it. You may love it, you may not. It is still worth a try.

Aye. I don't like the direction they took for 3.5, but it is definitely it's own game which does a solid job at being it's own game. The problem for me personally is that however balanced it is, it's balanced at a point I don't want. I'll give it a try eventually, there's a lot of material worth mining and I've flipped through some at the store for armor and such, but until the situation is right it's a different game, not material for the game I like. :smallsmile:

Extra Anchovies

2014-12-02, 02:13 PM

Yup.
I particularly like for that reason. Five? Seventeen? Five hundred? Still a correct sentence, despite being composed of nothing but buffalo.

Though I see now what SiuiS meant, although saying Buffalo one hundred times at someone might be correct and "sensible" in that it can be interpreted to have legitimate meaning, but it's not sensible in that it doesn't achieve any other goal than probably confusing or annoying the recipient, probably exactly what Soulborn's execution did for plenty of people who wanted a decent full BAB meldshaper.

It has been determined. Playing a Soulborn is the D&D equivalent of chanting "Buffalo" until you run out of breath.

Ssalarn

2014-12-02, 04:35 PM

That's fine. The potential is the problem. As an actual casting class. Psionics will easily outstrip every other class. I'm not removing them for being tier one necessarily, I'm removing the. Because the default system exceeds the parameters I'm going for. Shadow casting might, warlocks likely would, dragon shamans and such too, but unlike the casters I have almost no firsthand experiences with their bell curve.

You can accidentally be too strong as a wizard, sorcerer, psion, wilder, Druid or cleric and invalidate first level encounters. Can you accidentally be too good a warlock? Or true namer?

I really don't think it's possible to accidentally build a too strong Wilder. The class is supposed to be the sorcerer to the psion's wizard, but the exchange rate is messed up in there somewhere and it does not equate to that. Also just wanted to note that "Psion", the class, is different from "psionics", the power source. You won't find any Divine Minds, Lurks, Soulknifes, or Psychic Warriors breaking the game.

Petrocorus

2014-12-02, 05:47 PM

I don't agree. I wasn't saying "monk is okay if you use every possible bonus", I just listed a few. Monk is okay, and you can use a bonus to fix any problem if you have one. If default monk doesn't work for you, you can build it so it can from level 1 on. Is the lack of mobility a problem? Add a few levels of barbarian and say you trained in the wilds doing crazy okinawan stuff. Not enough attacks? Chaos monk. Want a wuxia sorcerer? Tashalatora.

I think we will have to agree to disagree here. If i were to build a Monk, i wouldn't use more than 2 Monk level, or 4 at the very most. hen i go Tashalatora Ardent or PsyWar, or use some combo of other class and go into a PrC, maybe a Monk one. Or i would just play a straight PsyWar and call myself a monk.

That's fine. The potential is the problem. As an actual casting class. Psionics will easily outstrip every other class. I'm not removing them for being tier one necessarily, I'm removing the. Because the default system exceeds the parameters I'm going for. Shadow casting might, warlocks likely would, dragon shamans and such too, but unlike the casters I have almost no firsthand experiences with their bell curve.

You can accidentally be too strong as a wizard, sorcerer, psion, wilder, Druid or cleric and invalidate first level encounters. Can you accidentally be too good a warlock? Or true namer?

I see your point and i concede it. While the Psion and the Ardent (and maybe the Wilder) are certainly less powerful than the Wizard or the Cleric, they have a few nukes that indeed can break the game, this is why they are (or can be for the Ardent) considered T2.

I really don't think it's possible to accidentally build a too strong Wilder. The class is supposed to be the sorcerer to the psion's wizard, but the exchange rate is messed up in there somewhere and it does not equate to that.

Right. The exchange is messed up because they are the sorcerer compared to the Psion, but the Psion itself is closer to a sorcerer than to a wizard in term of power known. And the Wilder has less power known (like the sorcerer) does not have more power points (i.e powers / day, unlike the sorcerer)

Also just wanted to note that "Psion", the class, is different from "psionics", the power source. You won't find any Divine Minds, Lurks, Soulknifes, or Psychic Warriors breaking the game.

Right again. The problem is with a few of high level powers that only the Psion, Wilder and Ardent can get. The psionic in general are more balanced than the magic.

Ah, the Divine Mind and the Soulblade. So good ideas, so poorly made!

Ssalarn

2014-12-02, 06:11 PM

I think we will have to agree to disagree here. If i were to build a Monk, i wouldn't use more than 2 Monk level, or 4 at the very most. hen i go Tashalatora Ardent or PsyWar, or use some combo of other class and go into a PrC, maybe a Monk one. Or i would just play a straight PsyWar and call myself a monk.

I see your point and i concede it. While the Psion and the Ardent (and maybe the Wilder) are certainly less powerful than the Wizard or the Cleric, they have a few nukes that indeed can break the game, this is why they are (or can be for the Ardent) considered T2.

Right. The exchange is messed up because they are the sorcerer compared to the Psion, but the Psion itself is closer to a sorcerer than to a wizard in term of power known. And the Wilder has less power known (like the sorcerer) does not have more power points (i.e powers / day, unlike the sorcerer)

Right again. The problem is with a few of high level powers that only the Psion, Wilder and Ardent can get. The psionic in general are more balanced than the magic.

Ah, the Divine Mind and the Soulblade. So good ideas, so poorly made!

Pathfinder Monk can actually be really viable without any dips into other classes, as long as you're using archetypes. There's actually a few good ones out there.

On the Wilder, I know it was a bit of a source of frustration for DSP who were trying to keep the PF converted classes true to the original material (I believe per OGL requirements). Unfortunately, the original material for the Wilder was pretty rough. As you noted, the psion was already closer to the sorcerer than the wizard, so the Wilder is just... in a rough place, basically. It's not a bad class, but there's not a lot of reason to play one over the other options that are out there given how brutally limited its powers known are and the fact that only a subset of the psionic powers are complemented by its other class features.

While there's no published fix for the Divine Mind (it wasn't part of the OGL), Dreamscarred Press' update of the Soulknife was amazing! Have you seen it? If not, I'm pretty sure it's up on the d20pfsrd. They added in Blade Talents (pretty sure that's what they're called) which do all kinds of cool stuff, from changing your mindblade so it deals elemental damage to letting your mindblade copy the manufactured weapon of your choice. It's probably my favorite Tier 4 class now.

Extra Anchovies

2014-12-02, 06:22 PM

As an aside, how is "Wilder" pronounced? Is it a long "i" (as in strike) or a short "i" (as in pitch)?

Pathfinder Monk can actually be really viable without any dips into other classes, as long as you're using archetypes. There's actually a few good ones out there.

Indeed. Even just a little Qinggonging (trading away crap like Ki Jump and Diamond Soul for stuff like Barkskin and Gaseous Form) can make an otherwise vanilla monk rather effective, especially if you take Pummeling Charge. They're especially good when DSP is available, because you can pick up Weapon Finesse and Deadly Agility so you can leave Strength at 10 (and boost your damage better than Power Attack by using Piranha Strike). Deadly Agility is my favorite feat, it makes TWF non-reliant on Strength and the elimination of MADness makes the combat style just that much more viable :smallbiggrin:

Alternately, pick up Scorching Ray and pile on the Vows (Silence, Truth, Chains, Cleanliness, Fasting) for Ki out the wazoo.

georgie_leech

2014-12-02, 07:00 PM

As an aside, how is "Wilder" pronounced? Is it a long "i" (as in strike) or a short "i" (as in pitch)?

I believe long "I" as in "wild," as in one without formal training. You can find the word in other works of fiction where the lack of training is emphasised, even if it isn't a strictly Psionic thing anymore.

Venger

2014-12-02, 07:07 PM

As an aside, how is "Wilder" pronounced? Is it a long "i" (as in strike) or a short "i" (as in pitch)?

why on earth would you pronounce it with a short i? WILL-dur?

I pronounce it like the actual word or willy wonka, with a long i: wild, wilder, wildest.

SiuiS

2014-12-02, 07:42 PM

Extra Anchovies

2014-12-02, 08:01 PM

why on earth would you pronounce it with a short i? WILL-dur?

I don't know. I just had sudden doubts about it for some reason.

(Also, Willy is pronounced with a long "i" as in "pitch". Short "I" is pronounced "eye")

Petrocorus

2014-12-02, 08:27 PM

On the Wilder, I know it was a bit of a source of frustration for DSP who were trying to keep the PF converted classes true to the original material (I believe per OGL requirements). Unfortunately, the original material for the Wilder was pretty rough. As you noted, the psion was already closer to the sorcerer than the wizard, so the Wilder is just... in a rough place, basically. It's not a bad class, but there's not a lot of reason to play one over the other options that are out there given how brutally limited its powers known are and the fact that only a subset of the psionic powers are complemented by its other class features.

One of the incentive of the class is the Cha synergy. In order to make a psionic sorcadin, for example. But the lack of power known is hurting a lot.
They could actually make it a sorcerer to the psion by giving it more PP. So to let him spam its few powers.

While there's no published fix for the Divine Mind (it wasn't part of the OGL), Dreamscarred Press' update of the Soulknife was amazing! Have you seen it? If not, I'm pretty sure it's up on the d20pfsrd. They added in Blade Talents (pretty sure that's what they're called) which do all kinds of cool stuff, from changing your mindblade so it deals elemental damage to letting your mindblade copy the manufactured weapon of your choice. It's probably my favorite Tier 4 class now.
I'm not big on PF and DSP. I'm starting to get interested in it, partially because of this thread and what i read on DSP psionics and PoW.
I really like the idea of the Soulblade. It's on the top of my list of good concept poorly executed. I'll look into it.

why on earth would you pronounce it with a short i? WILL-dur?

I pronounce it like the actual word or willy wonka, with a long i: wild, wilder, wildest.
Somehow, i thought the question would summon you, Venger.

Oh. I completely misunderstood what direction you were going.

I think we misunderstood each other during quite a part of this conversation. Nevermind.
Let's blame my poor English skills.

I never noticed the per day difference. I always assumed the greater than level PP made them the metapsionic specialist, which is a fine niche but not exactly overpowered (because psionics is better balanced than magic).
The Wilder has the same PP progression than the Psion. The wild surge allows him to save PP on augments and metapsionics, so he can actually manifest a little more power / day than the Psion, but not by many, and it has its drawback.

To compare to the Sorcerer, if you convert the spell/day of the sorcerer into magic point, you'll see that the sorcerer has actually more spell per day than the Psion and the Wilder.